ub Question 7A + It seems that there is great uncertainty about the biological effects of chronic low doses of radiation on man. "Permissible levels" are set ' nevertheless. Man is a fa&ly large animal. Is it known what biological -and genetic effects the same levels of air and water contamination which are presumed "safe" for man, are having on animals smaller than man? plants? Answer On plankton? On the oxygen-producing diatoms? On {A ‘A number of lines of evidence indicate that exposures "safe" for man are "safe" for other forms of life. It is generally true that lower organisms are progressively less sensitive to radiation than man or other ' mammalian species. Radiation doses required to kill some of the simpler forms of life are from hundreds to thousands of times those required to kill / Mammals. . ! a Radiation effects on man are closely related to the sensitivity of the germ cells, of the cells of the bloodforming tissues, and of the cells of the lining of the gut. Because these cells of man are as sensitive as any that have been found in animals or plants, we have no reason to expect that any organism, regardless of size, would be more sensitive to radiation than Man. For radiation doses to man to be considered "safe", probabilities of serious effects must be extremely small. It would not be consistent withour view of the value of animal and plant life to require that exposures to radiation should carry equally small probabilities of serious effects to be considered "safe". Our interest in the safety of the multitude of species of animal and plant life in any portion of the environment is that exposures