Leo M. Krulitz October 30,71979 Page Eight in the decisionmaking process which was based upon it. As we have said, the AEC insisted that all questions of radiological health and safety be resolved in terms of radiation protection standards, rather than the more realistic basis of expected health effects from projected doses of radiation. See EIS, Vol. I, §§5.3.2 to 5.4; and Vol. II, Tab B, pp. 4-5. This is not the place to devote the attention it deserves to the question of the relevance and utility of United States radiation protection standards to the resettlement of Enewetak atoll. You have our "Radiation Protection: for Enewetak Atoll" and we are working on a revised version which will incorporate the risk estimates recently performed by our advisors. Suffice it to say herethatit is simply not possible for one to make decisions in matters’ of this kind in terms of numerical limits which are in themselves the result of one kind of cost-benefit analysis of potential adverse health effects weighed against known benefits of the use of radiation by members of a large population. But take. the Protective Action Guides, for the sake of discussion, and apply them to the case at hand. The question then becomes which will do the people of Enewetak more harm, living at Enjebi or denial of that opportunity? And a closely related, extremely important question: What will do the people of Enewetak the greater harm, permitting them to decide their own fate, or denying them that right? When measured by the major concern which we all share, that is the potentially adverse health effects of radiation exposure, the risk today, if anything, is lower than in 1975, when the predicted health effects contained in the EIS (Vol. I, Tables 5-12 and 5-13), are compared with those based upon the most recent dose assessment. These are the facts essential to rational consideration of and decision in this matter. The most significant difference between 1979 and 1975, is that the people of Enewetak are now exercising their last chance to take a look at this Matter. They have made their own evaluation and called upon you to reconsider. The relevant facts, as set forth in the EIS, are essentially the same today as they were in