-3- 2. I have read and I am familiar with: (2) “Preliminary Report; Radiological Evaluation of Phase II Housing Construction Bikini Atoll," August 6, 1975. (>) “Preliminary External-Dose Estimates for Future Bixini Atoll Innabitants," by Paul H. Gudiksen and William L. Robison, August 6, 1975. | My comments below, based on my personal knowledge, relate to the radiologicai evaluation of the Bikini Atoll as set forth in these: two reports (hereafter referred to as references (a) 3. and (b)). Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of Table 3-1 taken from the National Academy of Sciences' BEIR Report (also attached as part of Exhibit C is a copy of the title page of the report). In order to make a similar evaluation for Bikini Atoll one must correct for differences in populationand rate of exposure. For example, assume there will be roughly 1,000 people on the atoll (784 persons claim land rights on Bikini Atoll according to p.6 of reference (b))after the complete resettlement, and assume they are exposed at 0.2 rem/year Cases 2-4 in Table 4 of reference (a)). the internal dose estimate. (see This does not include The correction needed to normalize che data in Table 3-1 of the BSEIR Report to the Bikini exposure under these exposure assumptions would be 1000 2,000 ,000 x ae . = 1/100,000 Tn other words, divide the entries in Table 3-1 by 100,000. cr reasons that are discussed in Exhibit B, (fu Snoulad use ine upper limic estimate in Table 3-if(i.e., relative risx mscdel - cases (5)). could exsecxr about 9,978/100,900 the Under tnrese assumptions you - 0.09 cancers per year, years aS a result of this exposure. 2052149 I belie. or one