awe |

i

 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 e (415) 321-1200

STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE October 16 ? 1970
Department of Genetics

Chairman

Select Committee on Nuclear Electricity
Pennsylvania State Senate

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Dear Sir,

Dr. John W. Gofman's testimony before you (dated August 20) has
just come to my attention.

I believe it is my duty to amplify on the quotations attributed
(correctly) to me by Dr. Gofman, as they are susceptible to mis-
understanding. For that purpose I enclose the article referred to.

Indeed, I did estimate that the eventual cost of mutations calcu-
lated to be induced by the "permissible exposure level", which amounts
to doubling the background, might reach $10 billion per annum in the
cost of health care and the loss of economic productivity. Since there
is general agreement that the genetic effects of radiation outweigh all
the others, this may give a convenient, if somewhat oversimplified yard-
stick for a cost-benefit analysis.

Before I expose my assumptions, however, may I stress that this is
the eventual level of detriment, at equilibrium, which would require
ten or more generations for its full impact. The costs are however
estimated in terms of the 1970 economy.

That doubling the background would increase the rate of mutation
by about 10 percent is generally agreed. There are only minor quarrels
about the extent to which mutational damage might be decreased at very
low dose rates, and balancing counter-arguments about the interaction
of radiation with other pollutants.

The health cost of that increase in mutation is hard to estimate.
I have assumed that the total burden of ill health costs us about $200 B
today, if we make a realistically comprehensive estimate. No one would
say this is exaggerated by as much as two-fold. (Direct health care alone
approaches $80 B). I also argue, that genetic factors account for fully
half that burden. The weakest part of my argument is that an increase
in mutation rate would give a commensurate increase in genetic burdens,
for other phenomena may play an important role, difficult to estimate.
$200B X 10% KX 1/2 = $10B. With a relevant population of about 200 M
people, this works out to a cost of $50 per capita for doubling the
background, or $500 per capita per rad.

But the bill is not presented for payment immediately; it may be
deferred for one, ten, or more generations. The main gist of my remarks
was that compensatory research today (of a kind seriously slashed in

LT. J. P. KENNEDY, JR. LABORATORIES FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, DEDICATED TO RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY HEREDITY NEUROBIOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE
recent budget cuts) might mitigate most of that future burden. But some
part of that $500 per rad -- say $100, until you make an independent
calculation -- should be regarded as the present and unrecoverable cost
to health in the visible future per rad per capita.

This line of argument does not support Gofman's proposal for a
moratorium on nuclear plant construction. You may wish to consider
whether nuclear energy should be taxed (to support the requisite health
facilities and research) to the corresponding extent, which should work
out to a few dollars per capita. I assume the economic benefits would
far outweigh this estimate. At least these considerations should be
included in an overall cost-benefit analysis. I do not know how to
estimate the corresponding costs of pollution from fossil fuels; clearly
these should not escape redress either.

I would of course urge you to resist any measures that would result
in "using up" a substantial part of the guideline for "permissible expo-
sure". This is not likely to occur within five years, whether you impose
a moratorium or not. I have also urged the AEC to lower its allowances.
They have so far resisted for reasons which I partly understand, but must
still disagree with. In very large part, in my opinion, the AEC suffers from
a serious public-relations problem, and from considerable public confusion
about population dose and individual hazard. However, I agree with Gofman
that, in due course, concerns about minimizing population exposure to
radiation, with which he and the AEC and I are in full concurrence, should
be embodied in explicit regulations so that long-range planning is based
on the correct principles.

Dr. Gofman and I do agree on some policies, and disagree on others;
none of my remarks here are addressed to his calculations based on doubling
doses for carcinogenesis, which appear to me highly implausible on
mechanistic grounds,

Yours.sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics

CC: Dr. Gofman
Dr. Totter (AEC)