Since the Bikini explosion over a year ago, we have received a steady flow of letters protesting about the continuance of H-Bomb tests. Many of these letters point to the numerous statements made by eminent scientists since the first explosion, warning of the dangers to mankind if these tests are allowed to continue. Of course, the majority of the letters have been from Communist organizations. Since January of this year, we have at your direction ceased to answer such letters, except in special circumstances. Only a very few letters of the hundreds received - perhaps only one in fifty - have come from ordinary citizens disturbed over the possible dangers of H-Bomb tests.

2. Although the proportion of letters written without an ulterior motive is small, we have sought to avoid giving perfunctory answers. Until March of this year, replies both from the Prime Minister's Office and from the Department customarily referred to your statement made in the House on March 31, 1954.⁵⁴

3. On March 7, 1955 Mr. Knowles asked you what the Government's attitude was to the proposal of the Federation of American Scientists that studies of the effects of H-Bomb tests should be conducted by the United Nations.⁵⁵ This question was the first of a series of similar questions, which during March and April came from Messrs. Coldwell, Cameron, Enfield, Goode, Knowles and Hamilton, and which drew replies from the Prime Minister, Mr. Campney, Mr. Martin and Mr. Marler, as well as from yourself. Since most of the questions had to do with the biological effects of radiation, Mr. Martin gave most of the answers. These statements made by various members of the Government have provided a basis for replies to the most recent letters from the public.

4. You will recall that we attempted, with your approval, to find out from the United Kingdom and the United States Governments what their attitude was to the Federation of American Scientists' proposal. The reply from London pointed out that it was doubtful whether the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and the U.K. would release the information necessary to make U.N. studies useful. The State Department raised the same objection.

5. Studies are therefore proceeding on a national basis; those in Canada as a result of Mr. Martin's recent proposal to the Cabinet. In the United States, the National Academy of Sciences is beginning a broad programme of studies with the blessing of the Atomic Energy Commission. We have made a number of attempts to obtain a full statement of the U.S. position, and to find out all we can about these studies in particular, but have not been able to obtain any substantial amount of information. There appear to be two reasons for this: the fact that the U.S. authorities have not yet thought their way through the problem, and the notorious reluctance of the Atomic Energy Commission to divulge any information except under strong pressure.

6. This attitude continues to be the subject of sharp criticism in the United States itself, from publications like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and Newsweek. A number of United States scientists have accused the A.E.C. of failing to reveal the true extent of the danger from H-Bomb explosions. For example, Dr. Franklin Hutchison, a Yale physicist, recently said that if A.E.C. officials "have data to back up their contention that there are no harmful genetic effects from radiation, that's just wonderful. The trouble is I don't know of any such data, and neither does anyone else to whom I've talked."

7. So long as public statements of this sort continue to be made by reputable scientists, the public position taken by the Government will continue to be unsatisfactory. The issue may well be brought to a head at the Tenth Session of the General Assembly if the Swedish Government implements its recent promise to seek the support of other nations for U.N. studies of radiation effects. Our Legation in Stockholm reports that the Swedes were forced by pressure in their parliament to commit themselves to this enterprise before they were fully prepared to do so. It is still uncertain just how they will go about obtaining support for their proposal, but it is unlikely that we will be embarrassed by a direct approach from them. I have in mind also that no action has yet been taken on the Indian request to have the Disarmament Commission consider the question of H-Bomb explosions, although this request was originally made in April 1954 and has since been repeated. Thus we have good reason to suppose that either the Swedes or the Indians or both will take the initiative in demanding studies of the effects of H-Bomb explosions under United Nations auspices at the Tenth Session of the General Assembly.

8. A proposal of this sort is undeniably attractive. To be successful, studies under U.N. auspices would of course depend on the extent to which the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and the U.K. are willing to co-operate in making information available. This might well prove an insuperable obstacle. At the same time, it seems to be that we need to be able to take a more positive attitude towards these proposals, particularly if a debate in the United Nations takes place.

9. As you stated in reply to Mr. Knowles, the Government would not itself take the initiative in proposing studies under the U.N., but would consider sympathetically any practical suggestion brought forward by another member. To develop this position, I propose, if you approve, to present the case which is made above to the U.S. and U.K. authorities. We could take advantage of the breathing space we have, now that tests in the continental United States are over for this year. I believe that we should point out to the U.S. and the U.K. that the subject is almost bound to be raised in the United Nations, and that it would therefore be prudent in our opinion to work out an agreed position in advance. We might suggest, since the idea of some form of U.N. activity in this field is so attractive to public opinion in the free world, that it should not be rejected except after careful consideration, and even then, not in an unsympathetic manner. Should it appear on examination that there is nothing the United Nations can usefully do in this field, then I believe we should be prepared to suggest a substitute. This substitute should be as widely supported as possible, and should, I think, include public assurances that our common objective is to achieve as great a degree of international co-operation as is possible, through the co-ordination of national programmes and the exchange of scientists and information.⁵⁶

J[ULES] L[ÉGER]