168
RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT
in some cases higher than those given by the Federal Radiation
Council, though they are not very much higher.
If I made the same adjustments with regard to population weighting, I think we would find in most cases the numbers would be the
midpoint of their spread or perhaps near their lower limit. Let us
compare these numbers with the Federal Radiation Council numbers.
I give 670 millirad as the 70-year bone dose. The Federal Radiation
Council said 400 to 900. The bone marrow dose I gave was 380. They
gave 150 to 350. If I had adjusted my data in the same way they
did, or had applied it to a population that was born all at the same
time, I would have come out with about 270 as compared with their
250 to 350.
The genetic dose is off perhaps more than the others. I had 175,
they said 60 to 130. This could conceivably be due to the fact that
Dr. Gustafson’s fallout numbers gave a little higher value than that
of the Federal Radiation Council for the contribution from weapon
tests prior to 1959.
I would think the disagreement between 175 and 60 to 130 is not
bad. Let us look at these numbers with regard to the numbersthat
have been predicted before this panel on past occasions.
I have served on both of those prediction panels, and I know the
circumstances under which those predictions were made. We can
say at the present time, despite the fact that the Russians have injected
25 megatons of fission into the stratosphere that the radiation ex-
posures estimated at the present time are just about equal to what
the panel predicted in 1959 if no moretests were conducted. Thisdifference or this fact that the situation seems to have gotten no worse
even though 25 additional megatons have been injected into the polar
stratosphere can easily be explained on the basis of the understanding
we now have, of the relative contribution of direct fallout—the rate
factor—and the soil uptake factor—integral surface deposition—to
the strontium burden.
In other words, our predictions have improved to such an extent
that we now see we were predicting approximately a factor of 2
too high in 1959.
This shows,as is usually the case when oneis predicting from a point
of lack of knowledge, he is very apt to be conservative. We were
being conservative. I think weare still beg conservative because
in these numbers which I have given you are a number of apparent
factors, at least one, which I have not put in because I don’t think
it is sufficiently well established to include, and that is the possibility
that strontium 90 is becoming unavailable in the soil at the rate of
about 5 percent per year. This was mentioned by Dr. Comar. This
is not in our present calculation. But if we hold another panel in a
couple of years maybe that will be certain enough we will be able
to insert it.
I may say jokingly, if we can keep ourslide rules and our pencils
working in the right direction, it may be able at that time to say the
situation is no worse even though there have been more tests. I am
saying that in a facetious manner. But the situation insofar as I
can see is no worse at the present time than we were predicting it.
would be priorto the Russiantest.
Now I cannot say anything about the present U.S. testing. It 1s
pretty obvious that it is less potentially dangerousto test in the equa-
aonEARBHcps iepathoeptingiit ie Satta: