STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94303
January 16, 1976

 

STANEORD UNiveERSItY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Department of Genetics
#415) 497-5052

Professor R. Neider

Bundesanstalt flir Materialprllfung (BAM) ~
87 Unter den Eichen

1 Berlin 45, Germany

Dear Professor Neider,

Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1976 and for telling me
about the material that has been appearing in the German press purporting
to express my views on the problems of nuclear power.

I must say that I am absolutely astonished at some of the commentary
which ranges from a distortion and selective extraction of some of my
statements to outright fabrication.

Some of the figures were taken from a purely hypothetical discussion
of the eventual consequences of certain policy directions, which would
amount to a total carelessness about the spread of radiation. I am happy to
say that for many years the Atomic Energy Commission in this country has
adopted much more cautious and restrictive regulations that put all of the
quoted figures very far beyond the bounds of credibility.

I am enclosing an article that I wrote a little while ago that offers
if anything,a view of the costs of radiation exposure that may be on the
high side. The largest number that is readily justified would be of the
order of $100 per man-rad of exposure. As discussed in the article, this
would be equivalent to allocating a health cost of $10 per year per capita
for exposure to natural radiation and at present levels of exposure to
nuclear power sources the number would be at most a few cents.

Yes, I did sign the statement concerning the importance of including
nuclear energy in our national and global energy policy and I do adhere to
that statement. At the same time I am probably more critical than most of
my colleague co-signers in the belief that we do indeed need to approach
this problem with even more caution than in the past: my chief concern is
however nuclear accidents rather than the background exposure within the
present regulatory framework.

To be more specific, I cannot possibly imagine where anyone arrives
at the belief that in the United States we already must spend twenty-
six thousand million DM for "atom patients". On the other side, I do not
know where my so-called critics got the idea that my field of work has
been in kidney research. I am as you can tell from the present letterhead
a geneticist and I have taken a long interest in problems of genetic

LT. J. Ps KENNEDY, JR. LARORATORIES FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, DEDICATED TO RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY HEREDITY NEUROBIOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE
Professor R. Neider -~-2- 1/16/76

damage from radiation. As to the application of x-rays to dentistry, I
do not see how there can be any dispute about the immense importance of
this disgnostic procedure. The issue is not to repress its rational
application, but rather to be sure that the most elementary precautions
of shielding and protection of patients and of workers from unnecessary
exposure are undertaken.

Let me summarize that I believe that the natural background is
probably the best framework in which to examine the possible consequences
of increases of radiation exposure. This already fluctuates between
100 and 200 millirads per year depending on altitude and other aspects
of the environment. I do not believe that further fluctuations of a
few tens of millirads can be regarded as highly consequential from the
standpoint of the health impact - if we did believe that, then there are
many other things that we would have to be looking into in order to
protect ourselves.

It is difficult to come to a simple estimate of the health costs
of radiation and the calculations in my article are to be regarded only
as a rough first attempt. However, even if they are only accurate within
a factor of 100, I think they can still be a useful guide for public policy
in getting the best advantage of radiation and suffering the least from it.

Sincerely yours,

—-

Joshua Lederberg
Chairman
Department of Genetics

Enclosures
JL/rr