325. Memorandum for the Files by Spiegel (S/AE)1
The following are my comments on USUN 1259:
I realize that we are on a “sticky wicket” with respect to the fallout problem. I do not believe, however, that a “change in public posture” on the hazards is called for. I fail to see how our position can be characterized as being “apologetic” for fallout. I believe that if anyone takes the time to read carefully Dr. Libby’s remarks and reports such as the one issued by the AEC’s Advisory Committee on Biology and Medicine [Typeset Page 1347] that he would discover that we have been giving “full and frank exposure” of the fallout hazards.
In all of our official public utterances, we have sought to put radiation emanating from fallout into proper prospective. I fail to see how we could improve our position by agreeing with the dire, unwarranted conclusions of some scientists such as Linus Pauling and Dr. Schweitzer.
USUN has now sent three telegrams dealing with the carbon 14 problem. I recognize that we have been somewhat remiss in not getting an answer back to them. In this connection I would point out that experts in the AEC have been studying now for some two weeks the principal report of concern, namely one submitted by the USSR, sent to the Scientific Committee; however, something should be available next week on this report. In such matters as this, I think it is well to err on the side of caution and not rush into something which might be misleading and inaccurate. Dr. Libby’s comments with respect to carbon 14 help to put the carbon 14 matter into proper prospective. The letter in THE NEW YORK TIMES of May 2 by Dr. Kulp and others should help.
The hearings on fallout conducted by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy last summer offer the best evidence that we withhold nothing on the matter of fallout. A review of the statements made there and since then would show that we are aware of risks from radiation, but that the risks from radiation from fallout are minimal when compared with radiation received from cosmic rays, etc.
Maybe we can find a synonym for “negligible”; however, to me “negligible” is a good word and expresses the situation accurately.
We do publish regularly and as promptly as possible data on the world-wide distribution of fallout. Cumulative totals are now available through June, 1957. Later data on certain areas have been released but as a general rule we are almost a year behind in analyzing samples. When one considers the magnitude of the fallout collection operation and the limited number of people who are qualified and capable of analyzing the samples and the complexities involved in the conduct of the analyses, it is remarkable that we are not more than a year behind. With respect to “complexities”, several [Facsimile Page 2] months efforts were required to develop adequate means of analyzing radio-chemically the samples collected by balloon. In the past good samples of soil and other items have been destroyed through improper analysis. There is the “fly paper” operation and the “steel pot” operation carried out by HASL. There is the balloon program conducted by General Mills on behalf of the AEC and the AFSWP high altitude aircraft monitoring program. Food samples have been collected in various parts of the world as have soil samples, bone samples, etc.
Unless the draft of the UN Scientific Committee’s report has been changed radically from the previous drafts, I believe that its release [Typeset Page 1348] should not cause us too many difficulties. The facts and conclusions are not dissimilar from those released by the NAS–NRC, and the British Medical Research Council in June, 1956.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested that we not “back up” the Scientific Committee’s report.
CC: UNP–Mr. Owsley (2); and AEC–Adm. Foster (3).
- Source: Comments on U.S. position on fallout. Confidential. 2 pp. NARA, RG 59, Atomic Energy Files: Lot 57 D 688, Fallout.↩