Arthur R. Tamplin

Relationship of Blood Heparin Levels to Serum Lipoproteins and Cholesterol Levels in Fasting Subjects.

Summary 1. A highly reproducible modification of the Bassiouni method for determination of spontaneously-occurring blood heparin-like substances has been described and evaluated. 2. A mean level of 3.07 mg/100 ml of blood heparin-like substances was determined for a sample of 105 fasting U.S. schizophrenic males 40 to 50 years old. This sample group showed lipoprotein and cholesterol values very close to those characteristic for other samples of U.S. males previously studied. 3. Highly significant negative correlations were demonstrated for the following pairs of variables, Sf° 0-12 lipoproteins versus blood “heparin,” Sf° 12-20 lipoproteins versus blood “heparin,” and serum cholesterol versus blood “heparin.”

Radiation, Cancer, and Environmental Health

Accumulating data on radiation carcinogenesis, both epidemiologic and experimental, indicate that current governmental safety standards for environmental radiation are far too high. The inadequacy of present regulatory processes in this area points to the need for a radically revised approach to controlling environmental contaminants of all kinds.

The question of safe radiation thresholds for alpha emitting bone seekers in man.

The Evans hypothesis derived from the study of radium-exposed persons includes two major points: (a) the linear model of radiation carcinogenesis is incorrect, and (b) “practical” and/or absolute thresholds exist below which human radiation carcinogenesis does not occur. Analysis presented here indicates that neither aspect of this hypothesis can be supported, either from the study of residual radium burden or from cumulative rad exposure. This analysis in no way attempts to show that “practical” or absolute thresholds are impossible. Rather, the results of analyses show that no evidence for such thresholds has been presented through the studies of radium-exposed persons.

Issues in the Radiation Controversy.

What are the real issues of the radiation controversy affecting nuclear power generation of electricity? Is there a dispute about the facts? Arthur R. Tamplin, a biophysicist, is research associate at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore.

Random Violence in the Pacific: Estimate of Dosage to Man from Cesium-136 in Weapons Test Fallout

This report by Arthur R. Tamplin is an assessment of the health effects of the French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific Ocean on the Australian people. These tend to be underestimated because of an oversight in calculating the dosage from cesium-136 in the fallout. The author, formerly a research scientist at the Atomic Energy Commissions Lawrence Uvermore Laboratory, has been a leading critic of AEC radiation protection policies. With a colleague, Dr. Thomas Cochran, Dr. Tamp/in is now working with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in Washington, D.C., on a project to develop federal energy priorities.

The BEIR Report: A Focus on Issues

In 1969, a national controversy erupted on the issue of the safety of federal radiation protection standards for nuclear power reactors. Two scientists, Arthur R. Tamplin and John W. Gofman, of the Atomic Energy Commissions Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory, issued a manifesto charging that the AEC standards allowed nuclear power facilities to emit 10 times more radiation than was safe. They called for a 10-fold reduction. AEC officials responded by denouncing the manifesto as erroneous and unscientific.Last winter, the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council broke a long silence on this controversy. It reported the results of a review of the standards and the federal radiation protection guide on which they were based by its Advisory Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (Bulletin, March 1973). The report clearly supported Tamplin and Gofman.In this comment, Dr. Tamplin, who, along with Dr. Gofman, was severely critized by superiors for daring to challenge the agencys standar...