paper by Professor Donald P.
Geesaman:
So there is a hot particle problem with plutonlum in the luny, and tne not particle proklem is .ot
understlocd, and there is no guidance as to the risk.
I don't think there is any controversy about that.
Let re: guote
to you from Dr.
K.
2.
Morgan's
testimony
in January of this year before the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy,
U.S.
Congress.
[a]
Dr.
K.
2.
Morgan
is one of the United States' two members to the main
Committee of the International Commission on Radiclogical Protection;
he has been a member of the com-
mittee lonausr tnan anyone; and ne is director of
Health Physics Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
I quote:
"There are many things about radiation
exposure we do not understand,
and there will continue
to be uncertainties until health physics can provide
a coherent theory of radiation damage.
This is why
some of the basic research studies of the USAEC are so
important.
D.
P. Geesaman and Tamplin have pointed
out recently the problems of plutonium-239
particles
and the uncertainty of the risk to a man who carries
such a particle of hiah specific activity in his lungs.
At tne Sana Rearlinc, in response to the committee's
inquiry about priorities in basic research on the biological effects of radiation, Dr.
M.
Eisenbud,
then
Director of the New York City Environmental Protection
Administration,
in part replied,
"For some reason or
other the particle problem has not come upon us in
quite a little while, but it probabiy will one of these
_days.
We are not much further along on the basic
’ question of whether a given amount of energy delivered
to a progressively smaller and smaller volume of tissue
is better or worse fcr the recipient.
This is another
way of asking the question of how you calculate the dose
when you inhale a single particle."
correct;
[a]
[b]
the proplem has come up again.
Morgan, K. Z.,
He was
“Radiation Standards for Reactor Siting,"
in Environmental Effects of Producing Electrical Power
Testimony presented at Hearings before the Joint
Phase 2.
Committee on Atomic Energy,
91st Congress,
1970.
Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office.
[b>]
Eisenbud, M.
Panel Discussion.
In:
Environmental Effects
of Producing Electrical Power, Phase 2.
Testimody presented
at Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Jlst Congress,
1970.
Printing Office.
Washington, D. C., U. S. Government
7 OFSESIT RE Tae SM Ae
we aa
res ..‘sigfk
Leb
Ne
SR ee
Tyrer
et
_
ve Ao
. rye Cry aah
a
~Et
ana
Wee na!
fe be Nome
Peaeat
a.
reas
2 ee a a
al
7” #
Pr
;
tla
vt:Lalie: ‘ wy thie a +, -¥ reeOf wh.
“y
toFie ane fe bore wos
on
ee
.
ek
ne
:
a
roy
eT,
.
Pee!
was
2?
ew
Ft
ee!