Part 8

In the male, cells in the gonads are constantly dividing to produce sex cells. The latter are produced by the billions. It might be, then, that at low radiation dose rates, a few of the gonad cells are damaged but that the undamaged ones produce a flood of sperm cells, “drowning out” the few produced by the damaged gonad cells. The same radiation dose delivered in a short time might, however, damage so many of the gonad cells as to make the damaged sex cells much more difficult to “flood out”.

A second possible explanation is that there is present within the cells themselves some process that tends to repair damage to the genes and to counteract mutations. It might be a slow-working, laborious process that could keep up with the damage inflicted at low dosage rates but not at high ones. High dosage rates might even damage the repair mechanism itself. That, too, would account for the fewer mutations at low dosage rates than at high ones.

To check which of the two possible explanations was nearer the truth, Russell performed similar tests on female mice. In the female mouse (or the female human being, for that matter) the egg cells have completed almost all their divisions before the female is born. There are only so many cells in the female gonads that can give rise to egg cells, and each one gives rise to only a single egg cell. There is no possibility of damaged egg cells being drowned out by floods of undamaged ones because there are no floods.

Yet it was found that in the female mouse the mutation rate also dropped when the radiation dose rate was decreased. In fact, it dropped even more drastically than was the case in the male mouse.

Apparently, then, there must be actual repair within the cell. There must be some chemical mechanism inside the cell capable of counteracting radiation damage to some extent. In the female mouse, the mutation rate drops very low as the radiation dose rate drops, so that it would seem that almost all mutations might be repaired, given enough time. In the male, the mutation rate drops only so far and no farther, so that some mutations (about one-third is the best estimate so far) cannot be repaired.

If this is also true in the human being (and it is at least reasonably likely that it is), then the greater vulnerability of our genes as compared with those of fruit flies is at least partially made up for by our greater ability to repair the damage.

This opens a door for the future, too. The workings of the gene-repair mechanism ought (it is to be hoped) eventually to be puzzled out. When it is, methods may be discovered for reinforcing that mechanism, speeding it, and increasing its effectiveness. We may then find ourselves no longer completely helpless in the face of genetic damage, or even of radiation sickness.

On the other hand, it is only fair to point out that the foregoing appraisal may be an over-optimistic view. Russell’s experiments involved just 7 genes and it is possible that these are not representative of the thousands that exist altogether. While the work done so far is most suggestive and interesting, much research remains to be carried out.

If, then, we cannot help hoping that natural devices for counteracting radiation damage may be developed in the future, we must, for the present, remain rigidly cautious.

Conclusion

It is unrealistic to suppose that all sources of man-made radiation should be abolished. The good they do now, the greater good they will do in the future, cannot be abandoned. It is, however, reasonable to expect that the present Nuclear Test Ban Treaty will continue and that nations, such as France and China, which have nuclear capabilities but are not signatories of the Treaty will eventually sign. It is also reasonable to expect that X ray diagnosis and therapy will be carried on with the greatest circumspection, and that the use of radiation in industry and research will be carried on with great care and with the use of ample shielding.

As long as man-made radiation exists, there will be some absorption of it by human beings. The advantages of its use in our modern society are such that we must be prepared to pay some price. This is not a matter of callousness. We have come to depend a great deal for comfort and even for extended life, upon the achievements of our technology, and any serious crippling of that technology will cost us lives. An attempt must be made to balance the values of radiation against its dangers; we must balance lives against lives. This involves hard judgments.

Those working under conditions of greatest radiation risk—in atomic research, in industrial plants using isotopes, and so on—can be allowed to set relatively high limits for total radiation dosages and dose rates that they may absorb (with time) with reasonable safety, but such rates will never do for the population generally. A relative few can voluntarily endure risks, both somatic and genetic, that we cannot sanely expect of mankind as a whole.

From fruit fly experiments it would seem that a total exposure of 30 to 100 rads of radiation will double the spontaneous mutation rate. So much radiation and such a doubling of the rate would be considered intolerable for humanity.

Some geneticists have recommended that the average total exposure of human beings in the first 30 years of life be set at 10 rads. Note that this figure is set as a maximum. Every reasonable method, it is expected, will be used to allow mankind to fall as far short of this figure as possible. Note also that the 10-rad figure is an average maximum. The exposure of some individuals to a greater total dose would be viewed as tolerable for society if it were balanced by the exposure of other individuals to a lesser total dose.

A total exposure of 10 rads might increase the overall mutation rate, it is roughly estimated, by 10%. This is serious enough, but is bearable if we can convince ourselves that the alternative of abandoning radiation technology altogether will cause still greater suffering.

A 10% increase in mutation rate, whatever it might mean in personal suffering and public expense, is not likely to threaten the human race with extinction, or even with serious degeneration.

The human race as a whole may be thought of as somewhat analogous to a population of dividing cells in a growing tissue. Those affected by genetic damage drop out and the slack is taken up by those not affected.

If the number of those affected is increased, there would come a crucial point, or threshold, where the slack could no longer be taken up. The genetic load might increase to the point where the species as a whole would degenerate and fade toward extinction—a sort of “racial radiation sickness”.

We are not near this threshold now, however, and can, therefore, as a species, absorb a moderate increase in mutation rate without danger of extinction.

On the other hand, it is not correct to argue, as some do, that an increase in mutation rate might be actually beneficial. The argument runs that a higher mutation rate might broaden the gene pool and make it more flexible, thus speeding up the course of evolution and hastening the advent of “supermen”—brainier, stronger, healthier than we ourselves are.

The truth seems to be that the gene pool, as it exists now, supplies us with all the variability we need for the effective working of the evolutionary mechanism. That mechanism is functioning with such efficiency that broadening the gene pool cannot very well add to it, and if the hope of increased evolutionary efficiency were the only reason to tolerate man-made radiation, it would be insufficient.

The situation is rather analogous to that of a man who owns a good house that is heavily mortgaged. If he were offered a second house with a similar mortgage, he would have to refuse. To be sure, he would have twice the number of houses, but he would not need a second house since he has all the comfort he can reasonably use in his first house—and he would not be able to afford a second mortgage.

What humanity must do, if additional radiation damage is absolutely necessary, is to take on as little of that added damage as possible, and not pretend that any direct benefits will be involved. Any pretense of that sort may well lure us into assuming still greater damage—damage we may not be able to afford under any circumstances and for any reason.

Actually, as the situation appears right now, it is not likely that the use of radiation in modern medicine, research, and industry will overstep the maximum bounds set by scientists who have weighed the problem carefully. Only nuclear warfare is likely to do so, and apparently those governments with large capacities in this direction are thoroughly aware of the danger and (so far, at least) have guided their foreign policies accordingly.

SUGGESTED REFERENCES

Books

Radiation, Genes, and Man, Bruce Wallace and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York 10017, 1963, 205 pp., $5.00 (hardback); $1.28 (paperback).