Linus Pauling and the International Peace Movement All Documents and Media  
Home | Search | Narrative | Linus Pauling Day-By-Day

All Documents and Media

Letter from Linus Pauling to A.E. Kerr. October 30, 1959.
Pauling writes to dispute statements issued by the Atomic Energy Commission.


30 October 1959

Dr. A. E. Kerr, President

Dalhousie University

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dear Professor Kerr:

I am deeply perturbed to learn from Professor J. Gordin Kaplan that Professor Eugene P. Wigner should have written to you, complaining about an action that Professor Kaplan had taken, in publishing a short article in the journal Science.

The article published by Professor Kaplan was a criticism of the announcement issued by the General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission about the biological effects of radioactive fallout from the testing of atomic weapons. It is my opinion that Professor Kaplan was justified in publishing his critical statement about the report issued by the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, and that he rendered a service to the world by doing so. On the other hand, I deplore the action taken by Professor Wigner, in writing to you. If he were dissatisfied with the article by Professor Kaplan, he should have replied to it, in the pages of Science. I cannot find ethical justification for his apparent effort to suppress free discussion of an important matter by working through you, the President of the university in which Professor Kaplan carries on his work.

Professor Kaplan is not the only one who has made strongly critical statements about the action of the General Advisory Committee of the A.E.C. Very strong criticism is made by Dr. Ralph Lapp in the last issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. I myself, in an address to a public meeting of over 3,000 people in Carnegie Hall in New York City, given on 25 October 1959 (last Sunday), also made very strong statements about this action of the General Advisory Committee of the A.E.C.

I know the members of this Committee. I pointed out in my public address that none of the members of the Committee is a biologist or has had a good background of experience in biology. In particular, I know Professor Wigner, and I know that he does not have the background of knowledge of biology and medicine to discuss these questions in a very reliable way.

The statement made by the General Advisory Committee of the A.E.C. seemed to me to be clearly a whitewashing of the atomic bomb tests, probably part of a propaganda campaign to permit the resumption of atomic bomb tests by the United States. The statements made would in general reassure the reader in an unjustified way. Many of the statements are seriously misleading. For example, to say that fallout radiation is less than five percent of natural background radiation, without also stating that natural background radiation is responsible for a considerable fraction of all congenitally defective children born in the world, is misleading. To say that the amount of strontium-90 found in food and water is less of a hazard than the amount of radium normally present in the

Dr. A. B, Kerr

Page 2

30 October 1959

public drinking water supply in certain places in the United States, without saying that nobody knows how many cases of cancer are produced by this radium in the some hundreds of thousands of people who drink the water, is seriously misleading.

For five years, during the whole of the fallout controversy, the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission remained silent about this question. Only now, when an effort is being made by the A.E.C. to prevent the formulation of an agreement to stop the testing of all nuclear weapons through the negotiations of the representatives of the nuclear powers in the Second Bomb-test Conference in Geneva, has the General Advisory Committee taken action, by the issuance of a statement that seems clearly designed to work to prevent this agreement from being made and to permit the A.E.C. to resume the explosions of nuclear weapons.

The situation seems to me to be made clear by the speech of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota in the Senate of the United States on Tuesday 18 August 1959. Mr. Humphrey voiced his grave concern lest through indecision and internal differences our government might contribute to the breakdown of the negotiations. He said "Our negotiators are burdened by obstacles which have been built primarily by the Atomic Energy Commission and to a lesser extent by the Defense Department. The A.E.C. seems to have difficulty in remembering that it was not created to be a policy-making body in the area of foreign relations. Although I think that the A.E.C has overstepped the bounds of its functions in this instance, nevertheless, I cannot dispute its right to argue its case. The A.E.C. is allowed to continue to oppose the official position of the United States and to inject its own views on foreign policy due to a lack of leadership at the top."

He also said "The A.E.C. and the Pentagon evidently are so eager to resume testing that they are promoting and fostering newspaper reports to that effect," He further said "We could conceivably claim that tests should be resumed because there are no harmful effects of fallout and that the test ban talks are not asking progress, two of the lines of argument being advanced by the A.E.C. The facts on the former are uncertain, as I have said, and the facts on the latter are to the contrary."

I may discuss the two points raised by Professor Wigner. The first point refers to the second paragraph of the article by Professor Kaplan. Professor Kaplan says "That the total quantity of radiation reaching the whole body from outside is far greater is largely irrelevant to the question of the potential dangers of fallout from nuclear tests." He says that throwing rubber balls at a person is not an intelligent way of finding out what would happen were he to swallow one. Professor Wigner says that the rubber ball analogy is inept.

I am not sure myself that the rubber ball analogy is the best one that Professor Kaplan could have used, but I am afraid that Professor Wigner does not know the facts about biological damage by radioactive elements. For example, the damage done by carbon-14 inside the human body is without doubt greater than the amount that one would calculate from consideration of the radiation alone: that is, if the same amount of radiation came from outside the body.

Dr. A. E. Kerr

Page 3

30 October 1959

There is another effect-damage to a molecule by the radioactive change of an atom in that molecule. In my estimate of the genetic and somatic effects of carbon-14, I decided that the latter effect is only ten percent of the former effect. However, three Atomic Energy Commission scientists, Drs. Totter, Zelle, and Hollister, in their discussion of carbon-l4 concluded that the latter effect is equal to the former effect. Their estimates agreed closely with mine with respect to the damage done by the radiation effect, but their estimate as to the second effect was ten times as large as mine. Accordingly there is a greater amount of damage done to human beings by radioactive elements inside the body than by radiation from outside equal in amount to the radiation liberated by the radioactive elements inside the body.

Professor Wigner, in the third paragraph of his letter, also states that Dr. Kaplan has uncritically accepted a single published number, which is probably incorrect. It is not evident from Professor Wigner's letter what the possibly incorrect published number is, but Professor Kaplan apparently thinks that it is the number 0.0001 microcuries of strontium-90 per gram mentioned by Engstrom and collaborators as related to the development of osteosarcoma in dogs three years after injection of the radiostrontium. I am not able to say whether this number, which is correctly quoted by Professor Kaplan from the book by Engstrom and associates, is correct or erroneous. From the paper by Professor Kamb and me on the effects of strontium-90 on mice it can be seen that a significant increase in incidence of bone tumors in mice is produced by injection of 0.02 microcuries of strontium-90 per gram; that is, about 200 times the amount mentioned. Probably dogs are more susceptible than mice because of their larger volume and larger number of cells, any one of which may become cancerous. Accordingly I think that it was justified for Professor Kaplan to quote the figure given in the book by Engstrom and collaborators, even though there is the possibility that an error was made in the book.

Professor Wigner concludes his letter with the sentence "What I am objecting to is the tone of his article, which is abusive and lacks scientific spirit and detachment." I have a very similar complaint to make about the report by the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission: it is that this report lacks scientific spirit and detachment and is immoral, in that it is worded in such a way as to seriously mislead the people of the United States about a very important question.

Again let me say that I thoroughly approve of the action taken by Professor Kaplan in publishing his article in Science, and I strongly criticise Professor Wigner for his apparent effort to cause trouble for Professor Kaplan by writing to you.

Sincerely yours,

Linus Pauling: jh

CC: Professor Eugene P. Wigner

Professor J, Gordin Kaplan

Enclosures 2

P.S. - Under separate cover I am sending a copy of my book No More War! to you

Return to Document Page

Home | Search | Narrative | Linus Pauling Day-By-Day