257
as important as following the Nagaski situation, where the
dosages are not so well controlled.
May I rake a comment also on this,
because it would seem to me that nature has taken advantage
of all of ‘the physical properties of nature and used them
to an advantage,
On the other hand, it has been sort of
assured that radiation was always bad and that any radiation
was going to be harmful. Now it seems to me- there's som
0
arnw
or
FREMONT-SMITH:
evidence to believe that there was a higher radiation in the
10
past than there is today and that therefore it's entirely
11
possible that there is an aptimumradiation for some species
i2
or maybe for many species and that we shouldn't assume that
13
every radiation is bad,
14
answer supports this peeition, that it may be that salmon,
15
maybe other fish, and miybe other species are benefited by
16
an appropriate radiation and just wanted to make that hazardous
17
statement.
18
contrary to official position.
19
It seems to m that! Lauren's temporary
I know it's contrary to official position but I'm
WARREN:
I've been locking into this, as you know,
290
with some interest of late and I'm not willing to say that
21
radiation is universally harmful because we have a continuous
22
background of naturally occurring radiation and cosmic
23
radiation, and the former could have been considerably higher
25
in the past, but I don't think I'm in any position to go any
25
further in that discussion.
26
as being significant in this direction,
2T
FREMONT-SMITH:
28
DONALDSON:
But I point to Lauren's experiment
Yes,
I cringed just a little bit, Dr, Warren,
29
when you talked about small in numbers, because I've made the
30
grandiose statement that this is probably the biggest numeri-
31
cal experiment tha's been carried on radiation studies with
32
vertebrate animals, not with Drosophila or something like
33
that we normally use in excess of 100,000 exposed and 100,000
Stafford Warren
DOEIUCLA 27