OFFICIAL USE ONL / Dr. Burr reported that the proposed reorganization of DBER had been adopted. This proposed reorganization was presented to the Committee at its May meeting. Dr. Burr also described proposed new program areas for DBER which are concerned primarily with biomedical and ecological effects of effluents from non-nuclear energy sources. In essence, the evaluation of these pollutants would be similar to the extensive evaluations that have been made in the past of radioactive pollution. Dr. Barr discussed some of the problems involved with DBER's assigned mission to improve the image of the AEC, At this point the Committee met in executive session with AEC Chairman Schlesinger and Commissioners Larson, Ray and Doub. Chairman Moseley asked Dr, Schlesinger to clarify the function and role of the Advisory Committee for Biology & Medicine. Dr. Schlesinger responded that in his opinion the research supported by DBER has been very good and very useful. The general public, however, continues to feel neurotic about radiation risks even though polls show that 67% of men and 33% of women favor the use of nuclear power. On the one hand there are good data for evaluation of potential risks and on the other hand a very anxious public. No adequate linkage has been made between the two. He felt that it would be very helpful if the Committee could suggest how to make a linkage between these two. The same problem may weil apply to power generation by methods other than nuclear. If the AEC becomes involved in these areas it must be responsive to the concerns of the public. It is no longer adequate to say that scientists have examined the problem and everything is under control. There must be a more effective dialogue with the general public. Dr. Schlesinger also pointed out that there is a serious problem of public reaction to the amounts of plutonium to be generated in the fast breeder reactors, Intervenors in the various licensing hearings are turning their attention from the light water reactors to the hazards of plutonium from the breeders. Chairman Moseley indicated that the concern of the public is with all radiation sources, not just nuclear. Further, scientists with acceptable credentials have become doom criers. It is extremely important to develop an assessment of risk-benefit relationships with alternative sources of power as well as with nuclear sources. At this point the group entered into a broad discussion of the problems of the Commission with respect to misconceptions and misinformation about radiation hazards and nuclear energy. Dr. Larson felt that the Commission had not provided the public with the facts on radiation effects in order to let the public decide for itself. He cited as an example that Hiroshima had a better mortality experience than other cities in Japan. (It is not clear to the Scientific Secretary the source of this information). The discussion then went into the general area of the advisability of providing books, monographs or pamphlets written at the level of the lay public to explain radiation hazards. OFFICIAL USE ONLY