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!