Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

War Generates Radioactive and Political Fallout, 1939–1965

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Strengthening International Regimes

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations ((PSIR))

  • 10 Accesses

Abstract

World War II vastly expanded the applications of, and exposure to, ionizing radiation, not only from many new radioactive isotopes but also from much higher voltage X-rays, nuclear reactors, and particle accelerators. The pre-war norms, established for the purposes of medical radiology, nevertheless proved durable, though not always observed, during the top-secret, crash program that produced atomic weapons in the United States. International scientific cooperation and the radiation protection regime revived after World War II, with the U.S. National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) playing leading roles. Public controversy raged in the 1950s over radioactive fallout from bomb testing. That, combined with specialist concern about genetic effects and cancer as well as the threat of encroachment by other professional institutions on NCRP and ICRP prerogatives, incentivized tightened norms intended to maintain their norm-setting dominance. The international radiation protection regime strengthened, though not in the ways some of its most fervent advocates advocated. Ford Foundation funding for the ICRP, and in the United States. A Congressional charter for the NCRP, proved sufficient, without strong legal mandates or institutional structures. Other countries created more conventional governmental institutions for radiation protection, notably the UK, Germany, and Sweden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Wellerstein A. Counting the Dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki [Internet]. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2020. Available from: https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/, accessed December 22, 2023.

  2. 2.

    Hacker BC. The Dragon’s Tail: Radiation Safety in the Manhattan Project, 1942–1946. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1987. Is the authoritative account of the role of radiation protection in the Manhattan Project.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., 27. Several of them did however work in the Manhattan Project, see Taylor L. Organization for Radiation Protection: the Operations of the ICRP and NCRP, 1928–74. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Office of Health and Environmental Research and Office of Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/TIC-10124), 1979, 7-001. This is an invaluable compilation of primary source documents with Taylor’s commentary, on which this chapter will rely heavily.

  4. 4.

    The Germans were, it was discovered at the end of the war, nowhere near producing an atomic weapon, as demonstrated in Bernstein J. Hitler’s Uranium Club: the Secret Recordings at Farm Hall. Woodbury, New York: American Institute of Physics Press; 1996. Nor had the Japanese made significant progress.

  5. 5.

    Quoted in Nolan, Jr. JL. Atomic Doctors: Conscience and Complicity at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2020:7. Nolan’s book amply confirms the priority given to “medico-legal” issues in the Manhattan Project and American testing of nuclear weapons.

  6. 6.

    Jessee EJ. Radiation Ecologies: Bombs, Bodies, and Environment During the Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing Period, 1942–1965. Montana State University Ph.D. thesis, https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/1561?show=full, accessed November 29, 2023.

  7. 7.

    Hacker, note 2, 29.

  8. 8.

    Nolan, note 5, 28.

  9. 9.

    Meyer S, Bidgood S, Potter WC. Death Dust: The Little-Known Story of U.S. and Soviet Pursuit of Radiological Weapons. International Security. 2020;45(2):51–94. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00391, accessed June 4, 2022.

  10. 10.

    Hacker, note 2, 28.

  11. 11.

    Morgan KZ. Education and Training [Internet]. Available from: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16108401.pdf, accessed April 20, 2022.

  12. 12.

    Stacy I. Roads to Ruin on the Atomic Frontier: Environmental Decision Making at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, 1942–1952. Environmental History. 2010 Jul 1;15(3):415–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25764461, accessed May 18, 2022.

  13. 13.

    One such fatal incident did occur shortly after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 and another in May 1946. The account in Alex Wellerstein, “The Demon Core and the Strange Death of Louis Slotin,” The New Yorker (May 21, 2016) includes photographs of the (reconstructed) equipment involved in the second of these incidents. A prior criticality incident in June 1945 was not fatal.

  14. 14.

    Nolan, note 5, 47.

  15. 15.

    Quoted in Hacker, note 2, 106.

  16. 16.

    Nolan, note 5, tells this story well, 43–7.

  17. 17.

    Hacker, note 2, 84.

  18. 18.

    Blume MM. Fallout: the Hiroshima Cover-Up and the Reporter Who Revealed It to the World. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2020.

  19. 19.

    Brodie JF. Radiation Secrecy and Censorship after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Journal of Social History. 2015 May 15;48(4):842–64, https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1093/jsh/shu150 and Looking Back Helps Us Look Forward [Internet]. OPCW. Available from: https://www.opcw.org/about/history#:~:text=The%201925%20Protocol%20for%20the, accessed April 20, 2022.

  20. 20.

    Nolan, note 14 and Kaplan F. A New, Chilling Secret about the Manhattan Project Has Just Been Made Public. Slate Magazine [Internet]. 2023 Aug 3 [cited 2023 Nov 14]; Available from: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/oppenheimer-manhattan-project-radiation-atomic-bomb-declassified.html#:~:text=Finally%2C%20in%20a%20comment%20that, accessed September 3, 2023.

  21. 21.

    Nolan, note 5, 101–3.

  22. 22.

    Hersey J. Hiroshima [Internet]. The New Yorker. 1946. Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima, accessed September 3, 2023.

  23. 23.

    On the origins and early history of the ABCC and its transformation into the RERF, see Lindee SM. American Scientists and the Survivors at Hiroshima. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994.

  24. 24.

    Shurcliff WA. Bombs at Bikini: The Official Report of Operation Crossroads. New York: William H. Wise, 1947;184–5.

  25. 25.

    As quoted in Hacker, note 2, 119–120.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., 149.

  27. 27.

    Taylor, note 3, 7-001.

  28. 28.

    The re-assembly of the group by Taylor is described in detail in Whittemore, GF. The National Committee on Radiation Protection, 1928–1960: from professional guidelines to government regulation. Harvard University Ph.D. dissertation, 1986, 229–41.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 7-003a.

  30. 30.

    Selznick P. Guiding Principles and Interpretation: A Summary TVA and the Grassroots. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Press; 1984.

  31. 31.

    Taylor, note 3, “Meeting of the Executive Committee, September 1947,” 7-009–11, at 7-010 and Excerpt from AEC Isotope Branch B-1, August 1947, at 7-026.

  32. 32.

    International Recommendations for X-ray and Radium Protection. British Journal of Radiology. 1934 Nov 1;7(83):695–9, Para 1 (b).

  33. 33.

    Kraft A. Manhattan Transfer: Lethal Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplantation, and the Birth of Stem Cell Biology, ca. 1942–1961. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences. 2009;39(2):171–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/hsns.2009.39.2.171, accessed April 22, 2023.

  34. 34.

    Jacobson LO. From Atom to Eve. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 1981;24(2):195–216. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1981.0033, accessed August 16, 2023.

  35. 35.

    Whittemore, note 28, 282–336.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Taylor, note 3, “New Permissible Dose,” 7-034–7.

  38. 38.

    Report of the Board of Review sent by Robert F. Loeb to AEC Chair David E. Lilienthal, June 20, 1947, in possession of the author.

  39. 39.

    “Report of the Executive Committee, NCRP,” June 23, 1948, Taylor, note 3, at 7-029. The new level was published only in Permissible Dose from External Sources of Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report No. 17 (NBS-HB-59); 1954. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/hb/nbshandbook59.pdf, accessed April 19, 2023. See the explanation for the delay at Taylor, 7-081. Whittemore, note 28, delves more deeply into the complicated reasons for delay, 349–90.

  40. 40.

    On “scientization,” see Stone D. Global Governance: Depoliticized: Knowledge Networks, Scientization, and Anti-Policy. In: Anti-Politics, Depoliticization, and Governance. Oxford: Oxford Academic; 2017. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1093/oso/9780198748977.003.0005, accessed November 12, 2023.

  41. 41.

    Hacker BC. Elements of Controversy: the Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons testing, 1947–1974. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1994:10–11.

  42. 42.

    Whittemore, note 28, 259–72.

  43. 43.

    Taylor, note 3, “Meeting of the Executive Committee, September 1947,” 7-010.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., 7-010–11.

  45. 45.

    Taylor, note 3, “Conversion of Recommendations to Regulations,” Taylor to Dr. Warren, October 3, 1951, 7-127–9.

  46. 46.

    Taylor, note 3, “Excerpts of a Letter of September 15, 1949, L. S. Taylor to W. G. Marks [U.S. Department of Labor],” 7-079–80.

  47. 47.

    Taylor L. Radiation Protection Standards. London: Butterworths; 1971:43–5.

  48. 48.

    Taylor, note 3, “General Communication No 29,” May 20, 1954, Subcommittee No. 10, Taylor L, Chairman, 8-003–5 at 004.

  49. 49.

    This unfortunate tale is told in Pasternak J. Yellow Dirt: A Poisoned Land and the Betrayal of the Navajos. New York: Free Press; 2011:66–75. She documents in excruciating detail the Navajo struggle with uranium mining and its consequences.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., 76.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., 112.

  52. 52.

    Brugge D, Goble R. The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People. American Journal of Public Health [Internet]. 2002;92(9):1410–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222290/, accessed May 7, 2023.

  53. 53.

    The 1952 discussion is mentioned fleetingly in Lindell B. The History of radiation, radioactivity, and Radiological protection. The Labours of Hercules, Part III (1950–66). Bo Lindell and Nordic Society for Radiation Protection. 2020;93. The 1977 ICRP report is ICRP, 1977. Radiation Protection in Uranium and Other Mines. ICRP Publication 24. Ann. ICRP 1 (1).

  54. 54.

    Brugge D, Ifran A. Compensation for Uranium Miners world-wide: the Need for an Assessment and Action. The Extractive Industries and Society. 2020 April;7(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.01.011, accessed October 26, 2023.

  55. 55.

    Dawson SE, Charley PH, Harrison Jr. P. Advocacy and Social Action among Navajo Uranium Workers and Their Families. In: Social Work in Health Settings: Practice in Context Second Edition. New York: The Haworth Press; 1997:391–7.

  56. 56.

    Taylor, note 3, 7-072 and 7-205. Notably, the Canadians and British had not yet shifted to “maximum permissible limits” but continued to use nomenclature the Americans considered outmoded.

  57. 57.

    These issues are reflected at length in documents available in Taylor, note 3, “Report of the United Kingdom, and United States Meeting, March 29 and 30, 1948,” 7-033–4 and following as well as K. Z. Morgan’s “Memorandum to the Subcommittee on Permissible Internal Dose” reporting on the same meeting, ibid., 7-082–6. The conclusions of the September 1949 meeting are in “Minutes of the Permissible Doses Conference held at Chalk River, Canada, September 29th-30th, R. M.-10, https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/files/library/warren1949_permissible_dose_conference_tripartite_conference.pdf, accessed December 5, 2023. Whittemore, note 28, argues that the resolution of the British/American difference in dosimetry procedures was a “tactful compromise to maintain the appearance of unanimity,” 341–6.

  58. 58.

    Taylor, note 3. ICRP Activities 7-205.

  59. 59.

    Binks to Morgan, “International Commission on Radiological Protection,” December 20, 1950, Taylor, note 3, 7-220.

  60. 60.

    Graf H. The Standardization of Radiological Technique, Its Origin and Development. Annex W, Item No. 7, in Taylor, ibid.

  61. 61.

    Taylor to Dr. Jaeger, November 8, 1949, Taylor, note 3, 7-207.

  62. 62.

    Robert Jaeger: Mainzer Professorenkatalog | Gutenberg Biographics [Internet]. Gutenberg Biographics, University of Mainz; Available from: http://gutenberg-biographics.ub.uni-mainz.de/personen/register/eintrag/robert-jaeger.html, accessed June 10, 2022.

  63. 63.

    Jaeger to Taylor, September 13, 1949, quoted in Taylor, note 3, 7-208.

  64. 64.

    Jaeger to Taylor, January 31, 1950, quoted in Taylor, note 3, 7-209.

  65. 65.

    Jaeger to Taylor, June 23, 1950, quoted in Taylor, note 3, 7-210.

  66. 66.

    “Proposal from the British Members,” International Commission on Radiological Protection, VIth International Congress of Radiology, 1950, NP/P/64 and NP/P/TD/ in ICRP Archives, Box G042, 1950.pdf, 17–28. The Roentgen was a unit of what is now understood as exposure. The Americans sometimes preferred instead rem (roentgen equivalent man). It was intended to reflect the different biological effects of rays of different types in soft tissue: “that dose of any ionizing radiation which produces a relevant biological effect equal to that produced by one roentgen of high-voltage x-radiation.” It is numerically equivalent to approximately .9 roentgen, which for our purposes is equivalent. To add to the confusion, the Americans also use a “rep” (roentgen equivalent physical). It originally represented an energy absorption dose in irradiated tissue of 93 ergs. See Parker HM. Tentative Dose Units for Mixed Radiations. Radiology. 1950 Feb 1;54(2):257. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/epdf/10.1148/54.2.257, accessed August 22, 2022. Other units introduced later include the rad (absorbed dose in joules per kilogram), grays (joules of absorbed energy per kilogram = 100 rad), and sieverts (effective dose of absorbed radiation = 100 rems).

  67. 67.

    Hercules, notes 53, 87. Lindell says that Rolf Sievert was already applying .1 r in Sweden, but the conversation he transcribed on this subject at 20 does not explicitly support that figure.

  68. 68.

    This was discussed among knowledgeable experts in Stockholm in 1951, ibid., 20.

  69. 69.

    International Recommendations on Radiological Protection: Revised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection at the Sixth International Congress of Radiology, London, July 1950. Annals of the ICRP/ICRP Publication. 1959 Jan;OS_1(1):1–8. July 17, 2022. The U.S., Canadian, and British norms had been discussed and decided in a tripartite “Permissible Doses Conference” at Buckland House, August 4–6, 1950, sponsored by the Medical Research Council Radiobiological Research Unit.

  70. 70.

    Taylor, note 40, at 46.

  71. 71.

    Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: Revised December 1954. Annals of the ICRP/ICRP Publication. 1959 Jan;OS_1(1):iii–x. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0074-27402880014-6, accessed July 17, 2022.

  72. 72.

    Hacker, note 41, 6–9.

  73. 73.

    Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report [Internet]. ehss.energy.gov. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, 1995. Available from: https://ehss.energy.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/report.html, accessed April 28, 2020. Rosenberg H. Atomic Soldiers. Boston: Beacon Press; 1980. Was one of the publications that raised the alarm.

  74. 74.

    Ibid. and J. Samuel Walker. Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the 20th Century. University of California Press; 2000:16. See also Human Radiation Experiments—Nuclear Museum [Internet]. Atomic Heritage Foundation Nuclear Museum. Available from: https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/human-radiation-experiments/, accessed September 21, 2023; and Creager A. Life Atomic: A History of Radioisotopes in Science and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.

  75. 75.

    Hacker, note 41, 20.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., 38 and 65–69.

  77. 77.

    Parker to Morgan, “The Maximum Permissible Concentration of General Radioactive Contaminants Beyond the Area of Control,” April 5, 1949, Taylor, note 3, 7-066–7. Environmental radiation levels remain an issue in the Marshall Islands: Hughes IN, Rapaport H. The U.S. Must Take Responsibility for Nuclear Fallout in the Marshall Islands [Internet]. Scientific American. 2022. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-must-take-responsibility-for-nuclear-fallout-in-the-marshall-islands/#:~:text=Between%201946%20and%201958%2C%20the, accessed May 3, 2022.

  78. 78.

    Hacker, note 41, 43.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., p. 121.

  80. 80.

    The deception was later revealed in court, see Scientists Implicated in Atom Test Deception. Science. 1982 Nov 5;218:545–7.

  81. 81.

    This story is recounted in more detail in Higuchi T. Political Fallout. Stanford University Press; 2020:77, and in Hacker, note 41, 148–58.

  82. 82.

    Accelerating Civilian Reactor Program: Hearings before the United States Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Eighty-Fourth Congress, second session, on May 23–25, 28, 29, 1956. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1956, [Internet]. HathiTrust. [cited 2023 Apr 30]. Available from: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02097618f&view=1up&seq=3.

  83. 83.

    Taylor wrote to the Secretary of the ICRP: “On the external dose committee that there was a little over-weight on the genetics side. This could be somewhat countered by putting on Dr. R. S. Stone and your Dr. Ellis as radiologists,” see “Taylor to Binks,” February 15, 1951, note 3, 7-223.

  84. 84.

    J.B.S. Haldane to L. H. Gray, Medical Research Council Research Committee on the Medical and Biological Applications of Nuclear Physics, Tolerance Doses Panel of the Protection Sub-Committee, July 7, 1950, NP/P/TD/151. Haldane’s protest led to the appointment of a panel of geneticists (Tolerance Doses Panel meeting July 13, 1950 reported in NP/PTD/152) and eventually to British support for a far tighter genetic dose limit than Catcheside had suggested. Copies of documents in the possession of the author.

  85. 85.

    Taylor, note 3 above, 7-228–45. See also Hercules, note 53, 91–4. The meeting was originally intended to convene the ICRP, the ICRU, and the Mixed Commission on Radiobiology of the International Council of Scientific Unions, but not all their respective participants were able to attend.

  86. 86.

    Binks’ proposal was on behalf of the British members, who thought .1 r per year (for 30 years) might increase the spontaneous mutation rate by 10 percent and was realizable “without any serious practical or economic difficulties,” see Medical Research Council Committee on Protection against Ionising Radiations Report on The Conference on Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, held in Stockholm, 15th–20th September, 1952, PIRC/18, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 66–75, Archive Files 69, 1952 Radio Conference A.pdf, 55–60 at 56. Sievert, the Swedish ICRP Chair, thought 3 r too tight for his country because of the use there of concrete that contained radioactive shale, ibid. He preferred 5 r.

  87. 87.

    Muller HJ. The Manner of Dependence of the “Permissible Dose” of Radiation on the Amount of Genetic Damage. Acta Radiologica. 1954;41(1):5–20, accessed August 24, 2022. When he later realized that his number was on the high side, Muller claimed: “I was afraid of so antagonizing those dealing with radiation in practice, by proposing a dose too low to be at all acceptable to them, that they would, in rejection, tend to continue in their almost complete disregard of the genetic damage,” H. J. Muller, “The Permissible Dose in Light of Recent Developments,” ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive Files 30, Munich 1959 re Genetic Somatic Rad. Effects.pdf, 43–48, at 43. The British and Americans, meeting with the Canadians in early 1953, were still perplexed what to do about genetic effects, see “Minutes of Tripartite Conference on Permissible Doses,” March 30, 31 and April 1, 1953, ICRP Archives, Box 1163, Trip Conference 1953A.pdf, 5–41, at 11.

  88. 88.

    Binks prepared a summary of the conference for the ICRP, see Taylor, note 3 above 7-233–38, at 235. Bo Lindell also gives a first-hand account, Hercules, note 53, 89–94. The original of the Binks report is ICRP, “Report of the Conference on Radiobiology and Radiation Protection held in Stockholm, 15th–20th September, 1952 (Prepared by the Secretary of I.C.R,P. for the information of Members of the Commission and Chairmen of the International Sub-Committees),” ICRP/52/3, ICRP Archives, G051, Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data 1994.pdf, 430–5.

  89. 89.

    Leonidas D. Marinelli to Sievert, July 14, 1952, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 66–75, Conf-Radiobiology and rad. protection in Stockholm 1952 B.pdf, 84–85.

  90. 90.

    Ibid. The two questions posed to the Conference were these: (1) What doses per year and per capita of the population are, according to our present knowledge, permissible from a genetic point of view? (2) What radiation doses, under different conditions cause significant blood changes? Frank Ellis of the United Oxford Hospitals thought the genetic and blood changes might be interrelated, see Ellis to Sievert, September 8, 1952, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 66–75, Archive File 73, Conf-Radiobiology and rad. protection in Stockholm 1952 B.pdf, 73–5. Many responses from other recipients are in the same place.

  91. 91.

    International Commission on Radiological Protection, “Meeting on 18th September 1952, in Uppsala, of Members of the Commission, attending the Stockholm Radiological Conference,” ICRP Archives, Archive Files 46–54, Archive File 52, 7–8. There was a previous meeting the same day in Stockholm, see “International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP 52/1, ibid., 111–16.

  92. 92.

    Sievert to Failla, June 10, 1953, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 46–52, Archive File 52, 1950–53.pdf, 2: “If your subcommittee should find it suitable to recommend ‘the national report’ to be used for the purpose of the international committee I should have no objection.”

  93. 93.

    Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Revised December 1, 1954). British Journal of Radiology. Supplement No. 6:10.

  94. 94.

    See the case studies in Crowley-Vigneau A. The National Implementation of International Norms. Palgrave MacMillian; 2022. She attributes implementation to “transnational experience and expertise networks” (TEENs) who help with local adaptation of international norms. It is not clear to me how TEENs differ from an epistemic community.

  95. 95.

    Taylor, note 3 above, “Report on Meeting, Executive Committee, NCRP,” December 5, 1954, 8-012–4 at 8-013.

  96. 96.

    Sturtevant AH. Social Implications of the Genetics of Man. Science. 1954 Sep 10;120(3115):405–7. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.120.3115.405, accessed July 8, 2022. And a lower one for others.

  97. 97.

    Lindee, note 23, provides a deep dive into genetics research and results from the ABCC.

  98. 98.

    National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), and National Research Council (U.S.). Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, a Report to the Public from a Study by the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council; 1956.

  99. 99.

    Medical Research Council. The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations [Internet]. 1956 Jun. Available from: https://cipi.com/PDF/MedicalResearchCouncil1956HazardsToMan.pdf, accessed May 26, 2023.

  100. 100.

    UNSCEAR. Historical Milestones [Internet]. United Nations: Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Available from: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/about-us/historical-milestones.html#:~:text=1955%3A%20The%20UNSCEAR%20established&text=Subsequently%20on%203%20December%201955, accessed October 15, 2023.

  101. 101.

    Boudia S. Global Regulation: Controlling and Accepting Radioactivity Risks. History and Technology. 2007 Dec;23(4):389–406.

  102. 102.

    Hamblin JD. “A Dispassionate and Objective Effort:” Negotiating the First Study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation. Journal of the History of Biology. 2006 Jul 19;40(1):147–77, accessed July 8, 2022. Hamblin presents a thorough discussion of the coordination between the two reports and the geneticists’ role, but he fails to note the normative conclusion in the American report, which would prove important.

  103. 103.

    Hacker, note 41, 186.

  104. 104.

    The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations. Presented by the Lord President of the Council to Parliament: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1956 Jun para 355. https://cipi.com/PDF/MedicalResearchCouncil1956HazardsToMan.pdf, accessed July 9, 2022.

  105. 105.

    Taylor to the NCRP Executive Committee, January 20, 1956, Taylor, note 3, 8-037–8.

  106. 106.

    “Extensive Notes, Meeting of the Executive Committee, NCRP,” New York, N.Y., September 19, 1956, Taylor, note 3 above, 8-067–72, at 8-071.

  107. 107.

    “Maximum Permissible Levels of Exposure to Man: A Preliminary Statement of the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurement,” December 6, 1956, Taylor, note 3, 8-061–63. The NCRP had added measurements to its name but not to its acronym earlier that year.

  108. 108.

    “NCRP Communication 35,” December 14, 1956, Taylor, note 3, 8-060.

  109. 109.

    “Maximum Permissible Radiation Exposures to Man,” Taylor, note 3, 8-150–55. It was distributed first to scientific journals on April 15, 1958, but published four months later.

  110. 110.

    Ibid.

  111. 111.

    “Joint meeting of Sub-committees I and II of the ICRP on Friday, April 6, 1956,” Taylor, note 3, 8-300–2, at 300. The existing norm of .3 roentgens per week was more or less the equivalent of 15 rems per year. The longer time period allowed for more day-to-day flexibility in meeting the norm.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., at 8-301.

  113. 113.

    Ibid.

  114. 114.

    Hercules, note 53, p. 185.

  115. 115.

    Report on the Amendments during 1956 to the Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). Radiation Research. 1958 Jun;8(6):539–42.

  116. 116.

    Stern to Failla, August 21, 1956, Taylor, note 3, 8-055.

  117. 117.

    Note 112, at 8-302.

  118. 118.

    “Report on Meetings of the International Commission on Radiological Protection” (Transcription of tape recording of talk given to the Atomic and Radiation Physics Division staff by L. S. Taylor on June 1, 1956. This is an unedited discussion and is not for publication), Geneva, Switzerland, 1956, ICRP Archives, Box 040, Various 1954–59 A.pdf, 100–112.

  119. 119.

    “Minutes of the Plenary Session of the Commission and the Committees,” April 9, 1956, Taylor, note 3, 8-306–14, at 8-306.

  120. 120.

    G. Failla to Sir Ernest Rock Carling and R.M. Sievert, August 10, 1956, ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive files 28, “ICRP Korrespondenz 1956.pdf, 131–2.

  121. 121.

    Extensive Notes, Meeting of the Executive Committee. NCRP. September 19, 1956—New York, N.Y (Note 3, 8-067–72, at 8-068).

  122. 122.

    See Ellis, note 90.

  123. 123.

    ICRP, “Report of the Work of the Commission for presentation to the Executive Committee of the Eighth International Congress of Radiology (Mexico, 1956),” ICRP 56/17, ICRP Archives, Box G051, Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data 1994.pdf, 350–77.

  124. 124.

    Note 112, at 8-301. The objections are in note 3, “Parker to Taylor, June 19, 1956,” 8-317 and Taylor’s retrospective note at 8-329.

  125. 125.

    Taylor to Rock Carling, Taylor, note 3 above, 8-823.

  126. 126.

    Ibid.

  127. 127.

    “Recommendations of Sub-Committee I—Revision of 1955 Report,” Taylor, note 3, 8-325. Lindell gives an extensive account of the confusing discussion/negotiation of this revision, Hercules, note 53, 178–98. The suggestion to Failla is at 209. The final version was published as Report on amendments during 1956 to the Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in both Radiation Research. 1958;8(6):539–42 and Radiology. 1958 Feb;70(2). https://doi.org/10.1148/70.2.261, accessed July 13, 2023. See also Failla’s account of this and later confusion in his letters to Binks, July 10, 1958, and to Sir Ernest Mayneord and Binks, September 1, 1958, ICRP Archives, Box 039, ISO-ICU 1958.pdf, 47–50 and 40–44.

  128. 128.

    Taylor to Sievert, October 21, 1957, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 12–22, Archive File 22, 1.8.57 to 31.12.57.pdf, 152–3.

  129. 129.

    Failla to Committee 1, June 25, 1958, ICRP Archives, Archive file 23, Sect. Correspondence 1.8.57-31.12.58.pdf, 1–3. Muller’s response is ibid., at 4.

  130. 130.

    ICRP. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: Adopted September 9, 1958. Annals of the ICRP/ICRP Publication. 1959 Jan;OS_1(1):iii–x, accessed August 3, 2023, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0074-27402880016-X. Failla’s preference is in Failla to Binks, ICRP Archives, Box 039, ISO-ICU 1958.pdf, 47–50. Failla consulted Committee 1, which included two geneticists, before the new recommendations were written, ibid., 51–2.

  131. 131.

    “Maximum permissible doses for occupational exposure,” Sub-Committee on Radiobiology of the German Atomic Commission to Sievert, Bad Godesberg, February 6, 1958, ICRP Archives, Box 039, ISO-ICU 1958.pdf, 134–5.

  132. 132.

    Holthusen to Sievert, “Recommendations of the ICRP,” January 21, 1958, Taylor, note 3 above, 8-411-16 at 8-416. The English translation of the letter is also at ICRP Archives, Archive file 23, Sect. Correspondence 1.8.57-31.12.58.pdf, 64–71.

  133. 133.

    “The question of the yearly limit was reopened by the members who arrived today.” They were the physicists H. W. Koch and W. V. Mayneord, “Minutes of the ICRP Meetings, ICRU Officers Attending,” ICRP/ICRU/NY/58/14, March 6, 1958, Box A788 Registry, ISO-ICU 1958.pdf, 128–33. Failla prepared a scoping paper for this unusually lengthy meeting: “Suggestions for discussion of Permissible Limits of Exposure by the ICRP at the Meeting of March 3–15, 1958, ICRP/ICRU/58/11, ICRP Archives, Box A788 Registry, ISO-ICU 1958.pdf, 143–60.

  134. 134.

    Note 130, 13.

  135. 135.

    Failla to Sir Ernest Mayneord, September 1, 1958, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 1–11, Archive File 10, Draft recommendations 1958.pdf, 96–100, at 98.

  136. 136.

    Note 108.

  137. 137.

    ICRP and UNSCEAR: some distant memories. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2001;21:57–62. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/21/1/306/pdf, accessed May 21, 2023 Anderson, American physicist Edith Quimby (who worked with Failla at Memorial Hospital and Columbia University), and British epidemiologist Alice Stewart, who linked cancer in children to prenatal X-rays, were in the mid-twentieth century among the few women involved professionally in radiation protection.

  138. 138.

    Conference—FRC—NCRP—NAS—on Fallout. Note 25, 9-093.

  139. 139.

    Sievert to Reuben Gustavson, December 4, 1956, Archive Files 55–65, Archive File 56, 1955–1957 Sievert's Planner.pdf, 72–4.

  140. 140.

    Confidential “Memorandum,” ibid., 70.

  141. 141.

    Taylor to Sievert, December 14, 1956, ibid.

  142. 142.

    Sievert to A. Allen Lough at the U.S. AEC, December 17, 1957, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 12–22, File 22, 5.

  143. 143.

    Taylor does not mention his personal role in Project Gabriel, note 3, but his Health Physics Society obituary does, see Nelson W. Taylor, Warren K. Sinclair, and Robert O. Gorson. In Memoriam: Lauriston S. Taylor. http://hps.org/aboutthesociety/people/inmemoriam/lauristontaylor.html, accessed July 18, 2022.

  144. 144.

    On Muller, see Carlson EA. Genes, Radiation, and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press; 1981:245 and 255. The extension of the LNT hypothesis to cancer effects still arouses opposition, see Calabrese EJ. LNT and cancer risk assessment: its flawed foundations part 1: Radiation and leukemia: where LNT began. Environmental Research. 2021;197(111025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025, accessed May 21, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025, accessed May 21, 2022. Calabrese reviews the evidence existing in the mid-1950s in detail. He is correct about the leftist political influence he claims was at work, but the LNT hypothesis—even if it fits the data as badly as Calabrese claims—is still useful in considering scientific uncertainty and in avoiding the impossible task of attributing responsibility for exceeding a threshold. As for the hormesis Calabrese claims, the scientists should decide that issue. The evidence has been examined repeatedly without a favorable consensus emerging.

  145. 145.

    “Responsibilities of NCRP Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Widespread Radioactive Contamination,” December 3, 1958, Taylor, note 3, 8-188–90. The idea of cutting public exposure to 1/100 of occupational exposure had been bruited for years, see “Minutes of the Plenary Session of the Commission and Committees,” held on Monday, April 9, 1956, at 2.0 p.m. in Salle B, Maison des Congres (International Telecommunications Union) Geneva, ICRP Archive file 27, ICRP correspondence.pdf 1, 145–9, ICRP/56/11, at 3.

  146. 146.

    Statement: The Russell-Einstein Manifesto [Internet]. Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. 1955. Available from: https://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/, accessed May 5, 2022.

  147. 147.

    Carlson, note 136, 366. The specific concern in Muller’s case was his opposition to development of the hydrogen bomb. It was at this conference, however, that Western scientists made their first contacts with Soviet counterparts, whom they viewed as on the same wavelength with regard to essential issues like maximum permissible concentrations of radioactive isotopes, see K.Z. Morgan to [F.G.] Krotkov, Taylor, note 3 above, 8-260. Morgan there opened the door to a participation by a Soviet scientist in the ICRP subcommittee on internal doses that he chaired. By 1956, M.N. Pobedinski had joined Morgan’s committee and confirmed that the ICRP norms were already being applied in the Soviet Union, “Minutes,” note 137, at 8.

  148. 148.

    Wittner LS. Adlai Stevenson Had a Peace Proposal … Shouldn’t Democrats Today? | History News Network [Internet]. historynewsnetwork.org, available from: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/28611, accessed May 5, 2022.

  149. 149.

    Wittner LS. Blacklisting Schweitzer. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1995 May;51(3):55. https://www.albany.edu/news/pdf_files/0903_Blacklisting_Schweitzer.pdf, accessed May 5, 2022.

  150. 150.

    Ibid.

  151. 151.

    Laucht C. Scientists, the Public, the State, and the Debate Over the Environmental and Human Health Effects of Nuclear Testing in Britain, 1950–1958. The Historical Journal. 2015 Dec 9;59(1):221–51.

  152. 152.

    The Right to Petition—Linus Pauling and the International Peace Movement [Internet]. scarc.library.oregonstate.edu. Available from: http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/peace/narrative/page27.html, accessed May 6, 2022.

  153. 153.

    Evangelista M. Unarmed Forces the Transnational Movement to End the Cold War. Cornell University Press; 1999:56.

  154. 154.

    Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. General Assembly Official Records: Thirteenth Session 1958 Supplement No. 17 (A/3838) (New York: United Nations) [Internet]. United Nations: Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Available from: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1958.html, accessed April 30, 2023. See especially para 54 and associated footnotes, on p. 41. See also Lindell B, Sowby D. The 1958 UNSCEAR Report. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2008;28:277–82. as well as Hercules, note 53, 218–22 for Bo Lindell’s first-hand account of the meetings leading up to the report.

  155. 155.

    The (darkly) comedic rejection of the Indian draft is recounted in Sowby D. ICRP and UNSCEAR: Some Distant Memories. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2001;21:57–62. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/21/1/306/pdf, accessed May 21, 2023.

  156. 156.

    Higuchi T. Political Fallout. Stanford University Press; 2020:134.

  157. 157.

    “Permissible Somatic Dose for the General Population (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to the NCRP), May 6, 1959, Taylor, Appendix P.

  158. 158.

    Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Research, Development, and Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic energy of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 87th Congress, Second Session, on Radiation Standards, including Fallout, JUNE 4, 5, 6, AND 7, 1962, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16367058.pdf, accessed August 13, 2023.

  159. 159.

    Higuchi, note 156, 158.

  160. 160.

    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization. 30 October 1961—the Tsar Bomba [Internet]. www.ctbto.org, available from: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/30-october-1961-the-tsar-bomba/, accessed June 24, 2022.

  161. 161.

    Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (As Amended 1959 and Revised 1962). ICRP Publication 6. 1964; Oxford: Pergamon Press. The next revision, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Adopted September 17, 1965). ICRP Publication 9. Oxford: Pergamon Press was largely a codification of the two previous ones.

  162. 162.

    Sievert to Pochin, May 4, 1960, ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive files 25, 180–181.

  163. 163.

    Hercules, note 53, 97.

  164. 164.

    American Standards Association, Subcommittee N6.9, 1965 Compilation of National and International Nuclear Standards, (Excluding U.S. Activities), ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive Files 29, 11–25.

  165. 165.

    “Statement of the need for an enlarged scope of activity for the ICRP and ICRU,” Taylor, note 3, 8-399.

  166. 166.

    Taylor, note 3, 7-244; for Failla’s ambition, “Minutes of the Opening Session of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” April 3, 1956, ICRP/56/9, 8-294.

  167. 167.

    Taylor, note 3, 7-253–8 and 8-271–5 (Academy), 8-243 and 8-288–90 (Organization), 8-389–94 (Institute) and 8-460 (Foundation). Sievert originally hoped to find the financing from insurance companies, which had an interest because the ICRP’s “recommendations have hitherto been widely accepted as the basis of national ‘codes of practice.’ Where such codes are adopted, responsibility for accidents can often be repudiated.” But his efforts succeeded only modestly with the Swedish insurance companies, so he refocused on the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

  168. 168.

    The ICRP/ICRU study commissioned by UNSCEAR was published as Exposure of Man to Ionizing Radiation Arising from Medical Procedures. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1957;2(2):107–51. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/2/2/301, accessed August 22, 2023.

  169. 169.

    Meeting of the Executive Committee of the NCRP with the Director of the National Bureau of Standards, May 12, 1959, Taylor, note 3, 8-219–26.

  170. 170.

    Ibid., Comment by LST, 8-228.

  171. 171.

    Annual Meeting of the Executive Committee (1962), note 3, 9-099–100.

  172. 172.

    Organization and Operational Procedures of the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ibid., 8-218–19.

  173. 173.

    Note 169, at 8-221.

  174. 174.

    Ibid., at 822.

  175. 175.

    Ibid.

  176. 176.

    “Minutes of the NCRP Executive Committee Meeting, November 16, 1959,” Taylor, note 3, 8-238–41.

  177. 177.

    “NCRP Activity Report (1959) and Membership,” Communication No. 59, October 6, 1959, Taylor, note 3, 8-233.

  178. 178.

    “Discussion of NCRP Organization Problems,” NCRP/M-E/60/10, May 12, 1960, in Taylor, note 3, at 9-021. Overall, 1/6 of NCRP committee and subcommittee members were government employees, see the memo from Lauriston Taylor to the NCRP Main and Executive Committees, NCRP/M-E/60/14, June 10, 1960, 9-027–30, at 9-029.

  179. 179.

    “Legislative Aspects of Radiation Standards—Role of NCRP and Government,” Address of Congressman Chet Holifield, Chairman of the Special Radiation subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy—presented at the fifth Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Boston, Massachusetts, June 30, 1960, Taylor, note 3, 9-039–43.

  180. 180.

    This was implicit earlier in the NCRP’s reluctance to set a maximum permissible limit for the general population, but Taylor made it explicit in a note of September 27, 1963, to Secretary of Health Education and Welfare Anthony Celebrezze, who chaired the FRC, see Taylor, note 3, 9-126–7. It had become largely irrelevant by then, because of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed the month before.

  181. 181.

    For the lawyer’s reversal of position, see “Synopsis of Conference on the Problems of NCRP – NBS – FRC Relationships,” July 21, 1960, in Taylor, note 3, 9-044–45. For the takeover propositions, see Taylor, note 3 above, 9-045–51. For one weighing of the options, Taylor, 9-078–85. For the final legislation, “Public Law 88-376, 88th Congress, H.R. 10437, An Act to incorporate the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements,” Taylor, note 3, 9-145–9.

  182. 182.

    The “Bylaws,” Taylor, note 3, 9-153–60 and the Policy on Collaborating Organizations, 9-204–15.

  183. 183.

    Ibid.

  184. 184.

    International Commission on Radiological Protection, Minutes of the Opening Plenary Session, April 3, 1956, ICRP/56/9, Taylor, note 3, at 8-294.

  185. 185.

    “Excerpt from Report of Study Group on Mental Health Aspects of the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,” WHO/MH/AE/2, 1 April 1958, p. 42, as reproduced in Taylor, note 3, 8-468.

  186. 186.

    Sievert to Members of the Main Commission of the ICRP, ICRP/58/21, Stockholm, May 17, 1958, in Taylor, note 3, 8-467.

  187. 187.

    Sievert to Taylor, Stockholm May 3, 1958, Taylor, note 3, 8-466.

  188. 188.

    Originals of some of the replies are in ICRP Archives, Archive Files 55–65, Archive File 57, part 1.pdf, 2-146. Radiologist Sir Ernest Rock Carling, a former ICRP chair, stated: “Unless it be possible to induce the United Nations Organization to recognise I.C.R.P (as attached to W.H.O.) as the authoritative body, I can see no hope for its continuance, unless the ten million dollars of which you speak can be found.” Sievert’s own views are there too.

  189. 189.

    The responses from Rock-Carling, Binks, Holthusen, Jaeger, and Stone are at Taylor, note 3, 8-468–76.

  190. 190.

    “Report of the Secretary-General on the strengthening and widening of scientific activities in the field of the effects of atomic radiation,” A/3864, 6 August 1958, in Taylor, note 3, 8-487.

  191. 191.

    “Minutes of ICRP Meeting, ICRU Officers Attending,” New York, N.Y., Saturday, March 8, 1958, ICRP/ICRU/NY/58/16, ICRP Archives, Box A788 Registry, ISO-ICU 1958.pdf, 117–23.

  192. 192.

    “Report on the informal meeting of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements (ICRU) in New York, June 2-7, 1958,” in Taylor, note 3, 8-489–90.

  193. 193.

    “ICRP Meeting with Delegations from Other Agencies,” Taylor, note 3, 8-497–8 and 8-501–6, the “2nd draft of Swedish Resolution to UN,” September 11, 1958, Taylor, note 3, 8-488–9, and “Comments on Sievert Proposal,” in a memorandum from John A. Hall, Acting Assistant General Manager for International Activities, to Philip J. Farley, Department of State, October 23, 1958, Taylor, note 3, 8-494–5. A version of Sievert’s proposal is also in ICRP Archives, Box 040, Various 1954–59 A.pdf, 192–7.

  194. 194.

    “Conditions for the publication by the Pergamon Press of Reports of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and Its Committees,” October 14, 1958, Taylor, note 3, 8-508.

  195. 195.

    News from the Ford Foundation, for release October 10, 1960, Taylor, note 3, 9-307.

  196. 196.

    The finances are reported in ICRP Publication 6. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as Amended in 1959 and Revised 1962). Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1964:2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0074-27406480004-0, accessed September 18, 2022. Henri Jammet reported the IAEA’s agreement in “Representation of the ICRP at the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency” (Translation from the French), ICRP/59/22 Appendix, ICRP Archives, Box A788 Registry, “Report on Decisions at 1959 Meeting.pdf,” 12–14.

  197. 197.

    Constitution of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Approved at a meeting of the Commission at Como, Italy in September 1987; https://www.icrp.org/docs/Constitution.pdf, accessed August 11, 2023.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA

    Daniel Serwer

Authors
  1. Daniel Serwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Serwer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Serwer, D. (2024). War Generates Radioactive and Political Fallout, 1939–1965. In: Strengthening International Regimes. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53724-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation