Dose cape Veet wat NB eeeSHON TRE 2 Leen Sai eee 348 1 poe ee ame ‘ » to tae Dba ae power reactors, fucl reprocessing facilities. end nuclear research oad Lek, rate ment iaborate sies is an active. lineed crucial, 8G eare Re rose ny ue made now regarding the biclogical impact of etch released mac probability of their occurrence may well devermine the auecilon of cor fin. technology. Some of the mayor issues will be examined here. Many sere a are avaiable (180, 184). The biological problems devolve again upon the true shape of the eo | response relationship, although for practical purposes the conservative warner, tion is made that the linear no-threshold rode! holds. Also. cil insti: must showthat they are maintaining the lowes? practicable reieaoz icv is, Fost. less of general standards (140). The primary cunsiderations are (a) evidence ofeffects from: pas: goo yiey (6) actual and potential release rates and their impact, and (c} whe ronb.. ecosystem. Evidence of effects from past activities—Except for the rare instances ot accidental releases of significant quantities of radionuciides. ali infererces regarding effects of past activities involve the epidemiological aprroach. Siern- glass (186-189) correlates increases in fetal death rate (actually 2 lesser dechnire slope on a long-continuing decrease in rate which he terms an“ 2xcess mortalits “": with infant mortality in Albany-Troy, N.Y., Nev York State vs Califernia, Missouri, the entire United States compared to Sweden, and ta2 ike with the time of arrival of fall-out from the Nevadatests. USSR tes's, and Peciic thermonuclear tests. For nuclear facilities he relates excess infant mertalty to routine radionuclide emissions from boiling water reactors in Limicis. Michizen. Calivornia, Pennsylvania, and New Yerk, a Tucl reprocessing faces in westerr New York, the Hanford Atomic Producis Works at Ricaland. Washington and to Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island (190-192). Even the small educational and testing reactors are linked, by Sternglass, to Celetersous effects on children living in the neighborhood, in all cases the effect is described as “excess mortality”? within a rather circumscribed geographical area ~ downwind” of the facility after a variable latent period, and due to radionuctidereleased in its operation. These claims, many of them made in public hearings and proceedings. have generated considerable concern in th? general public and governmentalike. Siernglass does not estimate doses to the recipients but any reasonable .a:culation from the levels of release, or even multiples thereal, ivdicaies the rac.—tion dose to be very srrall. Thus, very great radiosenstivins of che embrvo aad fetus ts implied by his conclusions. While diiwent taboratory studies ab bie rela es sensitivity of the fetus and aewborninarirciis2p cual sb sogmnecrcer art. than adulis or even the voung besond infaney the fans oo 7we rote leh wes ' approach those necessary to account for the morals rate. rorete ted toyed. nuclide exposures. Thus, the human emirye end fetus must be consideranls more sensitive than any of the animal popuiaiions stud’ed, to substantiate the preposition made by Sternglass. PES ENSUES Cad cara hy ad senile p gyrctpas nao! DR ge Vet aya Spe? tee TM 1 ee Mgt by lk ” tacfefingalal any Pose teany Longton ay ver raby ot mole woe oR Agape peci baeeyy Rpg . ar Fela? poem s % ey AER ae de ute phe ef gnats ate, te oy . oN yee ‘ ; oy : ae , oa we Vet tee athens