§ 45. Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister what machinery exists between the Western Powers for co-ordinating information and advice about radioactive fall-out.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)The main international body for keeping problems of radiation in general under close and continuous review is the United Nations Scientific Committee on Radiation. An Agency of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is also preparing proposals for exchanging information on measurements of environmental radioactivity in member countries.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs the Prime Minister satisfied with this machinery? Is he aware that from time to time there appear to have been considerable differences between the scientific advice given, for example, in the United States and in this country? Is he aware that there have also been considerable differences in the action taken by Governments? For example, the Danish Government have forbidden the use of rainwater for cooking because of the danger of Strontium 90, whereas no similar action seems to have been taken by any other Government. Is he satisfied that there is a proper channel for communication for all the latest information on radiation hazards?
§ The Prime MinisterI am bound to say that a large amount of information is being produced. This general machinery seems satisfactory for interchanging it.
§ Mr. GaitskellAs I think the Prime Minister will recognise that conflicting statements are made from time to time in different countries, will the Government press for an early report by the United Nations Committee, which I think is composed of scientists from many different countries?
§ The Prime MinisterThis Question was
what machinery exists between the Western Powers.I thought that the United Nations machinery, which is comprehensive, was one aspect. I do not know what is meant by "the Western Powers", but if it means European Powers, then the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is useful in that direction. I am sure that these are two bodies to which we can look to give us continual information on this matter.
§ Mr. GaitskellWill the Prime Minister answer my question? Will the Government press for a further report from the 29 United Nations Committee, which is a scientific body, in order to try to clear up the confusion arising from conflicting reports?
§ The Prime MinisterI should have to look into it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put that Question down, because I am not quite sure when the next report is timed to be produced.
§ 46. Mr. Bevanasked the Prime Minister if he will give the most recent evidence on the question of whether there is a threshold value for exposure to radiation below which there is no risk of either genetic damage, or leukaemia, or bone cancer.
§ The Prime MinisterResearch is continuing all the time in these matters but, as the House will realise, the work is inevitably difficult and time-consuming. On the basis of the existing evidence, it is impossible to say with certainty whether or not there is a threshold dose of radiation—from whatever source, natural or man-made—below which there is no risk of producing either genetic or somatic damage.
There is some recent evidence to suggest that the genetic effects on mice of exposure to low dose rates of radiation may be less than would be expected on previously accepted assumptions. However, it is not yet known whether this would be true in other animals or in man. As for the somatic effects, although it is easy to demonstrate by experiment the harmful effects following thigh doses, it is very difficult to demonstrate any effects after exposure to very low doses of the order of magnitude of those that occur in human bones from fall-out, because these are only a small fraction of the natural radiation to which we are all inevitably exposed.
§ Mr. BevanI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does that deal with the real problem here? The concept of a threshold was put forward a long time ago, giving the impression that as long as the radioactive fall-out was not above that limit, there was nothing to be apprehended. Was not the conception itself entirely false? Is it not a fact that the human organism in different parts of the world is subjected to radioactive influences which even normally might cause leukaemia or bone 30 cancer? If there is an increase in radioactivity, then a larger number of people will be affected by it. The threshold itself was therefore a fake concept from the very beginning.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Medical Research Council, which is the body which advises Her Majesty's Government, and the United Nations Scientific Committee have always accepted that there is no threshold of radiation exposure—I am taking radiation as a whole—below which is can be said with certainty that no genetic damage occurs. Neither the Medical Research Council nor the United Nations Committee has ever put forward this view as something on which one could say absolutely that below a certain amount there can be no damage. As for the somatic effects, it is much more difficult to answer exactly. That is why I think both the United Nations and the Medical Research people have always tried to give calculations giving both upper and lower limits.
§ Mr. BevanIs the Prime Minister aware that his last reply entirely disposes of the very much publicised concept of a threshold? It is a purely subjective term having no objective scientific validity at all. I therefore hope that the newspapers will drop ridiculous nonsense of this sort.
§ The Prime MinisterI am not prepared to enter into what appears to be more a philosophic than a scientific discussion whether this is a subjective or an objective concept. Since radiation as a whole has been going on for a very long time and is added to all the time, very largely by human effort—and in some countries, I am told, it is rising all the time—and since, of course, there is an addition by the nuclear tests, although to a much smaller fraction, it is very difficult to say that there is some definite point below which nobody can be injured by anything, but that is no more than saying that to be alive at all involves some risk.
§ Dr. SummerskillAs the Prime Minister has told the House today that there is no known threshold dose, does he not agree that the previous advice which he was given is invalidated and that when he has told us that a small addition does not present a hazard to health, that view has been revealed by his answer today as having no foundation at all?
§ The Prime MinisterI must repeat that the Medical Research Council, in all material reports on this matter, has always accepted the view that there is no absolute threshold of radiation below which no genetic damage may be done.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanDoes the Prime Minister's answer today mean that, having regard to the small additions to the total world radiation made by nuclear tests all over the world, if the conference proceeding in Geneva should fortunately reach unanimous agreement to stop all future tests, this will add nothing whatever to the safety of mankind?
§ The Prime MinisterObviously, since there are risks in all this, it must be bad to add to them. Obviously if there are risks there is no particular object in adding to them. That is why we have set up Lord Adrian's Committee, in respect of man-made radiation, to see whether this very large amount of radiation which is being used ought to be more carefully controlled, because that is where some of the risks are. I am bound to say that that is also why I am working so hard and why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working so hard at Geneva on this matter—so hard and so successfully, I hope. There are other than merely scientific advantages if we can achieve the first international agreement to control any form of weapons by arrangement and by proper inspection.
§ Mr. ShinwellSince the Prime Minister has mentioned the Foreign Secretary and the conference at Geneva, may I ask whether he can say who is responsible for the inspired statement that the Foreign Secretary is to be replaced?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that is very wide of the Question.
§ The Prime MinisterThere was no inspired statement of any kind, but this perhaps gives me the opportunity to say that I have been reading the newspapers, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been reading them, and the Foreign Secretary and I hope to carry on our work together for a very long time to come. I noticed that the assumption of these articles was that there was bound to be another five years of Conservative Government. Whether we shall complete the full stint ourselves remains to be seen.
§ Mr. BevanIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that if statements of this sort had been made by the Opposition we should have been accused of unpatriotically stabbing the Foreign Secretary in the back in the course of international negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Opposition do quite enough of that anyway.