—< indicate the obvious fallagy of accerting a 1O-roentgen infinity dose based on garzma dose rates measured on personnel eutside the radiation field. For example, the natives froz Ailinginas showed personnal dose rate readings that would approximate nine roentgens (gamma’ in 2} days and yet akin camoge to some degree vas evident in 14 out of lt of the personel, On the ether hand, the natives froz Utirtk showed no abin damage with an estimated 2.2 reentgens in 2} days based on gamza dose rates measured on personnal. uncertainty of these date was discuzsed under Policy II. The They do suggest, however, that if the contarination of a relet!ively large area of the exposed body produces less thar one roentger infirite gemza dose as measured by a survey meter heli four inches froz the surface there is a large probability that beta burns will not result. “See aise Adscussion under Poliey II.) Bossespali2ources yooN When the sane doze rate reading is produce! at a given height above a surface from a «nalier area, the amount -f oontanination per unit ares is greater (other factors being equal’. Therefore, it would seem desirable to reduce the recommended dose rate levels when relatively small areas are involved. It is recognised that radiation from another nearby spot muy con- tribute to the survey meter reading when monitoring « szall area on personnel, but this bas not been taken into aecount, first because of the diffisulty of establishing a prior appraisal af this wariable factor and, second, whate-sr this contribution may be it will now become an added safety factor. Of course, tne protlas is still son; lax besause when considering smaller and szal>er areas the erentua’ en seotrt . « single particle. aN aor wah rey &€