This paranoia, this phenomenonI shouldnt call it a paranoia, Im not a doctor, I dont knowbut this phenomenon is a terrible one, and it has caused mankind and individuals a terrible unhappiness.
And another example of the same thing is the famous Protocol of the Elders of Zion, which was a fake document. It was supposed to be a meeting of the old Jews and the leaders of Zion in which they had gotten together and cooked up a scheme for the domination of the world. International bankers, international, you know a great big marvelous machine! Just out of proportion. But it wasnt so far out of proportion that people didnt believe it; and it was one of the strongest forces in the development of anti-Semitism.
What I am asking for in many directions is an abject honesty. I think that we should have a more abject honesty in political matters. And I think well be freer that way.
I would like to point out that people are not honest. Scientists are not honest at all, either. Its useless. Nobodys honest. Scientists are not honest. And people usually believe that they are. That makes it worse. By honest I dont mean that you only tell whats true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.
For example, in connection with nuclear testing, I dont know myself whether I am for nuclear testing or against nuclear testing. There are reasons on both sides. It makes radioactivity, and its dangerous, and its also very bad to have a war. But whether its going to be more likely to have a war or less likely to have a war because you test, I dont know. Whether preparation will stop the war, or lack of preparation, I dont know. So Im not trying to say Im on either side. Thats why I can be abjectly honest on this one.
The big question comes, of course, whether theres a danger from radioactivity. In my opinion the greatest danger and the greatest question on nuclear testing is the question of its future effects. The deaths and the radioactivity which would be caused by the war would be so many times more than the nuclear testing that the effects that it would have in the future are far more important than the infinitesimal amount of radioactivity produced now. How infinitesimal is the amount, however? Radioactivity is bad. Nobody knows a good effect of general radioactivity. So if you increase the general amount of radioactivity in the air, you
are producing something not good. Therefore nuclear testing in this respect produces something not good. If you are a scientist, then, you have the right and should point out this fact.
On the other hand, the thing is quantitative. The question is how much is not good? You can play games and show that you will kill 10 million people in the next 2000 years with it. If I were to walk in front of a car, hoping that I will have some more children in the future, I also will kill 10,000 people in the next 10,000 years, if you figure it out, from a certain way of calculating. The question is how big is the effect? And the last time (I wish I hadI should, of course, have checked these figures, but let me put it differently.) The next time you hear a talk, ask the questions which I point out to you, because I asked some questions the last time I heard a talk, and I can remember the answers, but I havent checked them very recently, so I dont have any figures, but I at least asked the question. How much is the increase in radioactivity compared to the general variations in the amount of radioactivity from place to place? The amounts of background radioactivity in a wooden building and a brick building are quite different, because the wood is less radioactive than the bricks.
It turns out that at the time that I asked this question, the difference in the effects was less than the difference between being in a brick and a wooden building. And the difference between being at sea level and being at 5000 feet altitude was a hundred times, at least, bigger than the extra radioactivity produced by the atomic bomb testing.
Now, I say that if a man is absolutely honest and wants to protect the populace from the effects of radioactivity, which is what our scientific friends often say they are trying to do, then he should work on the biggest number, not on the smallest number, and he should try to point out that the radioactivity which is absorbed by living in the city of Denver is so much more serious, is a hundred times bigger than the background from the bomb, that all the people of Denver ought to move to lower altitudes. The situation really isdont get frightened if you live in Denverits small. It doesnt make much difference. Its only a tiny effect. But the effect from the bombs is less than the difference between being at low level and high level, I believe. Im not absolutely sure. I ask you to ask that question to get some idea whether you should be very careful about not walking into a brick building, as careful as you are to try to stop nuclear testing for the sole reason of radioactivity. There are many good reasons that you may feel politically strong about, one way or the other. But thats another question.