Dr. Henry I. Kohn Page 2 April 29, 1988 In addition to wanting our efforts on the DOE book accurately represented, we want the Livermore people to receive the credit due them for their excellent The following work, confirmed,by your verification of their dose estimates. comments bear on these points. Page 18, para. 2, line 4 - DOE-1982 includes no conclusions about Rongelap’s The report only used dose estimates from the Livermore report being safe. (your reference Robison 1982b) and gave estimates of possible future health Conclusions were left to the reader, since we did not feel effects. qualified to make any judgment about what the Marshallese should consider The authors of DOE-1982 would prefer that you merely make safe or unsafe. the statement, “The information -irrthe 1982 book was not accepted by the Rongelap people,” which is more accurate. Page 23, para. 2, line 5 - “failed to consider” seems unfair criticism of the authors of DOE-1982 and of the Livermore report. Since we used invivo counting data in the Bikini book, it’s obvious we would have used it in the 1982 bookhad the data for people living on all the northern Giving equal treatment to all the atolls and atolls been accessible. usina a common aDDroach that allowed com~arisons Precluded usinq in-vivo co~n~ing data for-only one. Had we been” asked to-prepare a boo~ specifically for Rongelap, using availab- e in-vivo counting data would likey have been considered. Page 28, para. 1 - This implies, incorrectly, that the authors of DOE’S-1982 calculated the dose values. The origina- source is your reference, Robison 1982b, the authors of which made assumptions about the diet (which seemed reasonable at the time). Page 3.4, para. 2, line 3 - As-noted above, DOE-1982 did not choose the BNL Community B diet. It was chosen-by the authors of Robison 1982b. Page 42, para. 3, line 1 - DOE-1982 used a cesium dose from Robison 1982b that overstated the dose compared to whole body counting. (Your statement DOE people were clear in not reads like a criticism of the Livermore work. wanting under-estimates. A factor of 3 over-estimate was certainly preferable to a factor of3 under-estimate). You might want to discuss.this and the previous item with Bill Robison. Page 42, last para. - This again implies, incorrectly, that the authors of DOE-1982 made the calculations that you have confirmed. The credit rightfully goes to Bill Robison and his colleagues. .