ford thinks it was a mistuke to pay so much ufttention to Rossis theory about deaths in Hiroshima, for he claims the theory is contradicted by °"9U percent” of the epidemiological data on record. He is pleased that the Hiroshima data may now fjook consisten’ with all the rest. “The implications are far reaching for health regulation and nuclear power in this country in general,” says David Auton, a physicist tn the office of target and dumuge assessment of the Defense Nuclear Agency. His office is funding the research ut Oak Ridge that may confirm the new dose estimates. As he describes the situation, the health physics community faces a nasty dilemma. if the new bomb data are accurate. On one hand, the standard-setters may adhere to Rossi's principle, which muaintiins that many of the cancers produced in Hiroshima were caused by fast neutroas. But TINO be more sense for the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commissiun to pay for this work, and “the electric power people really should be interested.’ according to Auton. It is important that the newresearch be credible. Auton agrees that it would be best if the sponsor were un independent group nol associated with the weapons program or the nuclear industry. SOS Sete eeme- the number of neutrons thought to have been present is now so small that one must account for their effects by increasing the estimate of their potency, The resultant killing power of neutrons ts “incredible,” Auton says. Industrial safety rules would have to be revised, reducing exposure limits for neutron radition to one-tenth of the present limits, For critical jobs, companies would have <pE, ts ee t seen ao U.S. Alr Force Hiroshima, 1945 Some concrete buildings survivedthe blast. to employ ten times us many people. On the other hand. the health physics community may abandon the Rossi principle and conclude that neurly all the cancers in Hiroshima were produced by gamma ruys, not neutrons. That news will not be welcomeeither. Auton wishes frankly that someone else were funding this research, which he thinks is important for future health and energy puiicy. His office is doing it because “nobody else wis interested.” The controversy has been brewing for at least 4 years, for thal is how long it has been since a government consultant first raised serious questions ubout the vatid- iy of the Hiroshima dita. According to Auton, however, it was just 5 months ago that he was approached by Harold Wyckoff, chairman of a special commiltee assigned to study this question for the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. It is a private organization that collects and publishes radiation risk information. Since no other agency would fund the research, Auton says, he agreed to have the Defense Department pick up the tub for work being done ai Oak Ridge, and thus come up with some answers for Wyckotf. The funding began about a month ago. “This work is of marginal interest to us and we really can’t afford to spend very much money studying civil effects.” Auton says. butit is important to resolve the uncertainges. Po might make Arthur Upton, the former director of the National Cancer Institute and an expert in radiobiolugy, hus followed this controversy closely since he learned of the new bomb datu fast full. It is an important issue, he says. and should be the subject of more research, sponsored by a neutral scientihe orgamization such as the joint U.S.—Jupanese Radiation Etfects Research Foundation. If the new dose estimates are correct, Upton says, “tam not sure one cun substantiate the Rossi thesis.”’ [It may remain important tor radiobiolugy, lor there are differences in the way thal plants and animals respond in the laboratory to high and low LET radiation. Upton agrees with Radford that the new datu greatly strengthen the argument that there is no “‘sate”’ level of exposure to radiation, in that every incremental bit of exposure increases the chances ofinjury. One of the curivts aspects of this research is the manner in which if was published. The record serves as a compeiling argument tor declassifying a» much as possible of what 1s done at government labs. for many of the assumptions in this case might have been challenged sooner had the underlying dita been available for scrutiny. The Rosetta stone of Japanese radiaon dosimetry is known us P6SD, which stands for tentative dose estumliates compiled in 1965. The flzares were assem bled by physicist Joha Auster of Oak WN eee conc, aes 2 a TOoti. ota vape te pe ag — number ofscientists have always considered Hiroshima a special. high-risk cause. and in studying the peacetime hazards of radiation, they have discounted some of the cancer data from that city. As it happens, the cancer mortality data from Hiroshima are the most valuable in the world. Unlike the data from Nagasaki, they are abundant enough to reveal a clear relationship between doses of radiation received and ill effects. Thit relationship is defined bya linear equation: an increase tn dose above the natural background radiation correlates with a proportional increase in ill effects. The pattern suggests that any increase in radiation, no matter how small, directly increases the risk of getting cancer. The mortality dutau from Nagasaki are sketchler, making them susceptibie to a variely of interpretations. The significant point is that if the new bomb calculations are accurate, the data trom Nagasaki and Hiroshima can be combined and treated as a Single, coherent pattern of response to low LET radiation. It is too early to sav precisely what that pattern will look like. because now the doses must be recalculated for each radiation victim. But most of the researchers who spoke io Scleace said the new data would probably increase the risk estimates for gumMa radiation. Radford, an advocate of this point of view. claims that the argument over Hiroshima and its mortility duta has been a distraction trom the main body ofscientific evidence. He says the 1980 BEIR report miscalculated in emphasizing mortality data so heavily, tor death cerlificates do not give a very accurate reading of the number of cancers or even cancer deuths in a community. Rad-