The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1955. Atomic Radiation

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27643, 27 April 1955, Page 12

The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1955. Atomic Radiation

The invitation to Sir John Cockcroft, director of Britain's Atomic Research Establishment, to address the Parliamentary scientific committee on radioactive contaminations was, no doubt, a sequel to the debate in the House of Commons last month on the effects on human life of radiation from atomic , bomb explosions. The world knows that modern atomic weapons dropped deliberately on crowded cities would cause vast destruction; it fears that the continuance of experimental atomic explosions, and perhaps the industrial use of atomic energy, may dangerously add to the normal amount of radiation to which all life is subjected. Some of these fears are coloured by political beliefs or moral scruples, and some

are deepened by propaganda; but all are reinforced by ignorance. It is all to the good, therefore, when public discussion provides information and, more important, stimulates inquiry among scientists and shows them to be taking • possible danger to humanity properly into account. The basic difficulty, of course, is that nobody knows for certain the long-term effects of radiation. There is an evident division of opinion among qualified scientists on the subject The House of Commons debate (which was initiated on a motion put forward by six women members) dealt chiefly with the genetic effects of deadly rays from atomic explosions. Geneticists agree that an addition to the radiation to which human beings are exposed will have .certain effects, and may even produce mutations, which are sudden and permanent departures from type. But as the Minister of Health (Mr Macleod) pointed out during the House of Commons debate, there is nothing new in human beings being exposed to radioactivity. “Our ancestors”, he said, “for millions of years have “ been exposed to radioactivity “which came, perhaps, from outer “space”. Geneticists contend that some mutations brought about by radiation at the time of the Norman conquest are only now appearing. This is difficult for the mind of the ordinary man to grasp; but the mere statement illustrates the long-term nature of the problem, ■ and it exfiafag sone of the riiarper differences of opinion among scientists. Generally speaking, competent authorities (including Sir John Cockcroft) do not believe there is cause for serious concern about the small amount of additional radiation caused by the 80-odd experimental atomic explosions up to the present. With this opinion geneticists agree. But they are not concerned with the present, but with what may happen in decades or even centuries hence. Geneticists’ opinions about the dangers of radiation are based on experiments with fruit flies. One

American geneticist. Dr. H. J. Muller,'won ■ Nobel Prize for his

discovery of the mutative effect of X-rays on fruit flies. But the validity of their fears is problematical while so little is known, in quantitative terms, of how quickly the genetic mutations take place. This, obviously, is a matter for long-term study. It would be best if this study could be a matter of international concern; the best solution would probably lie in cooperation between the atomic energy agencies of the several “atomic” Powers and the World Health Organisation- Failing that, there should be encouragement everywhere to efforts to make information cn the genetic effects of radioactivity available to the scientists of the world. In the House of Commons debate Mr Macleod said there was only one final answer in this field—a comprehensive scheme of disarmament. But he did show that Britain was interested in finding an interim answer by saying that it the Medical Research Council, after examining their research programme, wished to increase their total expenditure on this particular aspect of the basic programme, the Government would help.