ATOMIC ENERGY


B. Notation of Interim Allocation of Uranium Ores.
  The members took note of the interim allocation of Congo uranium,
as set forth in.Tab B.
C. Consideration of U.K. Request for Brazilian Monazite.
  It was agreed that the British request as set ;forth in Tab C should
be approved., Note was taken, however, of the following points:
  1. That this particular request should not be considered as a prece-
dent for increased demands on Brazilian supplies but that further
requests as they might arise would have to be considered on their
merits.
  2. That the rare earth industry would be told informally of this
proposed action.
  3. That the views of our Ambassador -in Brazil as to possible effect
of this action on current negotiations with the Brazilian Government
would be obtained prior to informing the British.
D. Report on Belgian Talks.
  The members noted the attached report on the status of negotiations
with the Belgians, (,See Tab D)
II. CURRENT STATUS OF TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIPS OUTSIDE RAW
                         MATERIALS FIELD
A. British Proposal for Examination of Comparability of Standards
     of Security.
  It was agreed that the British proposal contained in Tab E be
  accepted.
  B. Use of the Chalk River NRX Reactor for Irradiation.
  SECRETARY JOHNSON expressed the view that the nub of the question
  was whether the information that was made available to the Canadians
in connection with certain irradiation projects did or did not con-
stitute weapons information, COXMISSIONER PIKE stated that in his
view the information involved did not in fact constitute weapons data.
He reported that the matter had been discussed.at length with the
Joint Committee and the point had been made to it that the informa-
tion in question might be considered borderline, but that in view of
the immense advantages to be gained from the proposed irradiations
the Commission considered that the project should go forward. On
this basis the Joint Committee had agreed. Recognizing that this
question was a close one on which honest differences of opinion were
justified, it was agreed that Dr. Karl Compton 3 and some other person
not directly connected either with the AEC or the Department of
Defense should be -asked to give their judgment as to whether the

  'Physicist,; President :of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1930-19-48*
  since 1939, served in numerous governmental and advisory governmental posi-
  tions concerned with military research and development.
      496-362-77  36               '..   .   .


549