t _p exposure at the level of the recommended criterion of 0.25 Rem/yr would # +«<. - ~~. oa) ~ + id ww 4 ae . give iwice-shecebove-vaite Uding a linear dose-effect curve,or eH} rrer 37 cases per year. The Task Group views this as a pessimistic upper linit of risk. _ It could be inferred that there may be between zero and three eases of cancer in 100 years if the entire Enewetak population were continuously exposed to 0.25 Rem/yr over that time period. ' 7 f a As feriuio avd - — ot ack of,confidence in extrapolation of high dose and dose rate effects into the very low dose and low dose rate situation, consicderationznfthe fact that for alternatives being considered for cleanup and 3 Pb Tetnte ee rehabilitation, Most of the exposure to whole body ,and in fact to all organs, comesfron internal enitters wheemin the shape of the dose-effect , | 7 eT te dint 7 ee - curve ,is most uncertain, ama lack of confidence in the statistics and oo risk estimate drawn there fron’ tesa led the Task Group to have serious reservations about their validity. The Task Group holds the opinion ' that such estimates can not be used in any wt _.! Food way to draw conclusions on whether current radiation standards are too hish or too low or as a basis for decision maxing relative to resettlement of Enewetak Atoll. While the risk associated with doses at the level of current standards is possibly not zero, it is viewed as being very low as described by FRC, ICRP, and NCRP. The basic FRC standards, conservatively applied, are viewed as suitable for Enewetak rehabilitation provided there is also a serious and concerted effort to keep exposures as low as practicable. 141-18 f-