In testimony before the Subcommittee, there were a greater number of scientists who doubted that a threshold existed, and were inclined to accept the theory of “linear” effect until it could be disproven. The following is a sampling of some of their statements; Dr, Hardin Jones, University of California Radiation Laboratory: “I think life-span effects do exist. JI have no reason to doubt this at all. I have some reason to believe that we should look with caution that a threshold effect exists, although we cannot be absolutely certain that a threshold effect might not exist, But as far as my opinion is concerned, on the hasis of having examined all the facts at my disposal, I do not believe a threshold effect is verv likelv to exist..." Dr, Ernest Pollard, Biophysics Department, Yale Universitv: "I think the linear line is rational. I would like to see policy momentarily at least based on it. If later on it seems there is a threshold then we are not too badly off. But if there is not a threshold and we bet there is one, we are in trouble." Those who supported the then existing MPC and bv consequence, the continuance of testing often used such arguments that the additional amount of exposure from worldwide fallout was probably less harmful than smoking one instead of "linear"? What he is apparently attacking here is representing the interaction of three-dimensional matter in a two-dimensional form, It Non~Euclidean geometry is an even newer field than that of radiation. may be that in the future such geometry witli prove applicable to the study of radiation and its effects. However, it should he remembered that all current data relevant to the study of radiation has been presented in terms of conventional geometry and mathematics, and we are thus forced to hase our conclusions of these data, and cannot disregard them simply because “The meaning of symbols, such as the linear representations of Euclidean If, indeed, his quarrel is with geometry, is at stake," as Potter states. using two-dimensional representations for three-dimensional states, then he brings into question the validity of constructing, with two-dimensional symbols, concepts in non~Euclidean geometry. Thus, by his reasoning one should be suspicious of the validity of his thoughts as represented on the two-dimensional plane of the page on which it was written, and by the same It should also be noted that token, this page which you are reading now, while Potter attacks the deceptiveness of metaphysical meaning, he also thus Lastly, it should brings attention to his own use of metaphysical language. be noted that Mr. Potter's critique appears to be oriented policy~ and philosophy-wise to the support of continued testing in the fact of continuing Russian tests. Despite its faults, it contains some intriguing and fresh approaches to certain scientific philosophies 39 [Orebe3