Letter from Linus Pauling to Fredrik H. Raab. December 19, 1961. Page 1  Larger Images / More Information. 1 p.  View Transcript

<   December  1961     S M T W T F S           1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Activity Listings

• Check from AHP to Chandlers for $9.31. [Filed under LP Correspondence: Biographical: Bank Statements and Canceled Checks: First Western Bank, January 1962-December 1962: Box # 4.027 Folder #27.1] 
• Check from LP to Linda Hopkins for $106.00. [Filed under LP Correspondence: Biographical: Bank Statements and Canceled Checks: First Western Bank, January 1962-December 1962: Box # 4.027 Folder #27.1] 
• Letter from Dr. Samuel A. Corson, Columbus Psychiatric Institute and Hospital, Research division, to LP, RE: Invites LP to speak at the North Columbus Friends Meeting, in the forum “Quaker Approach to Peace”. Attachment: Announcement for one of the lectures in the series, “Invention, Science and Religion in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Poland: A Quaker Assessment”. [Letter from LP to Dr. Corson, December 27, 1961] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (C: Correspondence, 1961-1962), #76.1] 
• Letter from Francis Hoague to LP RE: Encloses an original and two copies of a proposed Answer to Interrogatory No. 72. Explains that Ashley is insisting that LP needs to include all the names of the sender s of the petition, including those outside the U.S. Writes that he would like to send him a firm offer of settlement of a retraction and $60,000 if that is satisfactory to LP. [Filed under LP Biographical: (Pauling v. Bellingham Publishing Company, 1960-1963, 1965), Box #3.001, Folder #1.8] 
• Letter from Fred Okrand to LP RE: Returns the 21 sheets of names and signatures. [Filed under LP Biographical: (Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 1960-1967), Box #3.003, Folder #3.2] 
• Letter from Gerald Fried to LP, RE: Fried thanks LP for taking time out to call Dr. Szilard on behalf of the Los Angeles Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. [Filed under LP Peace: (SANE, 1958-1966, 1982), Box #4.003, Folder #3.4] 
• Letter from Harry G. Kriegel to LP RE: Tells LP about the Humanity Guild, Inc. Asks if LP would be a sponsor and explains what that would entail. [Letter from LP to Kriegel January 15, 1962] [Filed under K: Correspondence 1957-1962 Box 201, Folder 201.6] 
• Letter from John McClung, Finance Director, ACLU of Southern California to AHP RE: Regards AHP’s letter to Mrs. Roosevelt which requests her to be the honoree at their garden party next year. Discusses dates and where it will be held. [Filed under LP Correspondence: R: Individual Correspondence. (Robinson, Miles-Roosevelt), #335.9] 
• Letter from LP To President John F. Kennedy, RE: Reminds President Kennedy of LP’s letter expressing his dissatisfaction with statements made in LIFE Magazine, and Mr. Bundy’s reply to it.  He has now read a series of articles about fallout shelters written by Professor Libby, and has sent him a letter expressing his dissatisfaction over them as well.  Now he hears that the government is publishing pamphlets on fallout shelters to be distributed to 50 million Americans.  LP thinks that it is far worse for the President to mislead the public, and that he should make sure that all statements in the pamphlets are true. [Letter from Mr. Bundy to LP, October 16, 1961] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (K: Individual Correspondence. (Kennedy-Klein, Morton)), #198.3]
• Letter from LP to Catherine Sturtevant, Cornell University Press, RE: Explains that an error in a drawing in The Nature of the Chemical Bond has been called to his attention.  Encloses a revised drawing and requests that a new cut be made for the next printing. [Filed under LP Books: 1960b5.5]
• Letter from LP to Dr. Fred Vaslow, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, RE: LP suggests that Dr. Vaslow extend his arguments to permit him to reach more definite conclusions.  [Letter from Dr. Vaslow to LP, December 8, 1961] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (J: Organizational Correspondence. (Jo-Jo)), #191.11]
• Letter from LP to Professor W.J. Libby, Department of Chemistry, University of California. [Filed under LP Correspondence: (L: Individual Correspondence. (Libby, A.-London)), #217.2]

  21 December 1961

  Dear Bill:

  After returning from a rather long European trip I have been reading the newspapers, and have read your series about fallout shelters.

  I find it difficult to believe that you wrote these fifteen articles, because the style in which they are written does not seem to me to be your style. Moreover, some of the statements are false, or are so misleading, either through carelessness or through intent, as to deceive the great majority of readers. The matter of a nuclear war is so serious for the whole of humankind that deception of this sort should not be practiced, and I do not like to have the belief forced upon me that you have been associated with it.

  I shall now ask you about only one of these false or seriously misleading statements.

  In the forth of your articles, published in the Pasadena Star-News and many other papers, there is a view (photograph) of a fallout shelter, with the following caption, in bold-face type: "An interior view of an underground fallout shelter shows the elaborately equipped structure that probably could be duplicated at present for about $5000. Shelters such as this can increase your chances of survival by at least 10,000 fold."

  This statement is not true. It is not possible for shelters to increase the chances of survival at least 10,000 fold.

  I think that we are forced to interpret your words "your chances of survival" as meaning the chances of survival of Americans, because your articles were without a doubt seen by a very large number of Americans, constituting approximately a representative sample.

  For example, let us assume that an atomic attack on the United States would kill about one quarter of the American people, without shelters. This is the customary estimate, corresponding to an attack of between 1,500 and 2,500 megatons. The chance of survival of the American people in such an attack is 0.75. For such an attack the construction of shelters could increase the chance of survival only by 33 percent.

  This calculation indicates that your statement "Shelters such as this can increase your chances of survival at least 10,000 fold" involves a 30,000 fold exaggeration of the protection provided by the shelters.

  I note that in the text of your article you mention "fallout protection" in one sentence. However, the proceding sentence reads "The better, the sturdier and better supplied the shelter is, the more protection there is against fallout, and even blast effects."

  The caption of the photograph illustrating the article refers simply to chances of survival. I do not think that it can be assumed that a reader would interpret the sentence as referring to a sort of hypothetical survival of fallout damage, with death attributed to blast or fire included in the "survival" category.

  The heading of the article itself, in large type, is "You can survive atomic attack: A real shelter is a real life saver."

  A great many readers of the newspapers in which your article appeared would look at the photograph and read the caption and also the heading of the article. They would carry away the conclusion that you have assured them that the construction of shelters would increase their chances of survival at least 10,000 fold.

  I have been trying to think of a possible way of justifying your having written this caption for the illustration, but I am unable to think of an acceptable justification.

  I might point out that the chance of survival of Americans equipped with shelters would not be greater than unity. If your statement were correct, it would mean that the chance of survival without shelters is 0.0001 or less. Am I to assume that you think that a nuclear attack on the United States before shelters have been built would leave fewer than 18,000 Americans alive?

  I hope that you will write to me at once, giving details of your calculations and explaining the basis of this statement in your fourth article. I shall, I believe, be making some public statements about this matter before long, and accordingly I hope that you will answer my letter without delay.

  Sincerely yours,

  [Linus Pauling]

• Letter from LP to Robert H. Shutan RE: Thanks Shutan for the letter and the enclosed check from Mr. Pias. Writes that he is pleased Shutan is going to press to obtain payment of the final note. [Letter from Shutan to LP November 30, 1961] [Filed under LP Biographical: (Assorted Legal Disputes, 1950-1962), Box #3.057, Folder #57.7]
• Letter from Linda Hopkins, Secretary to LP, to Charles Jan Taylor, RE: LP has asked Hopkins to send, in reply to Hopkins's letter, the enclosed reprinted articles. [Filed under LP Correspondence: (T: Correspondence, 1956-1963), #411.6]
• Letter from Linda Hopkins, Secretary to LP, to Who's Who in Engineering, RE: Hopkins encloses a copy of LP's biography to be included in the ninth edition of Who's Who in Engineering. [Filed under LP Correspondence: (W: Organizational Correspondence. (Wa-Wo)), #441.6]
• Letter from Mrs. Linda Hopkins to Dr. Frank G. Engler, RE: LP asked Mrs. Hopkins to send the enclosed reprints.  Handwritten at the bottom: “‘The Molecular Basis of Genetics’, ‘Molecular Disease’”. [Note from Dr. Engler to LP, November 28, 1961] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (E: Correspondence, 1960-1969), #113.2]
• Letter from Professor F. Gallais, Universite de Toulouse, to LP, RE: A chemical engineer from Vietnam who recently received his diploma in 1957 from the Ecole Nationale De Chimie de Toulouse would like admission to Caltech.  Professor Gallais recommends his application. [Letter from LP to Professor Gallais, December 27, 1961] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (G: Correspondence, 1957-1961), #141.5]
• Letter from Professor Thomas B. Cameron, Department of Chemistry, University of Cincinnati, to LP, RE: Requests the help of LP in identifying suitable candidates for the headship of the Chemistry Department at the University of Cincinnati.  They would like a biophysical chemist, and one that has had formal training in chemistry rather than physics or biology.  Because Cincinnati is a center for medical research, they are hoping the expand the biochemistry and related areas of the university. [Letter from LP to Professor Cameron, January 10, 1962] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (F: Individual Correspondence. (Feinberg-Feynman)), #119.3]
• Receipt from First Western Bank to LP RE: “Receipt Portion.”  For a deposit. $39.94.  [Envelope 1961] [Filed under LP Biographical: Business and Financial: Box #4.030, Folder #30.1]
• Telegram from Francis Hoague to LP RE: Writes that Ashley insists on names outside of the U.S., as well as inside. [Filed under LP Biographical: (Pauling v. Bellingham Publishing Company, 1960-1963, 1965), Box #3.001, Folder #1.8]