December 10, 1969
Page 38222
PROPOSAL FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a critical issue of national concern is the extent to which the effects of new technologies are examined prior to their introduction into the environment. Today's environmental crisis exists because past technological decisions were made without adequate consideration of the environmental effects of those decisions.
It is for this reason that I have recommended for some time the establishment of a Select Committee on Technology and the Human Environment.
It is for this reason that recently passed Senate legislation included a provision establishing an Office of Environmental Quality in the White House.
And it is for this reason that the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution continues to hold investigatory hearings on the environmental effects of new technology.
Recently the subcommittee held hearings on the underground use of nuclear energy for excavation and other purposes. There is a brief discussion of the value of those hearings in the December 1 issue of Gershon W. Fishbein's "Environmental Health Letter." I invite the attention of Senators to that report and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SENATE HEARINGS REFLECT FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN IN ENVIRONMENT
The daily press missed a good story when it failed to give attention to the hearings Nov. 18-20 before the Senate Air and Water Pollution subcommittee on S. 3042, which would provide an independent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of underground uses of nuclear energy.
The issue, however, was much bigger than the immediate subject at hand. It addresses itself to one of the most fundamental issues confronting those with the responsibility of protecting the public in the man-environment interface.
Basically, it involves the question of how to assure pre-marketing clearance of technological innovations before they become hazardous to the public or upset the ecology of the land, air or water. Such an assessment should be kept in balance, with the benefits and risk clearly weighed, in determining in advance by public agencies whether man will be the beneficiary or the victim of technology. Secondary to this issue is the related concern of whether an agency whose primary mission is to develop and foster a resource or an industry can simultaneously police it.
Such were the stories behind the story in Room 4200 of the New Senate Office Building. But even the witnesses on the substantive issue would have made good copy. Dr. John W. Gofman of the University of California presented testimony indicating that "current radiation exposure guidelines are indeed dangerous – much too high."
"Any release of radioactivity associated with Plowshare or other programs to regions where humans or other members of our ecosystem can possibly be exposed should be documented by a truly independent agency and made immediately available to public sources for independent review. It may well turn out that attention to injury to other members of the ecosystem may be of greater long-range relevance to man than the immediate attention to man with extensive neglect of the ecosystem which supports his life." Dr. Gofman's view was disputed by Dr. C. L. Comar of Cornell.
Dr. Edward P. Radford of Hopkins and Dr. Robert Platt of Emory University each presented testimony which put the proposed legislation beautifully into the man-environment context.
Note: Still languishing is a possible legislative solution to the need to get more facts on technological innovations as they might affect man. Such a solution is contained in S. Res. 78, sponsored by Senator Muskie and others, to create a Select Senate Committee on Technology and the Human Environment. Although it was not intended that way, the information developed in the hearings on S. 3042 added to the urgency of enacting the Select Committee. Isn't it about time to enact this simple resolution?