. . . ,. . . 9 . . MhTS ON DRAFTDUCIMEhT“PRELIMINARYREASSSSMEW OF THE PUTEMiAL RADIOLOGICALDOSESFGR RESIDENTSRESETTLINGENWiETAK AWLL” Speclfi.c (Mancnts . fS #VCn M to mflne Predic1. Psge 2, paragraph 2. m r8pfmp~03c living pstterns. lhe report would be mxe thns for proposed altenste valuable if it also refined predictions for the planned living pattern (’i%e proposed ●lternate living psttem SS defintd by Case 3 of the EIS. to Cast 3 differs, for exmple, in thst tt does not allow @st siruilar “food gathering” on northtitst islands and it IMts cocenut consmp~ion from northeast islands to 10 percent rather than 40 percent. } A =view .of dose predictions for Case 3 was dccned necessary when high doses were discovered for people of Bikini Atoll. The DDEreco=nended sgainst the *S h*d p~anting of coconut trees on northeast islands of Enewetak Atoll, . . .. .. bctn . . -. . . “