ATTACHMENT 2 Office Memorandum - UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO: Dr. C. L. Dunham, Deputy Director Division of Biology and Medicine, Washington, D.C. December 13, 1955 FROM: Duncan Clark, Deputy Chief Public Information Service SUBJECT: REPORT, "THE EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION ON HUMAN BEINGS" REFER TO SYMBOL: ISP:DC The Public Information Service has reviewed this manuscript. Several suggestions are listed below. We note that you have asked us to determine the advisability of a foreword by one of the Commissioners. We do not believe that such a foreword is essential, since this is a technical report, rather than a policy statement. However, we believe it would be advisable to raise the question with the Chairman. We should be glad to do so, or for you to do so if you prefer. A proposed review of the Introduction by the Director, Division of Biology and Medicine, is attached. We assume that this will precede the preface and acknowledgements by Cronkite, following the order shown in the Table of Contents rather than the order in the bound mimeographed copies. You are free to change it as you wish, of course, although we should like to see copy of the final version. We should like your opinion as to whether the publication of the report should be announced in a press release. Our judgment is that this would be a good idea, since it would assist in demonstrating that the AEC is putting out information in this field as it is developed. Special comments are as follows: Preface and Acknowledgements The tone of this portion of the report bothered us somewhat. Its profuse acknowledgements of the "unselfish cooperation" and "sacrifice" of the team in gathering the research data undoubtedly are justified, but we feel that they tend to give the impression that the Marshallese were regarded as "guinea pigs," whose irradiation was important primarily because it afforded an excellent opportunity for study. This impression could be softened by including the Marshallese in the kudos. Could a couple of sentences be added, stating that the Marshallese cooperated fully with the medical team, showing understanding of the importance of gathering the data, etc.? As the preface stands now, everyone gets a pat on the head except the people who were irradiated. (continued) 56816 REPOSITORY Washington National Records Center COLLECTION 32681-6 BOX No. Box 1 FOLDER Dr. C. L. Dunham, B&M -2- Dec. 13, 1955 Other comments on the preface are as follows: Page 1, first sentence -- We suggest that this read: "The undertaking of the care and study of the human beings accidentally exposed to fallout radiation following the March 1, 1954 nuclear test detonation in the Pacific was the first instance in which an early study of a large group of irradiated human beings was possible." Page 2, first sentence in second complete paragraph -- This is a rather clumsy sentence. We suggest the following: "Upon arrival of the medical team, it became quite evident that, because of the large numbers of radiation casualties and the huge amount of work involved in collecting data, primary responsibilities for various phases of the study would have to be delegated in order to obtain the necessary information for biological assay of the degree of injury." Page 2, sixth line from bottom -- Should be "daily sick call and care of the radiation lesions were carried out...." Page 3, second line in first complete paragraph -- We suggest that the word "then: be inserted before "Director." Page 5, fourth line of first complete paragraph -- We suggest that the phrase "Marshallese inhabitants" be used rather than "native Marshallese." Preface by Director, Division of Biology and Medicine A suggested revision of this is attached. Text of Report Page 18, next to last line in first paragraph -- Should be "support" rather than "supported." Incidentally, there are quite a few typographical errors, particularly in about the first half of this report. We have not attempted to catch all of these, but the copy needs to be read over carefully with this in mind. Page 41, sentence beginning on eight line from bottom -- Disagreement in number between the subject and verb: "The mildest manifestations...was...." Page 52, first complete paragraph -- We suggest: "...a number of cattle grazing near the point of detonation developed lesions..." and "...sixteen horses near the Test Site developed lesions...." Also, the correct title is "the Nevada Test Site," rather than "the Nevada Proving Grounds." (continued) Dr. C. L. Dunham, B&M -3- Dec. 13, 1955 Page 57, line six -- We assume this should read "Vascular changes or pigment aberrations," rather than "on pigment aberrations." Page 58, third line in last paragraph -- This might be read as meaning that certain factors make the outlook more favorable for development of cancer, rather than the reverse. We suggest: "Certain factors appear to decrease the possibility that malignancies will result." Page 59, last two lines -- Should be "...there were no pigment aberrations...." Page 88, first line -- Should be "principal," not "principle." Page 110, first paragraph -- This paragraph gives the impression that, although it had been previously thought that internal contamination was less important than external exposure, the Marshallese incident altered this conclusion. However, the general purport of the chapter, unless we are misinterpreting it, is that internal contamination of the Marshallese was far less important than the external exposure. We suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph be revised to avoid the implication that the Marshallese exposures showed that internal exposure is of greater significance than had been believed previously. Page 128, second complete paragraph -- We suggest that this paragraph include language to make clear that it refers to fish in the lagoon, rather than fish in the open sea. Chapter VI, Outline, preceding page 155 -- We have not seen any published references naming the "Bravo" shot. We assume the Division of Classification will notify you if there is any objection to use of the name. We suggest that the term "conventional weapons" be replaced by either "kiloton weapons" or "nominal weapons," and that the term "super weapons" be replaced by either "megaton weapons" or "high-yield weapons." These changes should be made throughout the chapter. Page 155, line 6 -- Should be "...the use of atomic weapons or nuclear reactor accidents," rather than "the use of atomic weapons on nuclear reactor accidents." Page 158, lines 1 and 2 -- The reference to he area of total destruction extending to "many miles" is rather vague and may be misleading. For example, the film, "Operation Ivy," stated that "there was complete annihilation within a radius of three miles." We suggest that the sentence read: "The area of total destruction, instead of one or two miles in diameter, may extend several times that far, depending on the size of the weapon." Dr. C. L.Dunham, B&M -4- Dec. 13, 1955 Page 159, sentence beginning on line 2 -- We suggest that this be reworded to conform more closely with the Commission's report of February 15, 1955, as follows: "There was sufficient radioactivity in a down-wind belt about 140 miles in length and of varying width up to 20 miles to have seriously threatened the lives of nearly all persons remaining in the area for 376 hours and who did not take protective measures." Page 162 -- As you have noted to Cronkite, the reference to radiostrontium should be revised. Page 175, line 4 -- The reference to "great distances" might be taken to mean thousands of miles. Substituting "considerable" for "great" might provide a better frame of reference. Page 177 -- We suggest that reference 1 read: "'The Effects of High-Yield Nuclear Explosions,' Statement by Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman, and a Report by the United States Atomic Energy Commission, February, 1955." Reference 4 should include the date of the Libby speech -- June 3, 1955. With these change taken into account, we have no objection to issuance of the report. We have not sent it to the Division of Classification, and assume that you will see that classification review is accomplished. We also assume that you have sent it to the Division of Military Application, or plan to do so. Attachments: Proposed revision of the introduction of subject report Cy of memo DTD 10/7/55 frm. Foster to Staats, OCB