Redacted for Privacy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF J. Christopher Jolly for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History of Science presented on May 30, 2003. Title: Thresholds of Uncertainty: Radiation and Responsibility in the Fallout Controversy Redacted for Privacy Mary Jo N The public controversy over possible health hazards from radioactive fallout from atomic bomb testing began in 1954, shortly after a thermonuclear test by the United States spread fallout world wide. In the dissertation, I address two of the fundamental questions of the fallout controversy: Was there a threshold of radiation exposure below which there would be no significant injury? What was the role of a responsible scientist in a public scientific debate? Genetics and medicine were the scientific fields most directly involved in the debate over the biological effects of radiation. Geneticists' prewar experiences with radiation led them to believe that there was no safe level of radiation exposure and that any amount of radiation would cause a proportional amount of genetic injury. In contrast to geneticists, physicians and medical researchers generally believed that there was a threshold for somatic injury from radiation. One theme of the dissertation is an examination of how different scientific conceptual and methodological approaches affected how geneticists and medical researchers evaluated the possible health effects of fallout. Geneticists and physicians differed not only in their evaluations of radiation hazards, but also in their views of how the debate over fallout should be conducted. A central question of the fallout debate was how a responsible scientist should act in a public policy controversy involving scientific issues upon which the scientific community had not yet reached a consensus. Based on their assumption that any increase in radiation exposure was harmful, most geneticists believed that they had a responsibility to speak out publicly about the deleterious effects of radiation. Physicians, who believed in the likelihood of a threshold for significant radiation-induced injury, generally adopted the opposite view. They believed that public discussion of possible, but improbable, radiation hazards was irresponsible because it risked creating irrational public fear of radiation exposure. In my dissertation, I examine how the different positions of geneticists and physicians over what constituted responsible public scientific debate affected the rhetoric of the controversy, as well as the implications of the debate in matters of politics and policy. © Copyright by J. Christopher Jolly May 30, 2003 All Rights Reserved Thresholds of Uncertainty: Radiation and Responsibility in the Fallout Controversy By J. Christopher Jolly A DISSERTATION Submitted to Oregon State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented May 30, 2003 Commencement June 2004 Doctor of Philosophy thesis of J. Christopher Jolly presented on May 30, 2003 Redacted for Privacy Major Professck', rèresenting History of Science Redacted for Privacy Head of the History Department Redacted for Privacy Dean of thè'Graduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. I, Redacted for Privacy J. Christopher Jolly, Authof ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I offer heartfelt thanks to the members of my committee, Mary Jo Nye, Robert Nye, Paul Farber, and Ronald E. Doel. All of them played significant roles in my development as an historian. Paul consistently went above and beyond the call of duty as Department Head in insuring that I successfully navigated the financial and bureaucratic hurdles of graduate school. Bob added significantly to my intellectual breadth and depth in approaching historical questions. Ron showed me the joys of being an archive rat and offered invaluable advice on the broader context of Cold War science. (If there are any mistakes about that in the dissertation, they are mine, not his.) I especially thank Mary Jo for serving as my mentor. She sets an inspiring example of what a historian should be. She possesses many qualities, both personally and intellectually, that helped me through the process. However, as patience and forbearance were the two qualities that doubtless allowed her to see me through, I offer her special thanks for possessing them. I thank my parents for their whole-hearted and unquestioning support throughout my life and my seemingly equally long career as a graduate student. I hope I can pass on the appreciation for education that they instilled in me to others. I thank Dee Baer, who agreed to be an outside reader, not realizing the task to which she committed herself. Her comments were invaluable not only in helping me clarify some of my discussions of the science of genetics (any remaining mistakes are, of course, mine) but also in catching many of the typos. I thank my fellow graduate students, Kristin Johnson, Erik Ellis, and Bill Martin (wherever you are these days, Bill) for their sanity-saving camaraderie during the process. I look forward to being their colleagues throughout our careers. I thank Ginny, Marilyn, and Sharon in the History Department office for providing logistical and moral support throughout my graduate school career. I thank all the archivists and librarians who aided me in my research. Without them I probably would not have found half the information, and I certainly would not have had as an enjoyable time doing it.I also thank the National Science Foundation and the California Institute of Technology Archives for their generous financial support, without which I could not have done the necessary research. I thank Kerry for being my partner in graduate school during most of my time in Corvallis and for still finding the time to listen, commiserate, and keep my spirits up even after she moved on and got a life.I also thank her answering machine for always being there all the other times I called. Despite the academic accomplishment recognized by this degree, her friendship is the best thing I gained from my decision to attend graduate school at Oregon State. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction........................................................ 1 2 Genetics, Medicine, and Radiation Before the War 19 3 Atomic Age Genetics............................................ 73 4 Fallout Before the Fallout Controversy....................... 123 5 Worldwide Fallout and the Beginnings of the Controversy 162 6 Genetic Certainties, Genetic Doubts........................... 217 7 The Genetic Basis of the BEAR Committee 267 8 The BEAR Genetics Panel...................................... 314 9 Different Perspectives: The Pathology and Genetics Panels 369 10 The Impact of the BEAR Report................................ 408 11 "The Battle of Fallout".......................................... 455 12 Debate over Somatic Effects.................................... 485 13 Conclusion.......................................................... 538 Archival Sources ....................................................... 565 Bibliography........................................................... 566 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science ABCC Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission AEC Atomic Energy Commission AFSWP Armed Forces Special Weapons Project BEAR Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation DOE Department of Energy FAS Federation of American Scientists FCDA Federal Civil Defense Administration ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association JCAE Joint Committee on Atomic Energy MED Manhattan Engineering District MPC Maximum Permissible Concentration NAS National Academy of Sciences NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCRP National Committee on Radiation Protection NEJM New England Journal of Medicine NYOO New York Operations Office WHO World Health Organization Thresholds of Uncertainty: Radiation and Responsibility in the Fallout Controversy Introduction "You might say it was out of control." Representative Chet Holifleld (D-CA), commenting on the Bravo Shot In the early dawn of 1 March 1954, Shinzo Suzuki, a crewman aboard the Japanese fishing ship, Fukuryu Maru, or The Lucky Dragon, called out to his crewmates "The sun rises in the west!" The vessel was trolling for fish 80-90 miles east of the Bikini atoll, perhaps best known as a test site for the United States nuclear program. As the ominous glow surged across the sky, the Japanese fisherman debated whether or not they were witnessing a pika-don. A compound of the Japanese words for thunder and flash, pika-don had been coined shortly after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to describe the atomic bomb. The Lucky Dragon 's chief engineer, Tadashi Yamamoto, advised the crew to pay attention because "strange things may follow!" Shortly after Yamamoto's warning, crewman Takashi Suzuki did note something strange--white sand was falling from the heavens.' Yamamoto was right in ways he probably did not foresee. The white sand that fell upon the crew of the Lucky Dragon was radioactive fallout from the Bravo shotthe United States first test of a deliverable thermonuclear device. The bomb was an unqualified technical success, producing an explosive yield of fifteen megatons, almost double what the weapons designers had predicted. Though successful from the perspective