Draft Statement

Edward Teller

May 31, 1957

fallout from a test strong enough to produce a statistically observable effect.

We may also compare the radiation due to the worldwide fallout with the natural radiation or background radiation. We are continually exposed to this natural radiation. Our ancestors have been exposed to it. This radiation is due to cosmic rays bombarding our atmosphere from all directions and to natural radioactivity which occurs in varying concentrations at various places.

The radiation due to the test program is weaker in every portion of our body than this natural radiation. It is also weaker than the variations which occur in cosmic ray intensity due to altitude. It is also weaker than the variations which occur due to different concentrations of natural radioactive substances in different locations. In each case the present fallout activity is considerably weaker than the natural background or its variation. A correlation between the frequency of cancer (and leukemia) and the intensity of natural radiation has been studied. No such correlation has been found.

In addition to cancer-producing effects radiation also gives rise to mutations which lead to congenital malformations. The situation is similar as with cancer. Experiments performed with strong radiation leads to the expectation that fallout will give rise to a number of mutations. This expected number is considerable, but distributed over the great population of the earth it cannot be found by statistical methods.

the end it cannot be found by statistical methods.

bected number is considerable, but distributed over the great population of
expectation that fall out will give rise to a number of mutations. This ex-
press with cancer. Experiments performed with strong radiation leads to the
mutations which lead to congenital malformations. The situation is similar
In addition to cancer-producing effects radiation also gives rise to
been found.

intensity of natural radiation has been studied. No such correlation has
relation. A correlation between the frequency of cancer (and leukemias) and the
activity is considerably weaker than the natural background or its varia-
tive influences in different locations. In each case the present fall out
the variations which occur due to different concentrations of natural radio-
which occur in cosmic ray intensity due to altitude. If it is also weaker than
our body than this natural radiation. It is also weaker than the variations
The radiation due to the test program is weaker in every portion of
space.

and to natural radioactivity which occurs in varying concentrations at various
radiation is due to cosmic rays bombarding our atmosphere from all directions
to this natural radiation. Our ancestors have been exposed to it. This
the natural radiation or background radiation. We are continually exposed
We may also compare the radiation due to the worldwide fall out with
fallout from a test strong enough to produce a statistically observable effect.

May 31, 1957

Edward Teller

Draft Statement

- 3 -

Draft Statement

Edward Teller

May 31, 1957

Two differences between cancer production and genetic changes should be noted. One is that the proportionality between the number of mutations and radiation is somewhat more firmly founded than the proportionality between cancer incidents and mutation. The other is that the number of expected congenital malformations is not as great as the number of expected cases of cancer.

## Debated Statements

1. Our knowledge of radiation effects is deficient. We must, therefore, proceed with extreme caution.

It is true that our knowledge is incomplete and caution seems commendable. On the other hand, our knowledge is sufficient to state that the fallout effect is below the statistically observable limit. It is also considerably less than the effect produced by moving from sea level to an elevated location like Denver, where cosmic radiation has a greater intensity. We know enough to state positively that the danger from worldwide fallout is less than quite a number of other radiation effects which have not worried people and do not worry them now.

Radiation is unspecific in its effects. Chemicals are specific. About the effects of a new ingredient in our diet, in our medicine, or in the air we breathe, we know much less than we know about radiation. If we should worry about our ignorance concerning our chemical surrounding as we worry about radiation we should be condemned to a conservativism that

Draft Statement

Edward Teller

May 31, 1957

- 5 -

would stop all change and stifle all progress.

2. All effects of radiation are harmful.

It can be plausibly stated that most radiation effects are harmful.

That all effects are harmful is certainly not a proven fact. Strong doses of radiation have known to retard cancer. We know so little about the genesis of cancer that an absolute statement is not justified.

Furthermore one should assume that some mutations are advantageous.

At least we believe that the genetic changes that led to the human race have included some improvement.

Nevertheless it seems probable that many and possibly most effects of radiation will cause suffering to the individual.

3. The danger from fallout is negligible.

The test activities may shorten the lives of 100,000 people or more.

It may seem wrong, therefore, to call the danger negligible. On the other hand, the danger is indeed negligible compared to the consequences of quite commonplace actions like moving to a higher elevation or living in a brickhouse in certain regions. (In many places bricks contain natural radioactivity whose effect greatly exceed the effect of fallout.)

4. Worldwide fallout has remained well below the maximum permitted concentration (m.p.c.) of radioactivity.

The statement is true. But the maximum permitted concentration has been changed from time to time. This gives rise to doubt. In fact, a

[LC]

Draft Statement

Edward Teller

May 31, 1957

- 6 -

quantity like m.p.c. is necessarily arbitrary. It may be more sound from the
scientific point of view and more wise from the psychological point of view
to disregard conventions like m.p.c.

5. In some places greater accumulation of fallout may occur. This
may be dangerous.

Fallout activity is not uniform in the soil and not uniform in living
beings. Considerable fluctuations have been observed. The activity has
not surpassed the natural activity so far at any known point distant from the
test site. Some reasons for the fluctuations are understood. It will be neces-
sary to continue to check these fluctuations. If and when they surpass the
natural background, corrective measures can be taken.

6. The statements of the Atomic Energy Commission that testing is
safe do not stand up in the light of unexpected radio-activities near the test
sites.

One unfortunate accident has occurred (March 1, 1954). Other un-
expected activities surpassed the natural background for short periods, but
did not give rise to effects from which statistically observable damage should
be expected.

Safety measures have been improved. They seem reasonable. One
cannot claim that they are perfect.

In the past fallout information was kept secret. This has led to
justified complaints. It will be hard, perhaps impossible, to dispel the

identified complaints. It will be hard, perhaps unreasonable, to disable the
in the past fallout information was kept secret. This has led to
cannot claim that they are better.

Safety measures have been improved. They seem reasonable. One
be expected,

did not give rise to effects from which statistically operable damage should
be expected. The natural background for short periods, but
expected activities subtracted the natural background for short periods, but
One unfortunate accident has occurred (March 1, 1984). Other un-
ates.

safe do not stand up in the light of unanticipated radio-activities near the test
8. The statements of the Atomic Energy Commission that testing is
natural background, corrective measures can be taken.

say to continue to check these fluctuations. It and when they surpass the
test site. Some reasons for the fluctuations are understood. It will be nec-
not surpass the natural activity so far at any known point distant from the
plane. Considerable fluctuations have been observed. The activity has
fallout activity is not uniform in the soft and not uniform in living
may be different.

5. In some places greater accumulation of fallout may occur. This
to disregard conventions like m.b.o.

scientific point of view and more wise from the bayofloidal point of view
density like m.b.o. in necessarily arbitrary. It may be more sound from the

May 31, 1984

Edward Teller

Dodd Statement

[LC]

Draft Statement

Edward Teller

May 31, 1957

-7-

suspicion that the AEC continues to hold back some information.

7. Fallout is not yet dangerous. But as the arms race becomes hotter and as more nations participate, the danger will become serious.

One cannot predict the future. Some factors, however, justify optimism. We are learning how to regulate fallout by exploding bombs in proper surroundings. Deep underground tests will eliminate fallout altogether. Development of "clean" bombs greatly reduce the activity produced. The activity put into the atmosphere in 1954 was considerably greater than the activity released in any other year. It is highly probable that the activity produced by U.S. tests will continue to decline.

8. We must stop further testing.

All earlier arguments bear on this point. Two additional arguments are of importance.

First, it would be to Russia's advantage if tests were discontinued. Nuclear weapons are our best means to stop Russian aggression. Furthermore secret testing is possible but is not feasible in a free country which has agreed to stop the tests. An inspection program to check whether the Russians are conducting tests would be very difficult to implement. We have positive evidence that the Russians want to "Ban the tests" if they cannot "Ban the bombs".

Second, our present test program is directed toward the development of weapons which can be used with discrimination against the enemy's armed

[LC]

Draft Statement

Edward Teller

May 31, 1957

- 8 -

forces. We are replacing our blunt weapons of destruction by flexible weapons of defense.

In particular, we are developing "clean" weapons which produce blast and heat but give rise to a minimum amount of radioactivity.

It is hard to maintain that radioactivity from tests is alarming in the objective sense of the word. But in a nuclear conflict where many weapons are used, radioactivity becomes a serious danger. It is a danger which hits civilians as well as the fighting men. It affects the people we want to defend as much as it hurts the aggressor whom we try to stop.

If tests continue we can develop our clean bombs. If tests are discontinued a future war will cause widespread suffering through precisely the same effects which appear in the scare headlines today.

In addition, it is my conviction that the survival of freedom depends on the weapons which continued tests will develop.