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 push the acceptable limits of exposure without being able to prove, in fact, that you are abso: .utely correct in doing so, the more you reinforce the idea that any radiation exposure is dangerous to man, and therefore, we 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 orfifteen years that we must use nuclear energyelectricity, 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 whenthe first bomb was dropped, andall through the 1950's people were generally supportive of research on radiation? What happened to change that? 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 moreefficient 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