PROPOSED
ACTION
could be done to learn more, but that no conclusions
(in the form of numbers) should be drawn. It was DR. GLASS'
(continued )
opinion that the ACBM should report only to the AEC with
no recommendation regarding a public statement and that
she statement should perhaps be made by groups, such as
the NAS.
DR. WARREN suggested a further look at tangible
things, such as the results of experimentation with mice and dogs apd also
a careful review of what is known about man, for example, his tolernce
to radium.
He expressed the opinion that predictions were too far from
the tangible.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the effects of
radium on humans, both from the carcinogenic as well as the genetic point
of view.
The contents of the latest semi-annual report as well as further
progress by NAS Committees were discussed.
DR. CANTRIL suggested keeping
in touch with NAS Committee progress before writing any report and that
@ correlation in point of view and in number would be desirable before
making any quotations to the press.
DR. DUNHAM asked the Committee if any members felt that the situation was
now dangerous.
DR. GLASS responded that it may be but that there were not
enough facts at hand to reach a decision. A discussion as to what should
be considered dangerous followed with suggested estimates of allowable
percentage increases of bone tumors and lung cancer.
DR. CANPRIL expressed
the opinion that the immediate concern of the ACBM is whether a), investigation is being carried out adequately and »b), that uninterpreted data
be presented to the scientific community.
He believed that the NAS should
interpret the data and that the NAS should be asked if the investigation
is adequate.
A discussion followed between DR. GLASS and DR. WARREN
about the desirability of challenging public statements of colleagues
and the dangers of over-emphasis in statements by recognized scientists.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m..