Chapter 26 19 Fallout-2

Several scientists also expressed negative opinions on the petition.Two respected chemists at Berkeley, Ken Pitzer and Joel Hildebrand, publicly pointed out that among the scientists who signed Pauling's petition, no one with real knowledge of the effects of radioactivity to 1%.This prompted Pauling to fight back. He said that the people who signed the petition were actually experts in a certain field related to the issue of nuclear testing, and that the petition was judged on the basis of research results published by radiological experts— —As far as I am concerned, Pauling reminded reporters, I have benefited from the judgments and experiments made by Hildebrand and Pitzer.A spokesman for the Atomic Energy Commission still does everything possible to downplay the dangers of nuclear testing.A few days after the petition was published, Libby again reminded a congressional panel that the fallout from radioactive fallout is far more serious than the amount of radiation people are exposed to every day, and the devastation that could be wrought if the United States cedes the dominance of atomic weapons. The danger is "negligible".

Before Pauling left for Europe on June 11, he fought back again. "My conscience does not allow me to remain silent while Dr Libby and other representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission are making a series of misleading public statements on these vitally important issues," he told reporters, adding that he will be in touch with others , to help him draft a new petition—this time, he's asking scientists from around the world to sign it. It seems that Pauling's petition has indeed put the US government in the position of the defendant.In London, negotiations had begun, and for the first time the Soviet Union and the United States began to seriously discuss banning nuclear tests.This was unimaginable a year or two ago.Public opinion has tilted fairly to Pauling's side.Pauling began to harbor hopes that a test-ban agreement might be reached in the summer of 1957.

The first visit to the Soviet Union became the climax of Pauling's trip to Europe.For years he had wanted to see for himself the details of the Soviet experiments, so when he was invited to attend an international biochemistry meeting in Moscow with nine other American scientists, he accepted.During the visit, Pauling has also been acting as a spokesman.He intended to briefly review Mendel-Morgan's theory of genetics in his biochemistry report—the theory was still neglected in the Soviet Union at that time, and Lysenko's ideas were still the official dogma—however, a translator Pauling was so annoyed at trying to convince him that advocating Western genetics at the meeting that he would be making a big mistake, he didn't take the words to heart.The fact is just the opposite. When he directly criticized Lysenko's ideas at the meeting, he found that the Russians present seemed indifferent.In addition to making some special academic reports, Pauling also gave a popular science lecture on molecular diseases in an auditorium in Moscow, and recorded a speech on peace issues broadcast by the radio station, in which he publicly opposed nuclear tests.He and Eva also spend some time traveling and sightseeing.They found that on the outskirts of major cities there were vast stretches of farmland, an eerily familiar sight to them. “I was amazed that this view brought back memories of my seven or eight years old in Eastern Oregon,” Pauling said. "Russians look a lot like Americans—of course, not like people in New York and other places in the eastern United States, but like real Americans who grew up in the West... just like us, but they are more eager for peace."

Plus, crime doesn't seem to exist there.For example, Pauling met a German virologist at the Moscow conference.The man had left his briefcase and all his belongings in the taxi and was very depressed.However, the next day, the taxi driver arrived and returned the lost items, with repeated apologies for not delivering them sooner.Pauling was impressed by the honesty shown by the people and by the warm reception scientists received in the Soviet Union.Pauling found that scientists are "top men," the most respected and highest paid professions in the country.It is also a hallmark of a superior rational society.

Of course, this visit is of an official nature.He hadn't seen a "psychiatric hospital" for dissidents, and he hadn't been invited to see what was going on in the gulag. By the time he returned to the United States in the fall, things had changed. The anti-nuclear test movement was in full swing a few months ago, but now it suddenly died down. Pauling knew at least one of the reasons.During his visit to the Soviet Union, Edward Teller, the Hungarian-born physicist hyped by the media as the "father of the hydrogen bomb," came forward to defend the Atomic Energy Commission, convincing many that it was necessary to perfect a "clean bomb" and more tests are needed.Teller was an anti-Communist, and his family had suffered greatly under the Hungarian Communist rule.He was convinced that the Russians would not hesitate to conquer the world unless they developed nuclear weapons, and he felt it was his personal responsibility to prevent that from happening.Teller also said that a clean bomb would be almost entirely fused during its detonation, so there would be almost no radioactive fallout.He told Eisenhower that such a bomb would be a perfect tool on the battlefield, capable of killing and injuring enemy soldiers without dispersing radioactive material or even risking damage to facilities and buildings.He said that if such a bomb is allowed to continue to be tested, it will not take four or five years to reach perfection.

In the summer of 1957, Teller's "clean bomb, as a form of propaganda to put people off from fear of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war, seemed to have some effect for a while," Pauling said.On the one hand, some people pinned their hopes on nuclear weapons with less radioactive dust, and on the other hand, Soviet negotiators refused to make any compromises. Under the influence of these two factors, the nuclear weapons negotiations in London came to an impasse. It broke completely in September.Public attention shifted to new issues—the race riots in Little Rock, the launch of Sputnik—and nuclear testing became less of a concern.

In the fall, several major powers took advantage of the situation and raced to conduct various nuclear tests.More than twice as many nuclear devices exploded in just a few months than in the entire previous year.Soviet Sputnik stung the U.S. government and gave it a new understanding of its rivals on the world stage.At the same time, Sputnik proved that the Soviets had fully mastered the technology of using rockets to launch nuclear warheads on the basis of ballistic missiles.The arms race intensified further, and the United States announced that it would conduct a series of important tests in 1958.

Pauling was deeply disappointed by the change in attitudes toward nuclear testing.In response to this particular situation, he began writing popular science articles on the hazards of fallout—but the Ladies' Home Magazine and the Saturday Evening Post refused to publish his articles, "because such discussions would There are so many gray areas involved"—Pauling, on the other hand, continued to campaign for worldwide petitions against nuclear testing. In the autumn of 1957, he successively received signatures from many scientists.Pauling noticed that the responses of European scientists were very enthusiastic, so he checked the list of scientists, hoping to get more signatures.He hired a part-time secretary and paid him out of his own pocket.This person is in charge of typing.Mimeographing, translating and mailing petitions, etc.Pauling and Eva also did it themselves, and at the same time got the help of several friends.He could finally be sure that his petition was being circulated not only in the United States, but elsewhere in the world—specifically, what Pauling wanted to achieve was that in each of the 48 countries, at least A scientist's signature—and the name must be checked.

The results are encouraging.By early January 1958, he had collected more than 9,000 signatures from 43 countries, many of whom belonged to the countries of the Eastern Bloc.Not every scientist signed—notably Sir Lawrence Bragg, who wrote to Pauling, said he had not signed simply because “I am a poor student”; President of a university, he wrote, "Dear Linus: With regard to your letter of November 6th and the accompanying petition, as you may imagine, I do not like you from the bottom of my heart. approach. It is therefore my lofty wish that this act of yours be utterly and utterly defeated!!!” — but enough scientists have signed the petition, 35 of whom are Nobel laureates, hundreds of Thousands of eminent personalities from many of the highest academic societies on our planet.This ensured that the petition had the weight Pauling wanted, enough to turn the world's attention to the test ban.

On January 13, 1958, Pauling attended a banquet held for Nobel laureates in New York. He took the opportunity to hand over a petition with all signatures to UN Secretary-General Hammassard in person.He then held another press conference, expressing to the world scientists' desire for peace and no more fallout. It turns out that public opinion has turned 180 degrees yet again.Under the banner of banning tests, Pauling seems to have single-handedly mobilized public opinion in the international academic circle.His efforts further strengthened the solidarity of the global academic community, became the subject of discussion around the world, and instilled new courage and hope in anti-nuclear test activists.

Teller In Hoover's eyes, Pauling has always taken the lead in making troubles, using the radioactive fallout issue to "create panic, stir up trouble, and confuse people's hearts."As the debate continued, Hoover was able to conclude that conservative columnists had grasped Pauling's ties to the Communist Front, and in their articles they began to question how Pauling managed to raise so much money and solicit signatures everywhere.A newspaper editor wrote: "Someone who has collected a dozen or two signatures for a local school board petition must have known that it would not cost thousands of Man-hours, without hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is impossible.” Pauling responded to the first round of attacks by saying that he organized the petition, which was all held at his kitchen table, and the total cost was about It was $250, mostly for stamps. "When people understand an important problem and are eager to do something about it, as scientists all over the world do on this very important problem, it's easier to get tens of thousands of signatures," he said. The most powerful attack, however, came from Teller.In response to Pauling's petition, he wrote an article in Life magazine titled "Nuclear Tests Need No Delay."The magazine's editors put the headline on the cover of the February issue: "Dr. Teller Refutes 9,000 Scientists." Pauling read the article, furious.This article doesn't say at all that the statement in the petition is wrong; it just plays up the cliché of the Atomic Energy Commission, asking everyone not to be afraid of radioactive fallout; it even plausibly argues that in order to make a perfect "clean bomb" To suppress the air trap of the Communist Party, we must continue to experiment. When Pauling was in Munich, he knew a thing or two about Teller.At that time, the Hungarian youth was learning the enlightenment knowledge of quantum physics, and Pauling once praised him as a scientist.However, Teller later became the number one advocate for the development of nuclear weapons in the scientific community, and Pauling no longer respected him as a human being.Just when some people suggested that the development of hydrogen bombs should be done with caution, Teller advocated speeding up the process; in the case of depriving Oppenheimer of the right to participate in confidentiality, Teller's testimony played a bad role; A close advisor to Strauss and Eisenhower, Teller became the nation's most powerful scientist in shaping the nation's nuclear testing program; irascible, opinionated, and conventional, Teller often claimed to be in control In order to divert the first test ban negotiation in history from the right track, he lost no time in proposing the concept of "clean bomb".If Einstein was ashamed that his colleagues had built the atomic bomb, Teller was proud of it. “In my mind, the difference between a nuclear weapon and a conventional weapon,” Teller said, “is the difference between an effective weapon and an obsolete weapon.” He looked down on those who talked about peace.He had seen Hitler do it when he conquered Hungary, and he believed that the Russians were doing the same when they planned to annex more of the world, and that only American nuclear weapons could subdue them. "If we give up nuclear weapons," Teller said openly, "we open the door to aggressors." Teller and Pauling, it can be said that the tip of the needle is at odds with each other.There are also similarities between each other: both have very distinct political views, both have unyielding and persistent demands, and both can clearly present well-founded scientific facts to support their respective political positions. In the spring of 1958, a bitter war of words broke out between the two men. The stage for the battle was set in the Los Angeles Educational Television studio.The TV boss arranged an hour-long debate between Teller and Pauling.In front of the camera, Pauling looks tall and tall, wearing crisp and neat high-end suits; on the other hand, Teller looks short and dark, with prominent browbones and bushy eyebrows. In contrast, he looks more like an aging uncle. Both were allowed to deliver an opening statement.Pauling started first.He turned on the offensive as soon as he opened his mouth, relentlessly criticizing Teller's article in "Life", criticizing "many of the claims without factual basis, and many of which are seriously misleading the public." For example, Teller once Accusing Pauling of saying that it was impossible to develop a clean bomb, in fact Pauling would never have said that, because he didn't know much about the subject. Teller's voice is deep and slow, still with a thick Hungarian accent.He used the opening remarks to calmly answer Pauling's questioning.He said he had seen Pauling opining about clean bombs in The New York Times, and perhaps the reporter had misunderstood Pauling's views (the paper did report that Pauling dismissed the production of clean bombs as "nonsense." talk").But that's secondary, Teller said.Everyone talks about peace, but how to achieve peace, everyone has a different view.In the final analysis, the reason why the Second World War happened is that some above-board countries reduced their armaments, while Hitler was appeased and strengthened.Teller added that the Russians said they were going to bury us, and we can't stop them from doing it until we develop nuclear weapons.Only with more experiments can we build clean bombs, dig canals, develop minerals, and make atomic bombs work for mankind. “There have been claims that this tiny amount of radioactivity has caused harm—supposedly cancer and leukemia—and, as far as I know, there are no hard statistics to back it up,” Teller eventually concluded. "It is possible to cause harm, but, in my opinion, even the possibility of it does not mean that there is actually harm; furthermore, very small amounts of radioactivity may be beneficial in turn. After all, there is no mutation, How can there be evolution?" "If everything is done as cautiously as we are on the issue of nuclear testing, I'm afraid the world can only crawl like a snail," Teller stopped talking, with a smile on his face. "As a great innovator, Dr. Pauling certainly does not want that to happen." Pauling hadn't expected Teller to be so calm and alert, so his response sounded sharper.His voice was higher and shriller than Teller's.In addition, Pauling made a tactical mistake when he managed to justify Khrushchev's statement that "we will bury you" by claiming that the Russian prime minister was talking about the political process and not about the war .He goes on to point out that Teller and colleagues themselves have estimated that the fallout could have induced 1,500 deletion mutations—a tenth of Pauling's own estimate, but they have acknowledged the dangers of fallout . Teller counters that the gap in estimates is just a sign of how unclear people are on the issue.Since the figures can vary so widely, it is not unreasonable to think that a single case cannot be found.Teller reiterated that even if testing poses risks, we must face them head on.Putting more industrial fumes into the air and adding a new food additive to our diets poses a far greater danger to us than that.He had even read a report that a considerable amount of variation was caused by the increased temperature of the semen when a man wore bodysuits.According to this argument, the trousers we wear today are far more dangerous than fallout. The debate continued in this way: Pauling made specific criticisms based on statistical analysis, and Teller, in refutation of these opinions, made a witty remark or two here and there, made some irrelevant metaphors, and imagined the future world. What will happen when nuclear weapons are eliminated.Pauling comes across as humorless and critical; Teller is laid-back and funny. After the debate, Pauling felt that his performance was terrible.Teller evaded reality, used public relations skills to make it sound like everything was going well, and put a high hat on Americans.Teller cited a large number of examples to illustrate that people have various misunderstandings about the Atomic Energy Commission and the military industry.It has been said that people in this area are contemplating nuclear war, making plans for a tactical nuclear attack, calculating how many millions of people will be killed, willingly sacrificing thousands of young people for generations to come People, whose purpose is to accelerate their political and economic deployment, just refuse to spend some time and money to study the cause of peace. Teller, however, was worse than these men, Pauling thought, because he was a scientist.Pauling's petition shows that scientists are generally in favor of the arms race.Scientists should lead people towards a rational and peaceful future.However, after this debate, Pauling realized that Teller was another kind of scientist. "Dr. Teller advocated the continuation of nuclear testing because he believed in the role of war, and nuclear war in particular," Pauling wrote after the debate, with an almost inexplicable exclamation between the lines.In Pauling's view, scientists should play an active role in the world, in the world he envisioned for the scientific community, in a world that advances along the path of science.At this time, in Pauling's mind, although Teller was an outstanding physicist, he was also a war madman; he was a dark angel descended from the scientific paradise to the earthly world. It was the only face-to-face debate between the two high-profile adversaries in the debate over the nuclear test ban. "Since then, I've refused to meet and debate (with Teller) again because I didn't think he was doing it properly," Pauling said. Pauling tried to continue his struggle with Teller through the press, but he soon discovered that he was also at a disadvantage in this position.Teller was able to publish his articles almost completely in accordance with his own wishes in some important journals such as Sex Life, but Pauling's articles were rejected because the entire field was too controversial and full of controversy. ambiguous concepts.Pauling once wrote a short article and posted it to "Life" magazine, criticizing Teller's point of view, but it was rejected.Before this, he had written several articles, which were rejected by many popular magazines.The only place he was able to publish was Stone's Weekly. He tried another route.The news media can shut him out, but so what if he publishes a book?A book by Teller was about to be published, entitled Our Nuclear Future; Pauling thought he could write a book that would not only help counteract the possible impact of that book, but would also provide some insight into the Le's article in "Life" magazine for a full and public answer. At the beginning of March 1958, he forgot to eat and sleep, and spent two whole weeks writing and writing, and completed a thick stack of manuscripts. He had learned nothing about nuclear weapons and radioactive dust in the past few years. An incisive exposition was omitted. The book is titled "No More War!" " came out under the name.This is a wonderful book that combines popular science, political essays and tragic stories.The first few chapters are simple and easy to understand, and they are the lecture notes given by Professor Pauling, explaining the content of atomic fission and fusion, the generation of radioactive dust, the relationship between genetic variation and radioactivity, etc.There are also some eye-opening materials interspersed from time to time.For example, the 100,000 genes in the three billion people on Earth—the complete human gene pool—would fit together to form a ball one-twenty-fifth of an inch in diameter.However, Pauling took great care to avoid citing some data that may cause controversy, and tried to record all his estimates of hereditary impairment in a mild word, and made a statement on how to reason and demonstrate in each case. careful consideration.Just the occasional poke at Teller and the AEC in a few places.Teller has a saying that accepting a little radioactivity may be beneficial to genes. In reply to Teller's opinion, Pauling quoted Haldane's metaphor: My clock is not accurate. Shoot a bullet at it, and in doing so, it is possible to make it go more accurately, but it is much more likely to stop it altogether. ① Haldane (John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, 1892-1964), an Indian-born British geneticist, biostatistician and physiologist, contributed to the study of population genetics and evolution, moved to India in 1957, and wrote "The New Ways, etc. In the middle of the writing, the author changed the topic and pointed the finger at Teller, Strauss, the Atomic Energy Commission and the arms race. "The public now seems to be getting the impression that scientists are widely divided about the facts," Pauling wrote, "and I think this can be explained by the fact that the Atomic Energy Commission has often issued misleading statements. Many of these statements are true but give the impression of being wrong; sometimes, some statements are themselves absurd." Pauling then listed a number of misleading statements and refuted them one by one. Teller claimed that the hazards posed by fallout were no more serious than the health risks posed to a person by an ounce overweight.However, Pauling questioned: Who can tell how much an ounce of excess weight will affect health?Pauling said Teller's claims were "ridiculous."Libby, a spokesman for the Atomic Energy Commission, has said that people in Denver, at a higher altitude, are exposed to more radiation, but there is no evidence that they have a higher rate of cancer than people elsewhere.This argument is also very absurd, Pauling retorted, because current medicine is not sophisticated enough to accurately predict the small number of cancer incidence increases.Libby also said, "There is not a single case in the United States where a single person has been injured or has been seriously affected in health as a result of a small increase in radioactivity from a nuclear test." In a sense, this Probably accurate, Pauling writes, because you cannot conclude a causal link between the fallout and any single case of cancer or birth defect.However, this would give the false impression that there is no danger at all, when in fact all scientists agree, including Libby himself, that fallout, to put it mildly, causes at least some genetic defects. There is an increasing phenomenon, and it may also bring other hazards to the health of all citizens. The final pages of the book invite readers to listen to the cautionary words of the Emergency Committee for Atomic Sciences, which is also Pauling's appeal for a new world order. "Has the mantra 'Don't kill' lost its meaning to us? Are we going to interpret it as 'Don't kill, but mass killing is okay', or 'Don't kill, but killing when national leaders say it's okay? OK'? "Pauling said that in today's world, moral degeneration, power struggles, and militarism have become commonplace. Only moral regression can save mankind. Pauling wrote: "I hope that our country, the United States of America, can deal with all kinds of world problems. When dealing with affairs, first put morality in the most important position. "Of course, that alone is not enough. How can we achieve peace when justice prevails overnight in the United States while the rest of the world remains the same?" I propose, address the world The big problems of the world can be solved in the same way as other problems," Pauling wrote. "The key is perseverance-the path of peace needs to be explored. He suggested that a minister responsible for peace affairs should be established in the United States cabinet, and that 10% of military expenditure should be used as a budget in this regard. Geographers and other talents spend several years practically exploring ways to solve various problems in the world, and find ways to prevent wars and maintain peace. "Every country should establish an institution to explore peace. These institutions can be united through an organization that studies world peace under the leadership of the United Nations. First, clear the necessary obstacles for the signing of an international agreement such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and then Going a step further to find ways to end wars between nations. Bigger and newer weapons will never bring us peace, Pauling writes. Only international law can do that. As Pauling was writing this book, fallout from a massive nuclear test six months earlier was beginning to fall to the ground around the world.As radioactive contamination worsens, so do people's concerns.News reports of rising levels of strontium-90 turned public opinion on Pauling's side.Dozens of local protest groups began merging into a new national organization called the National Committee for Sound Nuclear Policy.In Europe and Japan, protests against nuclear weapons surged and quickly spread to every corner.These activities put renewed pressure on governments to take concrete action against fallout. After Pauling finished the manuscript of this book, he began to think about new ways to stop nuclear testing.Through petitions and speeches, Pauling has become an internationally recognized leader in the campaign against nuclear testing.His communication network is expanding day by day, and the schemes he envisions are also increasing day by day.Sente-Gergi is an American of Hungarian descent, the discoverer of vitamin C. Like Pauling, he is also a scientist with a wide range of research interests. He wrote to Pauling, suggesting that the United States, Ukraine and the Soviet Union A summit meeting of the scientific community attended by representatives of the National Academy of Sciences, etc., to discuss how to modernize the "outdated" economic and political systems of these countries, and use this as the first step towards peace.Pauling enthusiastically endorsed the idea, and soon revised it into a proposal for a "World Congress of Science," in which representatives convened from many nations would come together "to study how to adjust the political structure of the world so that it compatible with scientific progress". The need for such a scientific council was all the more urgent to Sente-Jergi in March when he read a plan to nuclear-arm American submarines.He wrote to Pauling: "There is no guarantee that the commanders of these submarines must be men of high moral standards. We can be sure that these submarines will sink to the bottom of the sea and will be bored to stay there. Drinking and merry-go-round all day. The fate of the world is thus in the hands of dozens of singing drunken men, any one of whom can light a firecracker for a little thrill." Pauling and Center-Gergi Submitted to the National Academy of Sciences Proposal to convene a World Congress. Pauling kept in touch with Russell and other concerned scientists.These scientists are like-minded people who oppose nuclear weapons, and they form a loosely structured international network.As a continuation of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, these activists arranged for the first worldwide conference in the summer of 1957, independently attended by scientists from both the East and the West, to discuss the issue of nuclear weapons, which transcended the self-interests of all countries and was of common concern.This meeting—called the "Pugwash Conference," after the location of a Canadian real estate firm run by wealthy industrialist Silas Eaton—turned out to be valuable, and, as a result, Russell thought it should be expanded into a series of meetings.Since Pauling was one of the earliest signatories of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, he was expected to be one of the twenty or so delegates to the first Pugwash meeting.However, when the meeting started, he was still visiting Europe and could not attend the meeting.However, he met Russell and several others in 1958, and together they planned the next Pugwash conference in Vienna. Pauling continued to make frequent public appearances.He sparred with Libby on Edward Murro's "Today Watch" show and gave interviews to various radio reporters. In March 1958, the Soviets called for an immediate cessation of all nuclear testing, which was tantamount to dropping a political bomb.The timing was carefully considered.At that time, the Soviets had just concluded a long and extremely dirty series of nuclear tests, the Americans were about to begin a new series of tests, and people were concerned about the fallout (largely caused by the Soviet tests) Just hit the climax.Of course, given that a new test-ban proposal had already been submitted, such timing was less important to Pauling. He and the delegates from the Pugwash conference added fuel to the test ban campaign. On April 4, three days after the Soviets made their proposal, Pauling, Russell, Clarence, Pickett, Thomas, and others—among them six representatives from the Marshall Islands—appealed A federal district court asked to ban a series of nuclear tests scheduled for the Atomic Energy Commission.Using a unique legal process, Pauling et al. argued that Congress had never authorized government authorities to release fallout into the atmosphere that would threaten "people's right to live and to raise healthy children."Pauling announced at a press conference that they were already taking similar legal action against the Soviet Union and Great Britain. ①Thomas (Norman Thomas, 1884-1968), the leader of the American Socialist Party (1926-1955), the socialist presidential candidate (1928-1948) who failed to run for the President of the United States six times, dedicated his life to social reform, safeguarding individual rights, and One of the founders of the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a quixotic act to appeal to an agency of the federal government.Since the main purpose is to arouse public attention, Pauling is quite proud of this.If the behavior of the government is absurd, why can't it be corrected in the courts?In this case, he relied heavily on his attorney, Lincoln Welling.However, Welling told him to be prepared that the case would drag on for a long time. Activism against nuclear testing now takes up almost all of his time, but it is always worth spending time on a good cause.For this cause, he can spend every penny of his heart.Even the press that was negative about his actions seemed inconsequential to him. When Time magazine published a photo of Pauling and other anti-nuclear activists, it used this headline: "Are the defenders of the unborn ... or puppets manipulated by the enemies of freedom?" After Pauling saw it , There was a cold smile on his face.The forces opposing the nuclear test have gradually formed a certain momentum; perhaps, some overused means of attack, for example, labeling red elements as persecutions.Remote and slander, no longer have any effect. 1958年4月初，鲍林仔细地查阅了有关放射性尘埃的最新文献，无意中读到了一份令人吃惊的材料。比尔·利比本人在向瑞士医学科学院发表的一篇演说中，透露了造成放射性尘埃污染的一种来源：一种被称为碳14的寿命很长的同位素。这在以前从来没有报道过。利比对这种物质是非常熟悉的；好几年以前，他在自己的专业研究中就已经发现，可以利用自然界中存在的碳14衰变的特点，精确地测定文物的年代。 但是，对于这一新信息，鲍林更感兴趣的是这种物质正向空中泄漏的数量——每一次相当规模的核爆炸大约要泄漏160磅。碳元素几乎是构成一切生物分子的基本材料。鲍林知道，人体内处理碳14与处理普通碳的方法是相同的，可以按它们在自然界中实际存在的比例吸收到人体组织中。碳14的寿命很长，大约在八千年以上，因此到遥远的将来都将会构成威胁。鲍林很快就算出，到那时为止所进行的核试验，已使地球上碳14的总量增加了10％左右。如果让这种物质以这样的速度进入体内，它的放射性衰变就会大大提高遗传变异的速度。任何“干净的炸弹”都无法消除这一种物质而使问题得到真正的解决，因为碳14并不是裂变产生的，而是中子和空气中的氮原子发生反应的结果。但是，至今尚无人指出这种危险性。鲍林急急忙忙地就把其长期的影响算了出来。 4月28日，鲍林在华盛顿由国家科学院召开的一次会议期间，举行了一次记者招待会。会上，他宣布了他对“放射性尘埃中一种新威胁”作出的发现。鲍林告诉记者说，到那时为止，核试验所产生的碳14可能在未来三百年里创造出五百万名有缺陷的儿童，另外还有几百万人因此生癌症。第二天，鲍林所称的“新威胁”在全国各地的报纸上都作为头版新闻登了出来。 利比对此很恼火，因此立即进行了反驳。他声言，鲍林的估计离开目标十万八千里，因为大多数碳14最终都进入了海洋，人类因核试验而接触到的碳14，在总量上增加还不到1%——他对记者说，这种情况带来的“影响是极其微小的”。两天以后，一批哥伦比亚地质学家致函《纽约时报》称，鲍林在作估计时，使用的是碳14在整个地球上而不是纯粹在空气中的含量，这一数字就是造成模糊不清的起因；根据他们的计算，鲍林对碳14所作的估计比实际数字要高50倍。他们写道，来自碳14的实际威胁，只不过等同于向上爬升几英尺时增加的辐射量所带来的危险。他们在结束语中说：“受人尊敬的科学家夸大事实的言论，只能模糊公众的视线，无助于问题的解决。” 鲍林认识到自己在计算中出了错，因而将估计的破坏值降低了5倍，但他仍然坚持碳14会对未来的新生儿造成长期的威胁。 他原先的估计有错误，但经修改后所得的数据是正确的。六个月之后，原子能委员会悄悄地发表了一份报告，对放射性尘埃中碳14在长时间里造成的遗传性危害进行了估算，其结果与鲍林修改后的数据是非常吻合的。 但是，这毕竟给鲍林的信誉造成了损害。有人抓住他夸大其辞的把柄，在相当长的时间里利用他这一次失误，有意回避这样的事实，就是他在碳14问题上就本质而言是完全正确的。 1958年5月11日，鲍林出现在《与记者相见》的电视节目中。这是一次关于公共事务的采访，在全国范围内作实况广播。鲍林打算利用这一机会说明他对放射性尘埃的看法。他似乎并没有意识到，这一节目主持人劳伦斯·斯皮伐克照例会向特邀佳宾提出一系列尖锐的问题，他这档节目就是因为这一点而赢得过很高的评分。 在这一节目开始时，由四名记者组成的采访团开门见山地要求鲍林说明他反对核试验的动机。当鲍林试图说他与利比在数据上所持的不同态度时，一位来自赫斯特报系的记者打断了他的话。他问道，为什么美国人不应当相信利比和特勒？他们两位都是科学家，“从来就没有与共产党的阵线和事业发生过丝毫的牵连，不像你那样与他们有长期的联系。”当鲍林想要回答这一问题时，这位记者又提出了更多有关共产党阵线的问题，使他无法把话讲完。其他记者也插了进来：他选择时机用碳14的有关数据来抨击干净炸弹的试验，难道不是非常奇怪的吗？他不是支持过罗森伯格一家吗？鲍林不得不就罗森伯格案的细节与斯皮伐克展开了一场小型的辩论。接下来，问题转到他是怎样为请愿书筹集资金的问题。鲍林回答说，全是他本人出的钱；此时，有人质问道：“那末，全世界共产党的报纸都在那一天宣扬了此事，你该作何种解释？”“那是报界的事情——”鲍林回答道，“恐怕你比我了解得更多吧。” 预定给他的半小时已过，他始终未得到机会就放射性尘埃问题说上几句实质性的话。鲍林和爱娃昂首阔步走出了演播室。这根本不是公共事务性节目，这是一场事先不打招呼的审讯。两人都气愤极了。 Resign 杜布里奇也非常气愤。他手下的化学系主任竟然在全国性电视上叫嚷要为已经定罪的间谍作辩护，他感到，这下更难继续护卫鲍林了。 杜布里奇亲眼目睹了鲍林在获得诺贝尔奖后所发生的变化。在他看来，鲍林变得不那么负责了，讲话更大胆，将大量的时间和精力抛在反对核试验的斗争上，影响到他在加州理工学院的工作。他看到，鲍林发表言辞激烈的声明，在政治上将自己置于不受人欢迎的地位，与学校赖以取得资助的政府机构作对，造成了学校董事会内部的不团结。 鲍林在政治上愈陷愈深，他和杜布里奇之间的关系也愈来愈冷淡。不过，其中的原因倒不是杜布里奇不赞成鲍林的立场，他和物理系主任罗伯特·巴契，像学校里其他教授一样，都声明过反对核试验。“我想，有人感到有些……——这里用到了介于不满和不安之间的一个字眼——莱纳斯没有千方百计地去争取其他同事站在他的一边。事实上，这些同事也运用了一些不那么声张的方式，就和平问题向政府进言，”鲍林的一位同事诺曼·戴维森这么说。鲍林这个人豪放不羁，一意孤行，对于学校这个大家庭中其他成员的优秀成绩，忘了给予充分的肯定。 杜布里奇还不赞成鲍林所用的策略。学校里似乎很难看到鲍林的身影。作为系主任，许多事情都等着他去做：主持有关的仪式，进行必要的社交和应酬，寻求资助人，等等。研究工作也没有做好。以前在化学键方面所做的工作已是昨日的辉煌，相比之下，更多化学家已经把目光盯在分子轨道的理论上——鲍林却始终没有把这一课题放在心上——他当时正在研究的许多课题，例如，在分子水平上寻找精神病病根，似乎已走入死胡同。系里教职工对办公房间的分配和科研重点的确定，一直在嘀嘀咕咕地埋怨。反正鲍林不在场，他也难以听到这么多意见。 在这段时间里，鲍林奔走在世界各地，他的名字常见于报刊的标题中。 算起来，前后已经有三人因对鲍林不满而辞去了校董的职位，其中一位就是约翰·麦科恩。一天清晨，这位共和党要人打开报纸，读到了另一篇由专栏作家撰写的报道，涉及到鲍林参加共产党阵线发起的和平运动的情况，一怒之下，他辞职离开了校董会。他打电话给杜布里奇发牢骚，时间是清晨6：30。电话铃惊醒了还处于梦中的杜布里奇。麦科恩对着他愤怒地责骂鲍林是一位大逆不道的化学家，接着就咔嚓一声挂上了电话，随后又给其他校董打了电话。有些态度比较温和的校董对麦科恩这次发牢骚很反感，因此不愿意跟他继续谈下去。这样，麦科恩退出了学校董事会。 但是，时间到了1958年，杜布里奇听人说，麦科恩已被内定为斯特劳斯的继承人，即将担任原子能委员会主席。杜布里奇和他手下的物理系主任巴契，两个人都与原子能委员会有着许多业务上的联系。 6月初，鲍林被请到杜布里奇的办公室。日常闲聊已没有必要，杜布里奇单刀直入回顾了许多令人痛心疾首的事情。接着，他对鲍林说：“你应当清楚，科学并不意味着你一定要以国际问题的权威自居。”鲍林重申，在自己认为是至关重要的问题上，他有发言权。两人都承认，鲍林使学校卷进了许多麻烦事。杜布里奇再次要求鲍林收敛一下自己的活动，然而遭到鲍林斩钉截铁的拒绝。但是，杜布里奇需要向校董们出示自己的保证，表明鲍林在某种意义上仍然是受到约束的。杜布里奇想起了一年以前鲍林曾主动请求辞去系主任职务的事，因而随口说了一句：“现在我想可以答应你这个要求了。”鲍林马上立起身来，走了出去。 鲍林担任化学系系主任已经二十多年了。毫无疑问，无官一身轻，他终于可以摆脱这类使人头疼的行政事务了。的确，这是他本人在一年以前主动作出的抉择，辞职以后，他就能用更多的时间投身于和平的事业。 6月10日，他上书杜布里奇说：“自己担任系主任职务……已有21年了，我认为应当把这副担子交给另外一个人……请允许我利用这一个机会，再次向您和学校董事会表示衷心的感谢。你们给了我这么好的机会，使我在过去的光阴和未来的岁月里继续在加州理工学院进行科学研究的工作……作为学院教职工队伍的一员，我感到高兴，同时我也希望在这里继续愉快地工作十年的时间。” 不久以后，他的口气却有所变化。“我被要求辞去了化学和化学工程系主任的职务，辞去了克莱林化学实验室主任的职务，”鲍林说道，“我也就真的辞职了。”