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