back the levels of acceptable exposure to radiation. And so they are being
pushed back and back until they are reaching the stage now wheretheir effects
can't be measured either epidemiologically or bio-physically, in a practical
way. I think that there is a danger of pushing this too far. Because the further
back you pushtheacceptable limits of exposure without being able to prove,
in fact, that you are absolutely correct in doing so, the more you reinforce the
idea that any radiation exposure is dangerous to man, and therefore, wepotautd
prevent it. Whereas, as you will see from this paper over here, the review of
Prof. Jagger's book, that it may turn outin ten or fifteen years that we must
use nuclear energy electricity, and that we are not paying enoughattention,
now, to the engineering of electricity production through nuclear energy.
That, it seems to me, is the major problem here.
BERGE:
Whatdo yousee as the changing attitude? How do you suppose
- it came about from when the first bomb was dropped,andall through the
1950's people were generally supportive of research on radiation? What
happenedto changethat?
KOHN:
I didn't mean that they weren't supportive, they still are
supportive of the investigation of the effects of radiation. What I mean is
that they have becomeso frightened of the effects of radiation, that this will
impede the engineering studies to make more efficient use of nuclear energy.
This doesn't mean that I'm all in favor of nuclear energy being scattered
throughout society. But it does mean that there is a real problem, as defined
by Prof. Jagger's book, and that problem will have to be faced. I think from
the point of view of radiation toxicology, that's what I would call it, we know
probably enough. Possibly somebody is going to discover an antidote for
21