- 18 were taken by the Latter in early August. Of the 759 milk producers in the Salt Lake City area, 285 placed their cows on dry feed, 211 others diverted their milk into milk products. This represented 53,000 gallons of the 77,000 gallon total daily milk production.9« Obviously, these were not minimal actions. Two-thirds of the produce were affected, representing two-thirds of the milk supply for Salt Lake Ci The public was upset and worried, Some families switched to powdered mill and others eliminated milk from the diet of children. On August 17, 1962, the U. S. Public Health Service released a statement, "The Utah action was based upon the radiation exposure guidelines recommended by the Federal Radiation Council and accepted by the President last September,""10. Yet, on August 29, 1962, the Federal Radiation Council stated in a letter to the Joint Cummittee on Atomic Energy (Congress of the United St: "The Council recognizes that premature action has been taken in some area: to reduce the intake of iodine-131 which action the Council would not have recommended under its interpretation of the guides . . tl. the exchangs of letters between the Federal Radiation Council and the Joint Committee « Atomic Energy led to such newspaper headlines as "States Chided for Actin; Too Soon Against Radiation Threat in Milk."12- DOE ARCHIVES Much further discussion could be reported (references 13 and 14) abo this incident - who said what to whom and when and why - but this is suff: cient to illustrate how an unfortunate situation can arise if there are ni clear understandings of the radiation protection guides and their appropriate application,