BUGHER: I think, Dr. Bethe; that the problem is somewhat simplified because this is an intricate one which has been worked on by a number of radiologists and the National Committee for Radiation Protection and derived at the accepted tolerance figure for sr”, which is 1 aicrocurie, which comes not from the 506 aillircentgens per week but in the relationship of the radius sample, and that bas been reconfirmed by conference with various groupe from Britain, fos exemple, and from Canadas and bas been further adepted by the International Commission sa that one could, I think, accept that as the standard to which we are working. SETHE: Well, I'm sorry I ean't agree with you an two accounts. uicrocurie is the acceptable dose of radium? You say that 1 I thought that you said yeaterday that there was a factor five in effectiveness per energy. BuSER: There were two standards, actually, and they are not entirely consistent by about a factor of five. The 300 uillircentgens per week refers sore to a gamma ray type of situation. , I was trying to argue thet you should use thet standard. The density of fanization along the beta truak is different than it is along the gamma tay track. But that is vbat you measure vhen you measure roentgens. BOLOHOS: Ho, but a factor of five or 10 for alpha rays as opposed to beta rays, end this is just because of the increase tn the tonization along the track. Thies also is true for beta rays. DUCE ARCHIVES