fit analysis. It is essential, however, that these problems remain under constant review, to observe, record, and evaluate all relevant new data, in order to insure that the estimation of risk from radiation in exposed populations be as precise as possible. VIII. Summary Cancer induction is considered to be the only source of somatic risk that needs to be taken into account in setting radiation protection standards for the general population. Despite many uncertainties, an approximate estimate of overall cancer mortality can be made on the basis of follow-up studies on Japanese atomic bomb survivors and patients treated with radiation for diseases other than cancer. In these populations, the excess mortality from all forms of cancer corresponds to roughly 50-165 deaths per 106 persons per rem during the first 25-27 years after irradiation. By extrapolation, it can be estimated that the number of deaths per 0.17 rem per year in the entire U.S. population might range roughly from 3,000 to 15,000 with the most likely value falling in the range of 5,000 to 7,000 (or 3,500 per 0.1 rem per year). It is emphasized that the risk estimates lack precision but do indicate that the mean dose both to the population and to each individual must be kept as low as practicable. REFERENCES (1) Federal Radiation Council, Implications to Man of Irradiation by Internally Deposited Strontium-89, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137, a report of an advisory committee from the Division of Medical Sciences: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Washington, D.C., Federal Radiation Council, 1964. (2) International Commission on Radiological Protection. The Evaluation of Risks from Radiation. Health Physics, 12:239-302, 1966. (International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiosensitivity and Spatial Distribution of Dose. ICRP Publication 14. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1969. (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report. General Assembly, Official Records: 17th Session, Supplement No. 16 (A/5216), New York 1962. (5) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report. General Assembly. Official Records: 19th Session, Supplement No. 14 (A/5814), New York, 1964. (6) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report. General Assembly. Official Records: 21st Session Supplement No. 14 (A/6314), New York 1966. (7) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of. Atomic Radiation. Report. General Assembly, Official Records; 24th Session, Supplement No. 13 (A/7613). New York, 1969. (8) National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements. Basic Radiation Protection Criteria. NCRP Report No. 39. National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements. Washington, D.C.. 1971. Honorary Doctor of Science from Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, I11. for achievement in the field of science and distinguished efforts in research, June, 1961 Certificate of Appreciation The American College of Surgeons, Certificate of Merit - awarded by the American Medical Association, Section on Preventive Medicine, for the Scientific Exhibit presented at the AMA, Clinical Session meeting, December, 1958 Honorary Member Beta Beta Beta Biological Honor Society, 1965 Outstanding Unit Award, U. S. Air Force, Armed Forces Institute Pathologist, Laboratory of Pathology, NCI, Bethesda, Maryland Consultant in Pathology, Division of Biology and Medicine, Special Consultant (by invitation) to British Guiana, S.A. Chief, Radiation Biology, Research Branch, Division of Chairman, Editorial Committee, Division of Radiological Health Director, Registry of Radiation Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center Chief, Radiopathology Division I, AFIP, and US PHS Representative Chairman, Review Committee of Uranium Miners Report, Federal Member of Subcommittee on Effects of Radiation on the Thyroid Gland, Chief, Population Studies Program National Center for Radiological Health Member, Advisory Committee, Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, Consultant, D/HEW, Bureau of Radiological Health Present Position: Principal Staff Officer, Division of Medical Sciences, 1. College of American Pathologists, Fellow, elected 1959, Dr. HILBERG. I shall be happy to respond to any questions which the subcommittee may have concerning the published reports. I would also like to extend the apologies of Dr. Radford who is the chairman of the BEIR Committee for the Division of Medical Sciences, who was unable to be here with us today. Mr. RYAN. Dr. Taylor? We would be pleased to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF LAURISTON S. TAYLOR, M.D., PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HYMER FRIEDELL, VICE PRESIDENT Dr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be invited to appear before you and to provide some testimony relating specifically to the needs of the Environmental Protection Agency and to some of the associated problems. In doing this we bring to your attention some of the viewpoints of a nongovernmental organization that over the years has had varied and extensive dealings with the operations of many portions of the Federal Government. My name is Lauriston S. Taylor and I am the recent past president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, a position that I had held since 1964. Unfortunately the current president, Dr. Warren Sinclair, has had to be out of the country in Vienna where he is serving as a member of the American Delegation to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Since it was not possible for him to be in attendance, Dr. Sinclair has asked that I address your committee. As an official representative of the NCRP, I have with me Dr. Hymer Friedell, a member of the Council and its predecessor organization since 1946 and currently vice president of the NCRP. Following are the elements of my background of experience pertinent to questions under discussion during these hearings: I have been a member, chairman, and president of the NCRP and its forerunners since their establishment in 1929, and I have been present at every meeting held during that period. I am one of the founding members of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and an active member since 1928 during which time I have missed only one meeting during that period. In 1927 I was asked to come to the National Bureau of Standards for the specific purpose of developing a program on radiation protection and radiation measurement-the first such program in the U.S. Government. In due course I became chief of the Bureau's Atomic and Radiation Physics Division until 1962 when I was made an Associate Director, a position from which I retired after 2 years. Rather than take your time now, I will make a somewhat more detailed biographical sketch available for the hearing record. I will mention, only briefly, the background of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements-NCRP-and submit some additional material covering its work and operations which I would like to have included in the hearing record. [See app. 2.] Dr. TAYLOR. The NCRP, originally organized in 1928, had its first meeting in 1929 under the name of Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection. It was renamed the National Council on Radiation Protection when it was reconstituted and enlarged in December 1946. The organization has been in continuous operation for 50 years. The primary mission of the NCRP may be described as one of providing an organization and mechanism for the development of basic radiation protection concepts and general philosophy through the consolidation of viewpoints from a very large segment of the scientific community experienced in the matters of ionizing radiation. At the present time the Council carries on its roll some 385 members and committee members; since its original formation it has included some 560 members from throughout the United States. All of the basic radiation protection standards now in use in this country have been derived from the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection. These have been made freely available to the public through the distribution of some 12 million copies of over 60 reports or other documents. There are some six or possibly eight committees all of whose efforts are directed toward analyzing, evaluating, and trying to resolve some of the problems involved in population exposure to ionizing radiation and to nonionizing radiation to an increasing degree. In dealing with the broad questions such as those covered in our discussions with the General Accounting Office, the NCRP tries to, and feels that it does, occupy a somewhat detached position with regard to those problems which are primarily of an administrative or organizational nature. In addition the NCRP feels that it has no position on such controversial matters as to whether we should or should not have nuclear power. That's a question that we do not deal with as such. If we have nuclear power, and it produces a radiation hazard or if it needs radiation measurements, we will try to solve those problems. We don't care if it's from nuclear power or from a hospital or whatever. On the other hand, and now this deals with the kind of report you listened to from Mr. Eschwege, the collective experience of NCRP is so vast that it cannot help but have some developed opinions and feelings relative to matters which it really regards as organizational matters not necessarily scientific. These are the EPA types of problems that we've heard about. The GAO report as a whole appears to be factual and thorough. Probably the main point on which we have a sharp difference of opinion would center around the concept of EPA, or any other single agency, being designated as the principal agency in a field as technically and administratively complicated as that of ionizing radiation. Our reasons for this stem to a considerable extent from our extensive experience with the Government generally and with the FRC in its original days, and 1970 in particular. We are impressed with the statement in the first sentence of the opening paragraph of the GAO report, entitled "Radiation Danger," where it states that the biological damage to humans depends, among other things, on the time period of exposure. This is a technical point-it is a critical point-frequently overlooked, misunderstood, or exaggerated. It is quite correct that the temporal distribution of radiation plays an important role on the overall effect of radiation, and it is for this reason that the grossly overused model known as the "linear nonthreshold concept" has to |