One effective way of placing benefits and risks in appropriate bal­ance is through the development of standards. As the Federal Radiation

Council (1960) stated to the President: “The fundamental problem in establishing radiation protection guides is to allow as much of the benefi­cial uses of ionizing radiation as possible while assuring that man is not ex­posed to undue hazard. To get a true insight into the scope of the problem and the impact of the decisions involved, a review of the benefits and the hazards is necessary.”

From the outset of the nuclear power program, we recognized the need to evaluate the degree of risk that could be accepted and the benefits that would result. It was clear that we could not go forward with nuclear power on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it became necessary to develop and adopt radiation exposure standards which would reflect the levels of acceptable risks.

The impressive record of radiological safety in the nuclear energy field is based on a system of such standards. These standards have been carefully developed over a period of many years by national and interna­tional experts, and they are based on the results of an extensive research program on radiation and its effects on man and the biosphere. These are not aec standards. Rather, they reflect a consensus of the world’s best available expertise — and this is independent expertise. They reflect the combined judgments of the Federal Radiation Council (frc), the Na­tional Academy of Sciences, the National Council on Radiation Protec­tion and Measurement (ncrp), and consultants selected for expertise in the various areas of interest. Also carefully considered are the recommen­dations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection

(iCRP).

The effectiveness of this approach brings me to my second theme — namely, that we ought to place greater emphasis on the use of standards in our approach to controlling the environmental effects of steam electric power plants. This means viewing the problems more from the standards viewpoint — giving thought to the development and improvement of ade­quate standards and criteria rather than taking an ad hoc approach to at­tacking or defending individual plants or individual hazards.