439 



Dr. Mattson. I am saying two things. I am saying we would 

 expect not to be able to detect harm; and the few measurements 

 that we have done do not detect harm. 



Mr. Studds. Fair enough. You would expect not to be able to 

 detect it if you were to try to detect it. But that is not very 

 reassuring and certainly not scientific proof. An expectation of 

 inability to detect is hardly a proof of the absence of something. 



Dr. Mattson. No. If there had been harm, I am convinced we 

 could detect it. The radioactivity measurements are very precise 

 measurements. They are relatively expensive measurements to 

 take at very low contamination levels. And if there were harm 

 occurring and if we were to do the measurements, we would be 

 able to detect it. I am saying something different from that. I am 

 saying given the relatively small amount of radioactive material 

 that was dumped, given the wide dispersal of that material from a 

 number of sites, given the long time since it occurred, given the 

 fact that an5d:hing that leaks becomes diluted in the ocean environ- 

 ment, considering all of those things, it would be our technical 

 judgment that the radioactivity could not reach man in harmful 

 concentrations. That is based on a general understanding of the 

 pathways, less than complete but a technical understanding none- 

 theless, and based on experience with how radiation can concen- 

 trate in foods consumed by people. 



Now we have done some measurements in addition to making 

 those kinds of judgments. The measurements that we have done, 

 although less than encyclopedic, do confirm that reasoning, that 

 scientific rationale. 



Mr. Studds. I am haunted by your euphemism of less than 

 encyclopedic. I mean there are some alternative ways of stating 

 that that are somewhat less laudatory. 



Dr. Mattson. Well, the reason I keep bringing that in, sir, is 

 that it is true that more measurements would support this case 

 better. We are not trying to make the case that monitoring should 

 not be done. If people want better assurance, that assurance can be 

 provided through monitoring. There are measurement techniques 

 that could detect harm if it were occurring. 



Mr. Studds. If I understand you correctly, it is your judgment — 

 and I suspect you would have added, had you been less diplomatic 

 than you were, "political pressures to the contrary and notwith- 

 standing" — that there is no need for further monitoring of these 

 former dump sites. Is that a fair summary of your position? 



Dr. Mattson. There is no need for further monitoring to assure 

 me and the scientists that work for me that there is no harm 

 occurring to man, that is true. However, in order to better under- 

 stand the movement of radioactive material in the marine environ- 

 ment, and because there are larger quantities of radioactivity still 

 being dumped elsewhere in the world, and because radioactivity 

 might be dumped again by this country, we would need to do more 

 scientific measurements in those old dump sites. 



Mr. Studds. That gets me to my next question, on the Massachu- 

 setts Bay site, which was both the shallowest and the closest to 

 land. Is that correct? 



Dr. Mattson. Yes. 



Mr. Studds. Has there been any monitoring at all at that site? 



