package of cigarettes a day, or being overweight--that such a small number of
persons might be affected or die as a direct result was so small as to he
worth the risk.
Those who did not support the MPC,
or who believed in the
linear dose indicated that the argument reqarding the cigarette smoker was
not applicable, since he had a choice whether or not to smoke, whereas general
populations have no choice in the amount of radiation untake.
pointed out that from a moral viewpoint,
Additionally they
even one additional death, or a limited
amount of mutations was too high a price to pay for such testing.
The whole debate over MPC and linear versus threshold effect as it
related to testing was perhaps hest summed up by the testimony of Dr.
Selove,
Denartment of Physics,
Walter
University of Pennsylvania, who quoted from
a report by a committee on radiation hazards of the Federation of American
Scientists:
"The committee study of the available scientific facts has led to
two conclusions:
"First:
The added radiation hazard from continued nuclear weapons
testing at the present rate is no greater than that from other
radiation normally encountered . ,
"Second:
This small added radiation, from whatever sources, will cause
many deaths,
“The committee believes that both conclusions are scientifically
correct, and in no way contradict each other.
"Unfortunately, those who believe that we should continue testina . . ,
often emphasize the first conclusion and ignore the second,
Similarly
those who helieve that a test ban is desirable .
the second and ignore the first,
.
. often emphasize
The Committee helieves that both
statements must be taken together since either alone is misleading."
Whether or
not
low doses of
has not yet been proven.
radiation have a
The "jury,"
in a sense,
threshold or
is still out.
linear
effect,
There is
still not enough evidence to show that one or the other of the theories
is correct for somatic damage,
Sin
However,
40
for the hereditary effects of