Only the knowledge (or hope, now) that your review of Fallout protection does not typify the attitude of a large majority of Cambridge students keeps me from wishing that the very first 50 megaton bomb from the Soviet Union might be aimed at a point some 100 feet in front of the University Theatre.

Levity has its place, and under certain circumstances, one could imagine even joking about nuclear war, but under no circumstances should a responsible organization such as yours dip to expressing an attitude of this sort on the editorial page. Now I realize that the article on January 29 was billed as a book review, and that for the preceding weeks, examination period had been in progress, but surely a more mature attitude towards the subject could have been developed and expressed.

Perhaps Mr. Gruen has had the good fortune of never experiencing even a 'natural' disaster, but those who have I feel sure resent his mockery of preparations to be made. '62, you said? You goddamn Harvard kids can laugh at a book like this now, but when such a war comes, you'll be the first in line to get food and clothing at public dispensaries. In the more severe cases, I feel that a Harvard Man will die of radiation just as soon as, if not sooner than any other American citizen.

Mr. Gruen's approach to the book also fails to realize that it has been made available to meet a present need. As he so wittily points out, the effects of extended exposure to long-lived isotopes and to delayed fallout are not yet known in great detail. Mr. Gruen might have grounds for criticism in the fact that the latest facts about these effects are not published in Fallout Protection. But on the basis of most of our knowledge, the book makes the judgement that delayed fallout is not so serious a problem as the immediate radioactivity after a blast. I only wish that Mr. Gruen would accept the book for what it is--advice based on present knowledge. If Mr. Gruen were looking for an analysis aimed at an audience with a higher educational background, he might obtain the McGraw-Hill report "Nuclear Attack and Industrial Survival" which is addressed to many of the same problems as Fallout Protection.

Furthermore, Mr. Gruen's review is characterized by a lack of real questioning into the matter. Until this article, I have felt that the CRIMSON did rather well covering stories outside of the individual reporter's field of study. But Mr. Gruen laughs at our lack of knowledge, apparently ignorant of the fact that knowledge in the field of radiation damage comes only after acquisition of data which in turn takes time. For example, may I cite the history of standards for radiation protection. It has been known for some time that man naturally is exposed to some .03 milliroentgens per day. In 1934, the National Commission on Radiation Protection established a "tolerance dose" of .2 roentgens/day for industrial workers handling radioactive materials. In 1936, after some further acquisition of data, the U.S. Advisory lowered this level by one-half to .1 r/day. In 1950, the International Commission on Radiation Protection established a maximum permissible dose in industry of .3r/week and in 1961 this was again reduced to .1r/week.

Due to the nature of radiation damage, there is no 'safe' dose for either exposure or absorption and hence, history will probably show a similar pattern in the estimation of fallout radiation. Perhaps a better approach by Mr. Gruen would have been to seek opinions on this matter. At any rate, there are more serious aspects to Fallout Protection than evaluation of its 'exhilarating assonance' and ridicule of its suggested large pail in the fallout shelter for 'human waste.' Such things can be practical. Sincerely,   John L. Frewing '62