Document kDJamJVwDpJDZwbv1jQzY1myn

r &S 114676 BIO-MEDICAL. RESEARCH DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION FORM Duplicate.in all cards: 63- 68 69 (l _________76 year as-1961- File number [Right justify [Numeric only] Author (s), as Last Name. FS (No Punctuation) and coden for journal as JAMA preceeded by one blank space 1 20 21 AO A1 N. 77 78 I-- I Sub-Index Code 60 51 62 11 12 13 Title of Report; end with space-hyphen-hyphen-space. Follow with Index Terms, separated from each other with comma-space. Avoid other punctuation; do not abbreviate. 12 61 62 1__ ' -1 - - VC ?V7. 7C CfaT/ao# \i r, VC , r 21 22 23 2A Source (Journal, Vol., Number, Pages, Date ) 12 f '" ' 1 62 31 32 Brief Summary 12 10 SUMMARY: 61 62 61 62 63 6A J -f ,-T' *44. t-r^^jr^**'*** rv 4 4. Explosive reactior: S,', -- Tov:;V1 ri-.ii* "Nuclear weaporv 2r.1l pi'->.-r-.-iM"or phnomum" lacks mention of m.rU1: rt','U"j's to his position1-*. Moreover, in "following the transition of this article with a uiJely circulated draft {personal communication. 20 March 197S). one senses a post hoc justification for his testimony at the Vi.nJscale nuclear-fuel reprocessing hearings. The conclusions drawn by Logins are unsupported by the analysis. He implies that "power reactors are not an implausible but are rather potentially a peculiarly convenient type of large-scale Pu production reactor". If power reactors were such practical sources, nuclear-weapons states would not be operating Special-purpose military plutonium production reactors -- they would be buying up reactor-grade plutonium for their weapons programmes, instead of storing it in pools. Reactor-grade plutonium is a dangerous substance, able to sustain a nuclear explosion. But Lovins fails to quantify its military value. For governments that contemplate becoming nuclear-weapons states, the accessibility of plutonium is only one factor: Others are the quality of material, the availability of facilities, and the possibility of nuclear-explosive testing. There are numerous disincentives too. For "amateurs", there are hurdles not mentioned by Lovins. In general, plutonium generated in power reactors is not suited for military applications, and unauthorized access has been severely restricted by physical safeguards. His superficial treatment does not elp our common goal of minimizing the ropagation of nuclear weapons, * *- There are some specific technical objections: His introductory paragraphs are not justified by the subsequent analysis. He applies such terms as "unsuitable", "usable", "inferior", and "less than optimal", to power-reactor Pu. He generates a list of "assumptions" that represent selected extremes, later to render them "false". Although he says "We must know exactly what "less than optimal* {Pu for bomb-making] means", he does not define it. Los ins eventually admits that there is "somewhat greater technical difficulty in using power-reactor Pu for effective military bombs." His "conservative assumption" that arbitrarily high even-isotope content will not affect his arguments has been challenged, although Lovins does not mention the contradiction. On that assumption, Lovins proposes that "Pu discharged from power reactors will. . . have major military potential". His Table 2 does not reach high concentrations of the even-plutonium isotopes, thereby preventing the reader from making independent judgements on the efficacy of isotopic denaturing at higher even- isotope concentrations. Independent estimates of dramatic reductions in explosive yield that accompany isotopic dilution*.* are not included in Table 2. He categorizes his choice of parameters as "realistic", thereby dismissing the deleterious fects of other forms of denaturing. Lovins laims that my "analysis of weapons physics seems deeply flawed". That is the entire support he gives to the charge. Yet, his own "weapons physics" is sparse, lacking any equations, and sustained mainly with citations from sources which 1 consider d,-cr. J 'ao.-c. There are man; nii'Ui.derstat.d.r.rs, oversimplifications and omissions in Losir.s' treatment of near-critical fi masses: [he difference bersseen reactivity and excess reactivity; the role of synergistic effects; and his inability to distinguish between laboratory and field developments. I have identified and studied eight phenomena that can adversely affect the yield of an explosive Configuration: critical mass dilution, metallurgical phase change, radial compression, suberitical multiplication, predetonation, generation time, reactivity limit and surface leakage. Lovins ignores most of them. The interpretation that "the least favourable moment cannot get any less favourable" for an explosive yield is contradicted by Poisson statistics -- a predetonatior. contour that Lovins notes but fails to apply. His retreated conception that the "worst cast, minimum, 'fizzle* yield is still. . . `militarily useful' '*. is inconsistent with probability theory. Examination of the citations taken by Lovins from Wohlstetter and Cilinsky indicates the origin of his circular arguments regarding plutonium denaturing. Of the limited official information generally available, most current reviews depend heavily on R.W. Selden's unpublished conclusions, which are self-contradictory. It is incorrect to state "categorically that bombs from reactor-grade or deliberately `denatured* Pu are less effective, less powerful or less reliable than those made from' weaponsgrade Pu". On the other hand, using a term from Lovins, it is "disingenuous" to deny that those attributes may be applied to the average properties of denatured plutonium. I estimate that plutonium can be isotopically denatured as effectively as I,JU or -**U at a given fissile fraction. All reactor fuels and reactor types pose comparable levels of difficulty regarding weapons application, given corresponding safeguards and fissile fractions..Weaknesses of one or the other should be identified and remedied. However, the relative reactor usability and supply of isotopically denatured plutonium is another matter. The point that the "marginal time and money required to use civil reactors for military production are orders of magnitude less than those needed for dedicated military facilities," has an element of truth mixed in with carefree terminology. One must differentiate between base power reactors and small research reactors. Research reactors do indeed provide a hedge, a "civilian cover" for some weapons-gr.yde plutonium production; however, power reactors are self-protected and inaccessible under an appropriate safeguards regime. institutional and technological safeguards can minimize diversion and proliferation. As our respective nations expand their arsenals of destructive weapons, such misplaced concern only adds to irresolution. One can transcend 'some of the dispute by noting that inter national safeguards and a ban on 3!! testing of nuclear weapons are the most promi nent and effective steps that should be taken. A. De V'olpi Argonr.e Xatior.jl Laboratory, Argonr.e, Illinois 2*4. # 2. 34. *>:. r ?-"*,-cr*1, *r 1 #***..* ,7 .? -- t* i!*"*4|. 35. 5*i. y 7 ? * tJ'ij. N-*i 3. Dt %*.;;. //u;/'y'.*-w*' a-.J /Vv-.*..,--. a*J /*,,,, bt X jx.Vjt 4. &ihm. S, Xtiru't 2*7. 57a (I /*)>. Role for ESF? Sir -- One aspect of its work Chat rhe European Science Foundation (ESF) could substantially expand {Soture 20 November 19S0, pages 202. 204) is the sponsoring of scientific conferences and schools, especially in interdisciplinary areas. The association of NATO Advanced Study Institutes and NATO Summer Schools with the NATO military pact is a matter of continuing shame to the academic community. Scientific organizations should be pressing the national governments to agree to the ESF taking over NATO's role in conference sponsorship and funding in Europe. The US side could presumably be accommodated via bilateral N5F-ESF arrangements. Let's end the shameful military link with scholarship forthwith! University College, M.K. Wallis Cardiff. UK 0QOO S&f Theories of cancer Sir -- In reviewing my book77ie Politics of Cancer*, Peto1 charged that one table (Table 6.4) selectively and deliberately mitted data that would otherwise have questioned the conclusion that low dietary doses of saccharin (0.01 per cent) are carcinogenic in rats. This statement is incorrectly based on comparison of Table 6.4 with data in an appendix to the report of the Office of Technology Assessment*. However, the caption of Table 6.4 dearly states that it is based on another table, prepared by Melvin Reuber for use in the congressional testimony on saccharin by the Health Research Croup on 21 March 1977~. Peto persisted in publishing this serious allegation in spite of two warnings. Peto also appears unfamiliar with the content of the Office of Technology Assessment's report, which he cites as the basis for his charges on saccharin. This report explicitly discusses Reuber's low-dose d2ta and his conclusion that "the increased incidence of lymphosarcoma of the thorax in rats at the 0.01 percent, . . are highly significant in the saccharin study**5. Reuber also emphasizes that the carcinogenic effects of saccharin in various studies were not always dose-related. Contrary to Peto's impressions, inversions in dose-response data are not uncommon in both experimental and epidemiological carcinogenicity studies. Reasons for such inversions include competing risks, heterogeneity in tested populations, and statistical fluctuation, particularly when doseresponse curves are shallow. Peto also fails to recognize that saccharin has produced tumours in experimental animals at low as well as at relatively high doses. Contrary to Peto's impression that "it is not surprising that so many chemicals (such as saccharin) at such (high) doses can cause cancer in animals", there is an overwhelming consensus in the qualified, independent R&S 114677 Acumtific community that high-dose testing does no: product false positive results, and that this is necessary to reduce the insensitivity ** of'carcinogenicity tests, reflecting the small number of animals tested compared with large human populations a: presumptive risk*. It is also w ell recognized that carcinogenicity testing in excess of maximally tolerated doses (MTD) can produce false negatives due to competing toxicity. Peto's charge of selective omission of the saccharin data is not his only misrepresentation. After his circulation of drafts of his review to various US experts in the autumn of 1979, Schneiderman, then Associate Director for Science Policy of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and co-author of the government report on the importance of occupational carcinogens7, explained in a letter to Peto that breast cancer correlates as well w-ith Cross National Product as fat, that occupation had been ignored in studies exclusively associating lung cancer with smoking, that there have been major recent increases in lung cancer among non-smokers and that there have been "big and frightening*' recent increases in cancer incidence which cannot be accounted for by smoking or other lifestyle factors. Similarly, Upton, then Director of NCI and a co-author of the report7, challenged the erroneous charge that a **4-5" multiplication factor was used to inflate the 197S government estimates of cancer anticipated from occupational exposures. *\ . . This simply is not true . . ." Repeatedly, Peto dismisses as personal views statements in The Politics ofCancer to which he takes exception, rather than recognizing that they are based on fully referenced primary' sources and without attempting to challenge these sources directly. For instance, he disparages the conciusioh "that the cure rates for major cancers have not been improving much over recent years" without noting that this reflects cited NCI data. Peto refers to the "claims that cancer costs the US economy oxer S25 billion per year" without recognizing that such.figures are derived from NCI sources: Similarly, Peto - criticizes as "misleading or unbalanced** references to the term "medical-industrial' complex" without attribution to its source, referenced and identified in the text (p.77), as the caption of an editorial in The Lancet*. Peto charges that the book denigrates the value of short-term carcinogenicity tests, which he asserts is a "most inexplicable error of scientific judgement*'. While problems of *ueh tests, particularly the limited associations between carcinogenicity and Ames test data for compounds from a wide range of structural classes7-10 are recognized, the book concludes (p.6$) that there is a "range of useful applications" for these tests, particularly when incorporated into battery p-otocols. Peto accepts that industries "delay or ehs:ruct any hygienic measures which will cost money. - - . (and) that the scientific literature i- no: immune from distortion by financial interests". Teio apparently also accepts the wide range of cave studies in The Politics of Cutter, which document a vommon panel,n of .':;t;:air.!S, inclt-d.-.g manipulation, distortion and devruction, ir. health, safety and i., tn m-ic data ____-uted or intetpieted by i- d-:.-:;y and its iiir-jha.v.s. Yet he seems -iiiing to accept studies sponsored or er.docvi by industry as authority for the nearly exclusive lifestyle theory of cancer causation. Moreover, he is opposed to further regulatory controls on grounds of costs, professed "inactive conservatism", and because "for most toxic chemicals, we now have both qualitative and quantitative uncertainty about the health benefits of restriction". This seems a questionable basis for prudent public health policy. Samuel S. Epstein School ofPublic Health. University ofIllinois at the Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois 1. Epxitin. S.S The Polnits ofCancertSictit Club Roots. Sxr Francisco 1971. mixes) and expanded in Anchor/ Doubled*), Sen VorL. 1979. 10 hich quotations refer). 2. Peio. R. .Velum 2*4. 297-3(0 C9S0). 3* Cancer Testing Technology* end Saccharin L\5. Conftexx. W.ihinjion. D.C.. June 7, 1977. 4. Wolfe. S.M. Jobnion. A. Public Citizens Health Research Croup, Testimony Before Subcommttier^on Health. House Commerct Committee Hearings on Saccharin. March 21. 1977. J. Reuter. M.D. Curie. Hlth Pc's,-vet. IS, 17? (197S). 6. Report to the Surfeon General, USPHS. Evaluation of Environmental Carcinogens tAd Hoe Committee on the Evaluation of Lou Lrvelr of Environmental Chemical Carcinofcm. April 22,1970). 7. Bridhord. k. el at Estimates of the Fraction of Cancer in the UntiedStates Fetsled to OccupationalFactors (NCI. National Institute or Ens tronmer.ta! Health Sciences, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, IS September, I97S). I. Lancet is. I3S0 (197?). 9. Rinl ux. S.J. L Lcfatot. M.S. Cancer Res. 39.325911979). 10- Imernetional Program for the Evaluation of Short Term TestsJor Ca'rtnufrnutty National Tosi.'Olojs PiOfram. Dept Of Health and Human Servicm, April, 19S0. The article "Fallacies of lifestyle cancer theories"by S.S. Epstein and J.B. Swartz begins on page 127 of this issue. Spanish science Sir -- The publication (Nature 23 October 1980, p.674) of the Manifesto on the status of science in Spain issued by leading academics and scientists of universities and research institutes is z major event. I would like to make a few comments from the viewpoint of a scientist who has been working closely for over ten years with colleagues at Spanish universities. This is a time of great expectations both nationally and internationally for Spanish science and engineering. Democratic changes and heightened national expectations have opened the door for a major strengthening of scientific, engineering and technological work. The largely dormant past in universities and the undeveloped governmental infrastructure for science are giving way to a healthy stirring throughout the whole syetem. A recent visit to Madrid confirms a vigorous velf-evamination of the structure of research and teaching with significant organizational changes proposed. There is. of course, no unique set of circumstances that will guarantee motivation of faculty and students, but there generally appear to be three esCential elements. Scientists must be assured or government respect for scientific work without political interference; there must be reivon.iblr financial support and job opportunities for rev-archers and graduate students; and theie rnu'i be adequate and respected links between government, universities and public and private research institutions. Only the firs; element is now fit oily in place. Difficulty in providing the vv.-.-r d element is not urique to Spain, but nc. :.rv in many industrial countries of !-.t.itc vie: where the number of research pv-ttiiTv is lin.ited. At the moment, fo; this ti-.o.-n. some s'* the best Spanish v,-ier.ce and engineering graduates see their future abroad. Academic, might themselves develop research institutes within the universities directed lo national nerds such as high technology, engineering services, mitigation of earthquake and other natural hazards, and agricultural improvements. Although such efforts are exhausting and time-consuming, entrepreneurship to draw in industry, provincial governments and private funds is an essential part of scientific vigour. The Manifesto appears to address largely the central government. No doubt, realistically at this stage, the major funding for research must come from Madrid, but, in the long run, a diversity of support would appear to be the most fruitful. The third element should be easier to achieve since it does no; in itself entail much expenditure. The need to examine critically scientific goals and infrastructure related to national needs has in other countries led to the establishment of something like a Royal Commission with independent powers to probe, report and recommend. Strengthening and linking government institutes undertaking research, similar to the highly effective scientific and industrial research organizations of Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere might be considered. There appears to be a need to integrate government scientific institutes more closely w-ith universities, given the new social climate in Spain in w hich protection from debilitating political agitation is not required. From my own experience, it is crucial for scientists and engineers in Spain to organize themselves systematically so that their professional societies and academies are representative and respected. The work of such associations can clearly demonstrate to the body politic (of all parties) that among the many- competing interests in a modern state, science should have a high priority on both economic and cultural grounds. Rather than an emphasis on "rights'*, continual demonstration is needed of the way that scientific enquiry really maintains itself in a free society. Again, from my own experience, it is important to cultivate those members of the Cortes who are scientists, engineers,. technologists and economists. If they are to accept the responsibility of speaking for the Spanish scientific community they must have the necessary contacts and realistic proposals that can be argued effectively. Finally, as a sympathetic outsider, I am struck by the role that Spanish science and technology might play in the developing world. Much of Central and South America liev open, one would suppose, to the establishment of close ties with Spanish scientists and institutions. The value or common language and other heritages cannot be overemphasized. Although some cultural and scientific ties have been forged, there are exciting possibilities for an expansion of leaching, scientific exchanges, bilateral scientific and technological agreements. Through uch channels, the idealism and abilities of many Spanish science graduates could find a natural place that serves not only- national self-interest but also the global responsibility of all scientists. Might we not look forward lo a vigorous Spanish science that belong, rot only to Europe but aKo to the A'-vri.av? Pa-t of the answer lies in the force of the `./-r.Y. i.v, itself. Citiu 'sitjt uf California, Bst ct A. Bolt Berkeley. California R&S 114678