OCR Text |
Show Letter Reveals Views of Atomic Energy Commission on Nevada Tests The following loiter, written to Congressman Douglas R. String-fellow String-fellow is reply to inquiries regarding re-garding atomic tests at the Nevada Neva-da proving grounds and their relation re-lation to the health and safety of people of Southern Utah, gives a concrete picture of the thinking think-ing of the Atomic Energy Commission Com-mission on this subject: Dear Mr. Stringfellow: This is in further reply to your letter of Oct. 7, 1954, in which you discuss the need for reassuring reassur-ing the citizens of Utah that future fu-ture atomic tests in Nevada will not endanger life, health and property. j We appreciate the fact that , the announcement of a test program pro-gram next spring in Nevada may j cause some apprehension among the sheepmen in southern Utah who normally winter sheep adjacent adja-cent to the Nevada Provjng .Ground. As you know, every conceivable con-ceivable precaution is taken to limit the effects of such tests to the confines of the Proving Ground or the area immediately adjacent thereto. All criteria of feasibility for detonating each device de-vice will be carefully reviewed by a panel of experts as in the past, and with the improved methods now available for weather wea-ther forecasting, even more precise pre-cise predictions are expected to be made. Provision has also been made to search the creas immediately adjacent to the Proving Ground to locate persons and livestock that may inadvertently have entered en-tered areas in which significant fallout from a detonation may occur. Every effort will be made to provide ample opportunity to permit the remotal of livestock or persons from such areas, including in-cluding the test if appropriate. In any event every reasonable effort ef-fort will be made to insure that precise information will be available avail-able on any fallout adjacent to the test site. The decision to conduct tests and the selection of the particular partic-ular appropriate test site are obviously ob-viously matters of vital importance import-ance and are made only after thorough study and most careful care-ful consideration. Many factors are considered, the most crucial of which is health and safety. If. and only if, the Commission is certain that tests can safely be conducted in Nevada is consideration consider-ation given to logistic economy and operational convenience. We have determined that the tests planned for Nevada next spring can be conducted safely. We cannot, therefore, justify waiving the tremendous monetary mone-tary savings in logistics and the significant operational flexibility flexibili-ty which the Nevada site offers, in order to conduct these particular partic-ular tests ". . . . at some more - - - - ' ' VI. vyitiomt lilt. I U 11 I 1 " nental United States." We are pleased to note your continuing interest in the research re-search which the Atomic Energy Commission is supporting at the Experimental Station of the Utah State Agricultural College. The Commission has a very keen interest in-terest in this research, as evidenced evi-denced by the efforts of the staff of our division of biology and medicine to assist members of the college staff in developing the experimental design of the project finally approved. The pro- ject proposal in final form was not received by the Atomic Energy Ener-gy Commission until February, 1954, and the contract became effective ef-fective April 20, 1951. Hence, it is too early to expect the research re-search to produce definitive findings find-ings on the exact cause of the sheep and livestock losses in southern Utah which occurred in the spring of 1952. While the exact ex-act cause of animal losses is not known, you will recall that earlier ear-lier extensive studies made by a committee of government and non -government experts reached the conclusion that radioactive fallout was not the cause. This conclusion was stated in the Commission's Com-mission's report of Jan. 6, 1954, a copy of which was previously furnished to you. We recognize that there exists some apprehension on the part of many livestock men In southern Utah that further tests might cause them economic loss. The alternative is not to postpone or relocate the tests, since as outlined out-lined above such moves cannot be justified in the national interest, in-terest, but rather to work closely with the sheep and cattle producers pro-ducers in the area and acquaint them with the facts. This we propose pro-pose to do. In this respect the assistance as-sistance of your office would aid immeasurably in avoiding unnecessary un-necessary abandonment of ranges owing to misapprehension and groundless fears, and in furthering further-ing the weapons development program of the United States. Sincerely yours, K. D. NICHOLS flenpral Man.icor |