Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
FROM RADIOACTNE FALLOUT The following criteria are recomEnded as operational guides for m x i - mum exposures to populations around the Nevada Test Site as a result of 3.9 roentgens for any one year. 10 roentgens for any consecutive 10 years. 1. The mtional Academy of Science Report re cm nds "---That for the present it be accepted as a uniform national standard that X-ray installstons (medical and nonmedical), power instarntions, disposal of radioactive wastes, experimental installatione, testing of weapons, and a l l other humanly controllable sources of radiations be so restricted that members of our general pouplation shall not receive from such sources an average of more than 10 rmntgens, i n addition to background, of ionizing radiation as a total accumulated dose t o the reproductive cells *om contion receives on an average 0.1 roentgen per year from medicaluses, this would imply a remainder of only about seVen roentgens t o age 30. Since the Report estates that the general populaThe NAS Report also states "---!That i.rxiividual persons not receive more than a total accumulated dose t o the reproductive cells of 50 roentgens up t o age 30 years---". The dividing line between "individual persons" and
Page 2
"general population" is not distinct in the Report. involved around the Nevada Test Site might not constitute a "general population, " yet it probably would be difficult t o categorize thousands of The numbers of people "inbreeding" within this population. Further, there is in a sense considersble 2. Judging *om past experience a t the Nevada Test Site, it would not be operatioaslly feasible to limit exposures t o seven roentgens i n element of risk In the interests of National Defense, a8 the Commission has done i n the past, and of the defining the degree of r i s k . It would appear that a reasonable degree of risk might l i e between the 10 and 50 roentgen8 per 30 y e a r s (or 7 and 47 after subtracting mdical exposures). The acceptable value of exposure within this range is dependent upon The situation becomes one of frankly admitting 8 certain one's philosophy of imperativeness of the nuclear testing proQrsm since even the highest value (50 roentgens i n 30 y e a r s ' would not be considered a dangerous exposure in terms of the individual's health nor of major consequence genetically. (Fifty roentgens might double the mutation rate, but this would be for a relatively small number of people in terms of the general pow tion.) 3. A value of 30 roentgens i n 30 years lies approx-tely a t the midpoint of the range of values based on individual versus general population exposures. To avoid possible excessive exposure in any one short span of time (far an extreme example, 30 roentgens in oae year with the intent of allawing no additional exposure f o r tbe next 29 years), the exposures should be on the basis of 8 lesser time span than 30 y e a r s , and
Page 3
a value of 10 roentgens 'per 10 years is recommended. as ststed in paragraph two, 10 roentgens should not be copstrued a8 8 msximum l i m i t beyond which serious effects might be expected, but rather it should be thought of as an operational guicte. The operation81 fessibillty of 10 roentgens in 10 years may be estiarsted by noting that during the five yeam of testing a t NTS the highest total accumulated exposure t o 8ny cumunity lias been about four roeatgens (about 15 people living a t a motor court received about seven 4. 'Ilhe use of higher tmrs, surfaced ereas around ground zero, and possible use of balloons for suspending the nuclesr devices, as well a8 improved fallout prediction methd, should assist i n reducing (as i n an atomic energy iw tiU ation) provicting opportuntty for preventive action 88 established lMt8 are a-ched, tbe occurrence of f'aUaut on B camunity can be a quanta event and cmce it bas occurred certain exposures w i l l ensue unless rather drastic action such as Hdwever, unllke accumulation of doses by amall increm@nts evacuation is taken. Therefore, operati& requirements would indicate a relatively lmge radiation exposure -guide for a single year. The criterion of 3.9 roentgens per gesr hss been in effect around the XfTSr widely reported by the A t o n ~ f cEnergy Colamission and used in educational programs with the people around the mTS, any compelling reasa t o the contrsry, it is recommended that this Therefore, in the absence of' criterion be retained. years, it 8houI.d be made cleaF that 3.9 roentgens per year is an A8 vith the criterion of 10 roentgens per 10
Page 4
aperational guie, and exposures somewhat in exes8 of this should not be constmeti a8 being hazardous. It wwld be expected. that if a community did receive a relatively high fallout, that this sector would be avoided for future detonations to the extent of hold.& the lO-year exposures to The 3-9 roentgens per year a t any community v8s about qQualed (the best estimate was about four roentgens) o n l y once during the five test series a t the IITS. omcm USE ONLY