Statement of Senator John Glenn Before Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments

Page 1

Statement of Senator John Glenn before Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the Federal Government's and Congress' role in addressing the human radiation experiments. I would say at the outset that your Committee has a tremendous job ahead of it. And you each have my sincere thanks for taking on this assignment. Together, we have the important task of helping our Government "come clean" about a segment of our nation's history that is, As one who supported the nuclear arms buildup during the Cold War - which in part contributed to the environment that allowed these experiments to occur - I was nonetheless shocked, surprised and saddened when I found out late last year of the extent of these radiation experiments. It is inconceivable to me that even at the height of the "Communist Threat," our scientists, doctors, military and, perhaps, political leaders approved some of these experiments to be conducted on an unwitting public. An unfortunate analogy to the radiation experiments is the cleanup problems we now face with the DOE weapons complex. For forty years, our primary goal was Produce, Produce - we needed to build nuclear weapons to deter the Russians. It didn't matter what waste was generated; or whether we put our own workers in unsafe conditions - we would deal with those problems later. Well, now is later. We are faced with a cleanup bill that by some estimates could exceed $200 billion. In some cases - like the high level waste tanks at Hanford and Savannah River -we don't know what to do with this waste. Apparently, the Cold War mentality which allowed us to give such callous disregard to the environment around the nuclear weapons plants, also created an atmosphere that allowed such experiments to be conducted. And only now are we beginning to address the aftermath of this Cold War mentality. It will be up to you, in large part, to provide guidance for the Working Group and Congress on what our appropriate responses should be. Let me stress that it is clear to me that the general principles established by the Nuremburg Trials were well known throughout the U.S.during the 50s and 60s, even though they are not yet codified in law, today. I simply do not accept the defense which some advocates of these experiments have advanced - that informed consent could be foregone because the radiation exposure was low. The humanitarian principles of medicine and research were then, as they are now, "Above all, do no harm" as well as, I would like to briefly describe my own background and interest in this issue.

Page 2

I have chaired at least 15 GAC hearings between 1979-91 on Radiation Protection and related issues. Topics covered: - Fragmented and overlapping federal agency regulation of radiation protection; - Effects of low levels of radiation on human health, including atomic veterans, downwinders,nuclear workers, and children exposed to X-rays. - Problems with DOEs radiation effects research program - Safety and health issues at DOEs nuclear facilities. 1989 GAC Majority Staff Report, "Early Health Problems of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Industry and Their Implications for Today" - Found that serious public health problems stemming from exposure to radioactive particles and gases were occurring in U.S. uranium process workers as early as 1947. - Called for DOE to disclose all records of past events that might have put the health of workers and the public at risk. 1992 Hearing on Federal Regulation of Medical Radiation - Examined gaps in federal regulation of medical radiation November 1993 GAO Report, Nuclear Health and Safetv: Examples of Post World War II Radiation Releases at U.S. Nuclear Sites - Conducted at Governmental Affairs Request - Uncovered 12 additional "planned radiation releases" at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and January 1994 - Hearing on Human Radiation and Other Scientific Experiments 1) Historical Radiation Experiments 2) Current Radiation Experiments (DOE reported of 175 experiments involving human subjects, 41 involved radiation) 3) Other types of experiments involving human subjects, and whether appropriate controls and informed consent procedures are in place. I would urge your Advisory Committee to keep an open mind regarding the scope of your inquiry. For example, you are tasked with looking at the so-called "planned releases" of radiation, like the Green Run at Hanford and other experiments identified by the GAO in their 11/93 study. Should other similar tests be unearthed, I would expect those to be considered too. I understand that some groups of people, like the Marshall Islanders, DOE workers, and the Atomic Veterans are to be excluded from your scope. I would urge

Page 3

you, thought, to keep an open mind as you proceed with your inquiry. For example, documents have been recently declassified indicating that inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, specifically on Uterik atoll, may have been allowed by the U.S. government to return to their island following the Bravo shot for the express purpose of determining what effects the residual radiation and fallout would have on them. If true, it seems to me that this event would fall under your defmition of "human radiation experiment." Other historians and analysts familiar with the U.S. atmospheric test program in the Pacific have presented evidence before Congress indicating that fallout patterns may have been much larger than officially acknowledged; therefore, more islanders may have been exposed. As a result the AEC/DOE medical program for these islanders could be I raise this issue, not because I want to make your job more complicated than it already is. But it is clear to me that for your advice and decisions to be credible, you must allow your inquiry and records review to follow a logical path. And consideration of the issues I have just raised seems to me to consistent with your charter. I have asked the General Accounting Office to study the Administration's plans to locate, analyze, and make public this information. I would encourage yon to work with the GAO and make use of their expertise in auditing data and processing information. They are a resource for both you and the Congress. It is likely that your recommendations will lead to a legislative proposal to be submitted to the Working Group and then to Congress regarding compensation. Therefore, as you begin your work you should keep in mind the practical implications of your advice. The Congress will be very interested in your thoughts, not only on compensation, but should you have proposals for changes in current law regarding the use and protection of human subjects in research, we would certainly like to hear about The volume of documents you have to review is substantial. The number of agencies' involved makes even the-most general observations difficult. And the bureaucratic obstacles will be daunting. On top of this, scrutiny by the media and the public will be constant. Given these pressures, you are tasked with providing a voice of informed reason. It will be a tough job. Many people may expect your work to be completed in one year. It is clear to me, though, that this job may take longer than that. Should you requke more time, you have my word that I will support any necessary extension of your charter. Good Luck. And I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.