257 as important as following the Nagaski situation, where the dosages are not so well controlled. May I rake a comment also on this, because it would seem to me that nature has taken advantage of all of ‘the physical properties of nature and used them to an advantage, On the other hand, it has been sort of assured that radiation was always bad and that any radiation was going to be harmful. Now it seems to me- there's som 0 arnw or FREMONT-SMITH: evidence to believe that there was a higher radiation in the 10 past than there is today and that therefore it's entirely 11 possible that there is an aptimumradiation for some species i2 or maybe for many species and that we shouldn't assume that 13 every radiation is bad, 14 answer supports this peeition, that it may be that salmon, 15 maybe other fish, and miybe other species are benefited by 16 an appropriate radiation and just wanted to make that hazardous 17 statement. 18 contrary to official position. 19 It seems to m that! Lauren's temporary I know it's contrary to official position but I'm WARREN: I've been locking into this, as you know, 290 with some interest of late and I'm not willing to say that 21 radiation is universally harmful because we have a continuous 22 background of naturally occurring radiation and cosmic 23 radiation, and the former could have been considerably higher 25 in the past, but I don't think I'm in any position to go any 25 further in that discussion. 26 as being significant in this direction, 2T FREMONT-SMITH: 28 DONALDSON: But I point to Lauren's experiment Yes, I cringed just a little bit, Dr, Warren, 29 when you talked about small in numbers, because I've made the 30 grandiose statement that this is probably the biggest numeri- 31 cal experiment tha's been carried on radiation studies with 32 vertebrate animals, not with Drosophila or something like 33 that we normally use in excess of 100,000 exposed and 100,000 Stafford Warren DOEIUCLA 27