So much for what the law is. The next question is what the law ought to be —that is, whether the federal government or the states, or both, should regulate the nuclear safety areas presently regulated exclusively by the AEC.

The issue is who should be the regulator, not how the regulator should regulate. Let us get that distinction clearly in mind from the be­ginning. Questions such as, “How much radioactivity is ‘safe’?” or “How low should we set our limits for radioactivity releases to the environment?” are pertinent to how regulation should be carried out. They are irrelevant to the issue of who should do the regulating. Contentions that radioactiv­ity releases from nuclear power plants should be “as low as possible” or * Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46 (1895); United States v. Burroughs, 289 U. S. 159 (1933); Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Vol. 1, pp. 365-367. Sutherland specifi­cally discusses the question of abrogation of state law by federal statutes and the re­vival of state legislation by repeal of federal regulations (Secs. 2026, 2027). The cases cited, however, all concern situations in which the federal statute was expressly repealed or the obstacle to state action removed by express congressional enactment.

“none at all” are pertinent to how the regulators go about their jobs. They have no connection with who — what governmental jurisdiction — should exercise the authority under which the regulators act. Oft-heard state­ments, whether they be true or false or somewhere in between, such as “all radiation exposure, even at quite low levels, is harmful to some degree” or “any unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation should be avoided,” or “it should be general practice to reduce exposure to radiation,” are con­cepts applicable or inapplicable to the regulatory process. They have noth­ing to do with who — what level of government — should do the regulation. (All expressions in quotations in this paragraph were used in a statement by Dr. E. C. Tsivoglou to the Burlington, Vermont, town meeting on Sep­tember 11,1969.)

People injecting these irrelevancies into a discussion of who should do the regulating obscure the issue rather than clarify it. One’s frustra­tions over how regulation is being carried on are quite different matters from who does the regulating.

Radiation Protection Guides. In expressing these frustrations, it is well to recall a sign posted in the Leadvffle Saloon which read: “Please Do Not Shoot the Pianist — He Is Doing His Best.” For, regardless of who regulates nuclear power plants or how they are regulated, attention must be paid to the established radiation protection guides, which are those is­sued by:

a. The International Commission on Radiation Protection (icrp). The icrp was established in 1928 by the International Congress of Ra­diology to provide radiation protection guidance. It is looked to by na­tional governments and by such international agencies as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Interna­tional Labor Organization, all of which maintain liaison with the icrp, for basic guidance in all areas of protection against ionizing radiation.

b. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (ncrp) . The ncrp was formed in 1929 under the auspices of the National Bureau of Standards of the United States. It was incorporated by Act of Congress in 1964. The membership consists of some 65 recognized ex­perts in the field of radiation protection.

c. The Federal Radiation Council (frc). The frc was created by Executive Order 10831 on August 14, 1959, and made statutory in Sep­tember 1959 by an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. It ad­vises the President on radiation matters affecting health, including guid­ance for all federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with the states. Its membership consists of the secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare; Defense; Agriculture; Interior; Commerce; Labor; and the chairman of the aec. The frc uses the best technical expertise in the field and takes into account the recommendations of ncrp and icrp.

In the case of civilian nuclear power reactors, the purposes of the guides and the regulatory process are to assure radiological safety with respect to the following areas of possible hazard: any possible reactor ac­cident, from the least significant up to and including the unlikely occur­rence of a postulated maximum credible accident; possible exposure of persons within any area where radiation background levels might be in­creased by even the slightest amount owing to routine reactor operations; and, possible exposure of persons from any accumulation of radioactive isotopes in the food chain.