Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century (review)

J. Samuel Walker. Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. xii + 168 pp. Ill. $35.00 (0-520-22328-4).

Debates over the hazards of radiation have a long and contentious history, ranging from early "X-ray martyrs" to recent controversies over low-level exposures. To survey this history, Sam Walker, historian for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has focused on the deceptively simple task of setting a "permissible dose" for radiation exposure of workers and the general public. Although short, the book is comprehensive. A major strength is its reliance on both a broad range of secondary sources and the author's own familiarity with government records, creating an essential introduction to this history as well as a useful reference for those already familiar with the issues.

The organization of the book is chronological. The first chapter covers the period from the 1895 discovery of X rays to the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty--providing an excellent overview for the general reader, but no new historical research. The heart of the book is the much more detailed coverage in the succeeding four chapters of debates since the test ban treaty. Here Walker draws upon government archives as well as published sources, enabling him repeatedly to tell the story of a well-known public debate simultaneously with the story of a less well-known, but equally important, private debate within the government. The result is an insight into the mix of public debate and bureaucratic maneuvering that is often missing in other works.

The second chapter, on nuclear power, covers debates both over epidemiological research and over how standards should be expressed ("permissible dose," "as low as practicable," "as low as reasonably achievable"?). The third chapter concerns the battle between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency over the regulation of nuclear power plants and medical radiation. Chapter 4 returns to debates over basic scientific issues in the midst of rising public concern: "As always, the evidence was too fragmentary to be conclusive, and scientists disagreed sharply about its meaning" (p. 91).

The fifth and final chapter discusses the continuing controversy over new studies of radiation effects. The most interesting part may be the penultimate section on public fears of radiation, where Walker first summarizes a variety of studies on people's perceptions of risk, and then convincingly argues that "the major ingredient that seldom receives sufficient attention is the historical context of efforts to ensure adequate radiation protection" (p. 147). There is an irony here: the almost continuous public attention to minimizing radiation hazards actually magnified the risk in the minds of the public. The argument is convincing; I only wish Walker had also mentioned the extensive Civil Defense education efforts of the 1950s and early 1960s. Is it any surprise that people who had been feverishly stocking homemade fallout shelters would, within a decade, express doubt about the safety of nuclear power plants?

This last is a minor quibble that illustrates a major point. The mark of a worthwhile book is that it provokes the reader to inquire further. This book certainly meets that criterion. For example, can one explore further why scientists at times disagreed so vehemently? What would this tell us about the practice of science when studying complex phenomena that cannot be controlled in the laboratory? What of the role, if any, of larger political issues in the intellectual choices scientists make when assessing admittedly ambiguous data? Can we explore further the inner workings and public acceptance of the various institutions assembled to "settle" these issues? These are but a few of the questions sparked by this book. Other writings have asked similar questions, but few, if any, have also provided as solid a basis for pursuing them.

Gilbert Whittemore
Stalter & Kennedy, L.L.P. Boston, Massachusetts

...