A-kol. . ( ot , a ‘ (8 ya understand, and there will continue to be uncertainties until weallh physics can provide a coherent theory of radiation demare. This is why some of D.P. Geesaman pore the basic vesesarch studies of the USAC ars so important. and Taraplin have pointed out recently the prevlems of plutonium-2°9 gave + ticles and the uncertainty of the risk to a man who carrics suteh a par ticle . af highs - * . . cific activity in his lungs.” . " . . : 7% At the same hearing, "in response QO a) to the committee's inquiry about priorities in basic research on the bioloan ye - sical effects of radiation, Dr. KM. Eisenbud, then Dire ctor of the New York: . a : : oe, . . . City Environmental Protection Administration, in part replied, Ilecs 'For some reason or other the particle problera has not come upon us in quite a little while, but it probably will one of these days. We are not much further - Vesey Ye baer eet vong en tho busiz nebo et lepes "Af A. Pitt... gucctia cfPo wheuie. ttya given aniount oo cnergy 8 delivers i "g a progressively smaller and srnaller volume of tissue is better or worse for the recipient. This is ancther way of asking the question of how you calculate tne dose when you inhale a single particle." ile was5 correct: (Bisenb bud,M, ; 1970). the problem has come_up again o t In the context of his comment it is; inter esting to refer to the F ~ Wational Academy of Sciences, Ntational Research Council report of 1961 on the Effects of Inhaled Radioactive Particle s (U.S. NAS.NRC.1961). ' - - Lhe first sentence reads, te . . . * , The potential hazard due to airborne radioactive particulatesis probably the least understood of the hazards asssociated | Wilhbatomic weapons tosis, production of cacioslements, and the expandiag . . Wie Of mucloar energy Cor power productian. spaces mem ro eG db valid. if . 4) decade later tinub state iingily lebime quote Dre. Sanders, Phompacen, and