440 



Dr. Mattson. No, there has not. Recall again that I have just 

 said that we did not do public health-type monitoring. We were 

 doing the dump site monitoring for scientific and model develop- 

 ment reasons. And recall what Mr. Dyer said about the rather 

 pioneering efforts that are involved. That submersible is the only 

 one we knew of that could go to those depths. Nobody had ever 

 recovered barrels before. What we did with the early surveys is to 

 begin where we thought we had the highest likelihood of success of 

 finding barrels. Now some of the more detailed information about 

 Massachusetts Bay has only come, I think, to our attention in 

 recent months; for example, the amounts of radioactivity dumped 

 there and the shallowness of the site. I would say that Massachu- 

 setts Bay would be high on our list for health effects monitoring, 

 the market basket kind of monitoring for the future that we have 

 talked about with staff at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

 Administration. It has not been a high priority in the past because 

 we did not feel we had that much to learn from Massachusetts Bay, 

 nor do we feel we had a high probability of success at Massachu- 

 setts Bay, nor for that matter did it look like any sites that might 

 be proposed for the future. 



Mr. Studds. But now you say, based on information recently 

 available to you, you have changed that position and you think it 

 ought to be looked at? 



Dr. Mattson. No. Well, yes and no. I think Massachusetts Bay 

 ought to be looked at. Let me say that at the outset. 



Mr. Studds. I thought you just said you were satisfied there was 

 no need for further looking. 



Dr. Mattson. Well, if we do public health monitoring, and I 

 believe we should, then we should do Massachusetts Bay. People 

 should not be kept on edge by these scientific judgments. If a 

 scientific judgment is not shared by lay people and they want 

 better proof from the scientists, then it is only a matter of money 

 to provide the better proof. And science can do it. For those reasons 

 I would say we should do the public health monitoring. It would be 

 our technical judgment, knowing the general site characteristics of 

 Massachusetts Bay, knowing the other things that are in that site, 

 and knowing the fact that other kinds of monitoring for radioactiv- 

 ity go on routinely in this country, that there is not a problem and 

 if there were, we would have seen it before. That is less than a 

 satisfying answer. 



So if we do public health monitoring, Massachusetts Bay would 

 be high on our list of places to go and do it. 



Mr. Studds. All right. I think I understand what you are saying 

 but you are being a little reluctant to put it as clearly as you 

 might, I suspect, in the hall. Again you are saying your scientific 

 judgment is not necessary, but you recognize the degree of public 

 concern would be such that it would be justified in order to put the 

 public concern at rest and conduct further research? 



Dr. Mattson. Yes, because the other side of the coin is that my 

 less than positive answer might frighten the people of Boston. And 

 I do not believe they should be frightened. 



Mr. Studds. The less than positive answer based on the less than 

 encyclopedic judgment. 



Dr. Mattson. Yes. 



