em screens + ee eee eee tee qo 1 nn on - tw reoresentation of the andiinadequate 1 p possible hazards associated with the cial introduction of plutonium gave wmtmaee © ~e observed off site contaminution, and that the imminent large-scale comrmerthis situation a preccdential significance muci greater than the already considerable significance of the situation itself. , | . 7 7 . . . Medicine and myself were invited to present our views at the University of Colcrcdo. "Plutonium and Public Health" derives from the preceding his~ tory and should be so interpreted. The presentation was toa lay audience - and was made with that expectation. Adequate referencing was added to the written text prior to its inclusion in Underground Uses of Nuclear Energy, SS TensileBee Sook2 SLESTS SE teSS ethene Deel In April 1970 a represeniuiive of the AEC's Division of Biology and ov Pari ° , Hearinss hefore ihe Suacommities on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works United States Senate, August 5, 1970. it Hence while such an updating is desirable, is also of sufficient marginal value that it can be properly deferred at - my discretion. For those who are interested in reading the traditional AEC posi- tee ewe es AYNCS Anthovizin eee Lesislation Pisesl Yoor 197) - Weartnes before the Toint a = the Operations of the Rocky Phus Plulonium Processing Plant", from ee! ‘tion on the subject I would suggest "Appendix 24 - Safety Considerations in EE A tstes Sere6 98 NTR ree SalantIEESeeae NwreattnoN. arguments of the original paper. atte Mel 2 changes, and would generally supplement-rather than disturb the substantive So ee eene ee eee An updating would involve only incremental ‘ relevance of the discussion. a _ the recent emphasis on plutonium as a major enerpy source increases the Ste weer eee ae es meee ot aw, 7, 1 ee “As it stands the paper still represents a legitimate critique, and