4. 



human environment, these considerations are extremely troublesome. 

 On the one hand, the recommendations must be based upon an evalua- 

 tion of how rates of release of activity can combine with the containnaent 

 and dispersal properties of the environment to produce a return of 

 activity to man at levels that will not be hazardous, a procedure that 

 must have as its base line a definition of hazard. On the other hand, 

 it is plain that there is not unanimous agreement as to where this base 

 line should be placed. 



We realize that at our present state of development this situation 

 is probably inevitable. However, the realization is not a substitute for 

 the missing information. 



Three courses of action appear to be open to us. We might 

 attempt to evaluate the evidence regarding the pathological and genetic 

 effects of radiation, and so establish a firm base line. However, hav- 

 ing no competence in these fields we feel vyiqualified to do this. We 

 might refuse to make recommendations, stating that it is impossible to 

 do so until better agreement as to what constitutes a hazard can be 

 reached by those who have competence in such matters. This course 

 we believe to be both unnecessary and dangerous. It would be danger- 

 ous because low-level radioactive wastes are now being introduced into 

 shallow, coastal waters, and our refusal to make recommendations 

 concerning permissible quantities and suitable locations certainly 



