88 DASA 2019-2 ROOT: No. DUNHAM: [ know Wind Scale. Not Wind Scale, because it all came out. public never even hears aboutit. ROOT: The British It didn't even come cut about Wind Scale because, as the person who told me called it, of a failure of management. He said, "Yeu can count on management to fail becauathey are protecting other values, Wind Scale has never been accurately explained, and they are doing it." [think the British Government picked it up fromus. be much more open. FREMONT-SMITH: DUNHAM: They used to Yes, I doen't know if it's all our fault. FREMONT-SMITH: able share. : A good share of it is our fault, a good reason- DUNHAM: The British don't publish a lot of the kinds of information on radiation exposures that we've published and thincs lixe that. FREMONT-SMITH: Look what we've done. What is tolerable radiation dosage in industry”? We've had to lower the amount year by year. Instead of coming out with a cautious statement and then finally coming out year by year and saying, ‘Yes, we can tolerate a little bit more," it's been in the opposite direction, hasn't it” * =WYCKOFF: It is of interest to docrment this decrease, In 1936 the Committee now called the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) recommended a provisional “tolerance dose” of O.1 r per day, but suggested that a ‘generous safety factor’ be applied (NBS Haadbook 20), By 1949 the NCRP was recommending a "permissibie dosage rate" of 0.3 r per week (NBS Handbook 41}. The rationale for the reduction was contained in NCRP recommendation of 1954 (NBS Handhook 59), lhe differences were attributed to different types of measurement (surface dose initially and at that time to dose in the organ of interest), toa large variety of radiation sources and to a greater knowledge of the biological effects of radiation. However, it was pointed out in that document that these recommendations ome. : !