Pet SELES SE BeaseueMEER ETT
Fat aah
.
RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT
31
In my statement it was improper to give the fallout figure as 2 millirems per
year, derived by dividing the 30-year dose by 30. However, the value was not
used this way in my calculations. —
:
:
Again, referring to the tabulation above, the average per capita contribution
of medical exposuresto the 30-year genetie dose is 150%595 or 28 percent of the
total per capita.dose.. Compared with background, the medical contribution
would be 15906755 or 40 percent.
a,
/
With regard to the legitimacy of comparing doses such as I have done above,
I quote from my own publication on this subject, “One must use great caution
in using such data, because the various exposures indicated are comparable only
for very limited conditions. There is no real basis for comparing the effects of
TV radiation with that from K* or Sr” in the body.”
Studies of the dose to the population resulting from medical procedures were
carried out for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation by a joint study of the International Commission on Radiological
Units and Measurements and International Commission on Radiological Pro-
tection.
The ICRU and ICRP in their 1957 and 1961 reports dealt with the
methodology and preliminary data to be employed in surveying and evaluating
medical exposures on a4 national scale. I personally participated throughout
the studies by the latter groups. The study for UNSCEAR covered the following countries : Argentina, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United
States of America, U.S.S.R., United Arab Republic.
Since the conditions in
eountries vary and since national techniques for collecting and evaluating
the data may differ, it is not proper to average the results across countries.
In any case, the U.S. figure appears to be near the upper end of the range for
these countries. This may be due to our more extensive use of X-ray diagnostic
procedures, less discrimination in the use of radiation, less well-protected equipment, the difficulty of analyzing the problem in a country as large as the United
States (as compared, say, with Denmark) or other causes. Our equipment
is as well (or better) protected as any in the world. Our radiologists are as
well trained and qualified as any in the world.
In the United States, however, we probably have a larger fraction of our
X-ray equipment in the hands of general practitioners than in many other
countries (eg. United Kinglom, Denmark, Sweden). This may account for
some unnecessary exposure, but this has not been demonstrated. It is probable
that the main reason for the higher per capita genetic dose in the United States
is our higher per capita use of X-rays in the first place. This is not to imply
that procedural improvements should not be sought after and introduced when-
ever compatible with securing the desired diagnostic results.
For your information and inclusion in the record if you so desire, I attach
a copy of the second ICRU/ICRP report entitled ‘Exposure of Man to Ionizing
Radiation Arising from Medical Procedures with Special Reference to Radiation
Induced Diseases.”
Representative Price. If you desire to present a comment on the
Federal Radiation Council report, you may do so, Dr. Taylor.
Dr. Taytor. Thank you.
Representative Price. If there are no further questions, thank you
very much, Dr. Taylor.
The concluding witness for this afternoon’s session will be Dr.
Charles Dunham, Director of the Division of Biology and Medicine,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr. Dunham, please proceed.
fe ee gw
chee
a ee
SesPACEAED2gSER