- 19 - In a letter of August 17, 1962, from the (U.S.) Federal Radiation Council to the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, it stated that the radiation protection guides, " .. . are not intended to set a line at which protective action should be taken or to indicate what kind of action should be taken.” Yet without this advice, the guides were mis- interpreted to mean a "limit", a "maximm", a "danger level." (In July 1964, the Federal Radiation Council did recommend Protection Action Guides that were appropriate for taking countermeasures,.)15On August 7, 1962, at the height of the scare in Salt Lake City, members of the U. S. Public Health Service and I met with officials in Salt Lake City, Later there was a discussion with the press and an interview on the local television station. It is to the credit of the citizens and the press of the Salt Lake City area that when proper interpretations were given of the Federal Radiation Council's guides, the local press reported that, "The scare over the content of radioactive iodine (1-131) in Utah milk sub- sided . , .",16Such an occurrence, however, can leave a regrettable imprint. It is difficult enough to educate the public correctly without compounding the problem ourselves, There is an addendum to this story. DOE ARCHIVES Because of the increased interest in iodine-131 that this incident created, many attempts have been made to estimate the amount of iodine-131 in milk during past atmospheric tests based on such measurements as external