We may summarize in this way. Our knowledge of the effects from the fallout is deficient. We cannot say exactly how many lives may be impaired or shortened. On the other hand, our knowledge is sufficient to state that the fallout effect is below the statistically observable limit. It is also considerably less than the effect produced by moving from sea level to an elevated location like Denver, where cosmic radiation has a greater intensity. It is also less than having a chest X-ray every year. In other words, we know enough to state positively that the danger from the world-wide fallout is less than many other radiation effects which have not worried people and do not worry them now.
We have compared radiation from the fallout with radiation from other sources. It is also possible and helpful to compare the fallout danger with different kinds of dangers. For this purpose it is convenient to express all dangers in terms of a reduced life-expectancy. For example, smoking one pack of cigarettes a day seems to cut one’s life-expectancy by about 9 years. This is equivalent to 15 minutes per cigarette. That cigarettes are this harmful is, of course, not known with certainty. It is a “best guess,” due to Dr. Hardin Jones, based on an analysis of statistical data. A number of Dr. Jones’ statistical findings are listed in the following table:[13]
| Reduced Life Expectancy | |
|---|---|
| Being 10 per cent overweight | 1.5 years |
| Smoking one pack of cigarettes a day | 9 years |
| Living in the city instead of the country | 5 years |
| Remaining unmarried | 5 years |
| Having a sedentary job instead of one involving exercise | 5 years |
| Being of the male sex | 3 years |
| Automobile accidents | 1 year |
| One roentgen of radiation | 5 to 10 days |
| The world-wide fallout (lifetime dose at present level) | 1 to 2 days |
The reader will see that the world-wide fallout is as dangerous as being an ounce overweight or smoking one cigarette every two months.
How people get radiation
Average dose in roentgens per year
The objection may be raised that the fallout, while not yet dangerous, may become so as more nations develop and test atomic weapons. On this point we can only say that the future is not easy to predict. Some factors, however, justify optimism. We are learning how to regulate the fallout by exploding bombs under proper surroundings. Development of clean bombs will greatly reduce the radioactivity produced. Deep underground tests will eliminate fallout altogether. The activity put into the atmosphere in 1954 was considerably greater than the activity released in any other year. It is highly probable that the activity produced by United States tests will continue to decline.
Finally, we may remark that radiation is unspecific in its effects. Chemicals are specific. About the effects of a new ingredient in our diet, in our medicine, or in the air we breathe, we know much less than we know about radiation. If we should worry about our ignorance concerning our chemical surroundings as we worry about the possible effects of radiation, we would be condemned to a conservatism that would stop all change and stifle all progress. Such conservatism would be more immobile than the empire of the Pharaohs.
It has been claimed that it is wrong to endanger any human life. Is it not more realistic and in fact more in keeping with the ideals of humanitarianism to strive toward a better life for all mankind?