Documentary Update: Nepa Planning/Total Body Irradiation/Psychological Testing (Attachment: List (Tab I-2))

Page 1

TO: Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments FROM: Advisory Committee Staff RE: Documentary Update: NEPA Planriing/TotaI Body Irmdiation/Psychological In prior memos,' Advisory Committee staff described the 1949-50 discussions regarding proposed human experimentation in connection with the development of the nuclear powered airplane (Air Force program known as Nuclear Energy Propulsion for Airplanes or NEPA). We recently acquired and attach for your review some transcripts of the actual discussions .of the NEPA Advisory Committee. Following its initial deiiberations, the NEPA Advisory Committee prepared a summary of relevant prior radiation research, also attached. F,or example, the "Tabulation of Available Data to Radiation Biology" includes case by case summaries of These materials provide a window into discussions of mid-century experimental "needs," the human experimental program that was actually implemented in the 1950's by the Department of Defense (DOD), and some of the personalities and institutions involved. The April 3, 1949 (Attachment 2) and May 14, 1949 (Attachment 3) NEPA Advisory Committee transcripts provide background to the 1950's TBI program. The transcripts indicate that prior radiation research on ill patients was thought to be inadequate, and therefore, research had to be conducted on healthy subjects. Thus, the turn to a discussion of the ethics of experimentation may have been precipitated by the desire to obtain data from healthy subjects instead of sick patients. As discussed in the November Briefing Book TBI materials (Briefing Book No. 8, Tab G), once the decision against NEPA "human experimentation" was reached, DOD nonetheless proceeded to study sick patients. The contract justification for A i r Force work with M.D. Anderson shows this was done based on the theory that this was not "human See Bncfing Book No. 5 , Tab F; see also Gil Whitternore's article, also in Bricfing Book No 4, Tab E, titled, A Ctj'sIaI Ball 111 die Sliado\c~sof Nureniberg and Hirosirinin. Tile E h c a l Debate Over Hioiioti Experri)ieritarioiiIO

Page 2

experimentation" and was thus exempt from the prohibition then extant concerning NEPA-related The May transcript, shows an interest in obtaining the results of relevant prior German The July 22, NEPA Subcommittee transcript (Attachment 4) focuses on discussion of "whether or not the radiation hazard represents a unique problem psychologically." (p. 8) The transcript shows that there was considerable concern that radiation was perceived as unduly risky, as well as discussion of the psychology of risk. The discussion in this transcript appears to be a thread that would lead to the 1950's psychological testing of troops at bombs tests and TBI patients as a part of radiation experimentation. The discussion of risk perception has a strikingly Military and civilian scientists were confident in their use own basic understanding of radiation, yet profoundly troubled and puzzled by the public's lack of comprehension. "We know," said the AEC's Colonel Cooney, "just about as much.about it a s we do about "it is very important to stay away fiom chronic doses of radiation day after day, because it is bad . . . But there is certainly a difference between a man who is working thirty years and a man who is getting one acute exposure. I think this can be well compared with other hazards of war." (p. 12) Yet, said the Navy's Captain Behrens, there is a "definite psychological problem associated with radiation which is ailied to, I believe, to the general fear of something that is mysterious." (p. 13) The Navy's Commander Harris was dedicated to "finding some solution that will begin to meet rhe obvious, really tremendous, psychological implications of atomic, and in a On the other hand, the researchers observed, public ignorance mirrored their own thirst for knowledge. Researchers "put the emphasis on what we don't know. . . So the idea is developed and passed around that we know little or nothing, whereas actually we have a considerable amount of knowledge." (p. 2 1) The University of California's Dr. Bowman agreed. "The dangers have been enormously magnified . . . we have emphasized for purposes of getting Civilians, said Dr. Dorcus, a UCLA psychologist, question "whether the medica! group have actually discovered thus far all the effects of radiation on human beings . . . that is going to be one of the most insidious things to combat." (p. 17-18) "[Wlhat," Dr. Sells, ofthe Air Force asked, "is the proper evaluation of the ethical question as to how to treat the possible or probatAe

Page 3

unknown effects?" (p. 18) While not answering the question, he observed that "certainly we can create more anxiety by being scientifically scrupulous than if we simply treated these matters as we are inclined to treat other matters in our everyday life." (p. 18)

Page 4

List of Attachments Attachment 1: The NEPA Medical Advisory Panel. "Tabulation of Available Data Relative to Radiation Biology" Report No. NEPA 10191ER-17. July 20, 1949. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 46p. Attachment 2: NEPA Advisory Committee on Radiation Tolerance of Military Personnel. Proceedings. Report No. NEPA- 1011-IER- 16. Attachment 3: Executive Panel of the NEPA Medical Advisory Committee. Proceedings. Report No. NEPA 1043-ER-18 . May 14,1949. Attachment 4: NEPA Medical Advisory Panel Subcommittee No. E. Proceedings. Report No. NEPA 1110-IER-20. July 22, 1949.

Page 5

The NEPA Medical Advisory Panel. "Tabulation of Available Data Relative to Radiation Biology" Report No. NEPA 10191ER-17. July 20, 1949. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 46p.

Page 7

Tabulation of Available Data Compiled for NEPA The NEPA Medical Advisory Panel

Page 8

. . Generic Changes in Human Spem and Eggs, TABLE OF CONTENTS The NEPA Medical Advisory Panel ............................... iv ................... ........Iiistogenetic and Generic Effect Table I 9 Effect of Irradiation upon Gonads .................. Table II. ....... 10 Incidence of Leukemia ........................ Table 111 ....... 11 Acute Total Body Irradiation of R u s with Mortalicy Table ............................. Table VLI ...... 18

Page 9

TABULATION OF AVAILABLE DATA RELATIVE TO RADL4TION BIOLOGY . .._ The NEPA Medical Advisory Panel Members and Consultants: Andrew H. Dowdy, M.D., Los Angeles, California Rupert S. Anderson, Ph.D., Vermillion, South Dakoca G. Failla, DSc., New York, New York Roberr S. stone, M.D., San Francisco, California Scafford L. Warren, M.D., Los Angeks, California Titus C. Evans, Ph.D., Iowa Ciry, Iowa Consultant htembers From The Acomic Energy Commission Alexander Hollaender, Ph.D., Oak Ridge, Tennessee 'L..F.'Ninu;;' Ph.D., Upton, Long Island, New York Wright hgham, Ph.D.. Los Akmos, New Mexico

Page 10

T h e NEPA Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, operating under the joint sponsorship of the United States Air Force and the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy Deparrment, and working with the cooperation of the Atomic Energy Commission, has been given the responsibility of conducting analyses and experimental investigations leading toward the assessment of the feasibilit). and practicality of applying nuclear energy to the propulsion of aircrafi or missiles of military imporrance, and afso to s d y the servicing problems conneaed therewith. .. Since power reactors musr be shielded to protect personnel in their vicinity against nuclear radiations, and since luge m&cs are required for h e i r shielding, the shield becomes one of the most critical items of weight in the design of the nuclear power planc !or the inhabited rype aircraft, and hence has a tew important bearing on the design, the size, and the cost of the airplane itself. Shield weight becomes of less significance in . the design of the unmanned types of aircraft. Cenainly an accurate knowledge isnceded of all criteria upon which various shielding designs r i l l be based. For the inhabited types of aircraft, the perwissible levels of exposureto radiation of the operating personnel w i l l establish an important design requirement for the shield. The levels of exposure t o ionizing radiation as established for civilians during peacetime conditions and prevailing at stationary piles or in research laboratories are not applicable to the rniliruy aircraft problem. S k c e the effects of radiationon the human body u e to some u t e n t cumulauve, &e permissible levels of exposure of the laboratory rocker and technician u e quite small, and rightly so, since they sxe based on possible daily exposures over a period of many years. G e w s of nuclear airctifi on the other hand need only to be exposed to radiation for a limited a d c r of flying hours during the conduct of a milit vy campaign. In order to obtain the best information available at present on the effecrs of various doses of ionizing radiation on the human body, as well u to formulate any necessar). additions t o the national program of radiobioIogica1 research, the NEPA Project has formed, with the cooperation of the Atomic Energy Commission, an Advisory Panel of experts in the fields of biology, radiobiology, biophysics, medicine and generics. T h e composition of this Panel is Iisred on Page of this repon. Their wealth of experience in various fields of specialization eminently qualifies them for heir responsibilities. Since no one knou-s precisely how much radiation the avenge hurean can reasonably tolerate, it became NEPA's task to seek out these ansvms. Initially, we are interested in obtaining radiobiological data which rill make possible the prediction of immediate and delayed reactions of the human body exposed co various levels of whole-body radiation. It was realized at the outset that figures representing radiation levels for specific physiological effects in man could not be arrived at solely on the basis of detailed data on laboratory animals and that only rough estimates CUI be made from the lhited informrA t the first meeting of the NEPA Medical Advisory Panel, held ia Chicago June 23, 1948, it was decided to s w e y as comprehensireiy as possible che present knowledge ol .the biological effects of ionizing radiations and to prepare a summary of data that would furnish useful information to the NEPA Project. hiany months were spent in rhe celleerion, compila,tion, evaluation and revision of the data presented herewith in tabular form, and the task represents the concened effort of a number of individuals whose assistance is

Page 11

acknovledged elsewhere. The work of assembling che available dam was done by a subcommittee to which all members conrribured not only che results of rheir own work, bur in s o m e insunccs tables which were compiled by workers who are not members of the Panel. Due tothe s p e c i d conditions prevailing in che Atomic Energy field with respect LO securiry, all credits m d references could not be given in full h m unclassified report of this After the pertinent exposure dPta had been compiled in tabular form, the Commiaee met LO assess the data aad to form their conclusions into 8 broad scale of the expected biological effects of various single doses of radiation on the human body. n e s e conclusions u e presented in the smmuy of this rcpa Ce& difficulties uise in artwpting to c r w f e r radiobiological dam obuined on ' lower animals to mm. The problem of usessiag the m a o m of damage which w i l l result t o the humur body exposed to various levels of mixed radiation is complicated by the . 1. A single acute' dose of total-body radiation is more damaging than a similu total dose given fractionally or repeated in smaller doses. 2. T h e total-body dose of radiation received as an acute or fractional exposure . varies from animal to animal m d from one member to another of the same species. 3. It is difficult to evaluate radiation damage from n e m n s in the terms of roentgen equivdenu, since the N to r ratio varies from tissue to tissue and from one 4. It is difficult LO estimate ucurately tire energy specmm of neutrons emerging through the shield of a chain reactor. 5. It is difficult to eoal~utethe additive effects of gamma rays plus neuuons in ma exposure of mixed radiation. It is, therefore, impracticalon the basis of present data t o predict with great accuracy what will happen to human beings exposed to mixed radiations such as. are anticipated from power piles. While some data on che e f f e a s of whole-body radiation on m m have been obtained, these are few and fragmentary, md, for the most part, have been obtained on sick individuals. Some inform&on of questionable value has been obcained as 8 result of occasiond accidents and mass exposures, such as occuued at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, obviously the dosage in those cases could not be 8CCUtely determined. Such d + n have not been included in the present compilation. . The estimates of predicted radiation injury to man are based hrgely upon experimentation on lower animals, empirical observations and c h i c d investigation. Since rhere u e many blank spaces in our data on lower animals, however, exuapolation LO man cannot ' . b e made with asstrrance, but informed estimues c ~ l lbe re8ched. . ' It is hoped that the efforcs of the comrqiaee in preparing these daca will be of interest to other groups working on si& g h h t e d aspects of atomic energy and radiation biology, and that this .preliminary repon will form the b u i s for emended studies. It is our intention to add to rhese data and to revise d refine the estimates on human injury 8 S additional information is obnhed. This irrformauon will be compiled m d pubiished when circumstmces warrant. In the meantime, we believe &e estimates given are as

Page 12

'. The Project wishes to express its sincere appreciatioa.co the members of the NEPA Medical Advisory Panel for their work, and in parricular to its Chairman, Dr. Andrew Dowdy, upon whose broad shoulders fell the additional burdens of Commirtee Administration. with the exception of chis introduction, this Report was prepared by the NEPA htedical

Page 13

The genetic hazard i n mice is approximately 1% of bad sperm per IO0 r. nis d u e app+cently excludes recessives rod dominmcs or chromosome mutuions .. - ' ricb s a n d effeas. (Donald Charles). See Appendix, page 37, paragraph 3. ' 1. 50 r doubled mutation frequency of coacrol group. 2. Induced sex-linked lechd mucacion in Drosophila in single exposure of 25 r-1000 r is linea and 1. Chromosome breaks in 1. Mb ici on of mitotic activity in mouse epidermis is 1007. with 35 r .nd 60% ai& 5 r. (Knowlton k Hempelmam, quoted by Laaghrm) 1. The mitotic rare at 8 r drops t o approximately 1/2 and at 64 t to zero. Recovery within afew males. Partial reco , . 2. 3.0 r/day, 6day d week to accumulated total of 1320 rfemale conceived 1. 625 r (fractional) to ovary produced permanent scerilicy.

Page 14

1. 0.1; 0.5; 1.0 and 10.0 r/day, 6 days/weck (x-rays) produced leukemia in 1. Incidence physicians is 0.537; as conuasced to 0.39. in general 2. Incidence in radiologists is 3.97. as coauasted to 0.44% in physicians …