fiants are advised by their counsel that ERDA-AEC representatives attributed the contents of Table 2 to the Enawetak Survey at meetings at Livermore, California on Rsgust 12, 1975 and in private conversations between Allen and Gudiksen and Ray in the Marshalls in September, 1975. Affiants can state flatly that Table 2 bears no resemblance to any probable life-style of future Bikini residents. The estimates of time to be spent in the interior of the island are far too low and the estimates for time to be spent on the beaches and lagoon are far too high. AZfiants understand clearly that these estimates have been used for computer analysis of probable external gamma radiation dose estimates and that the integrity of the conclusions in the document rests entirely on the validity of Table 2. In the judgment of affiants, Table 2 is utterly lacking in validity. It contemplates a life-style with an unrealistically high amount of time to be spent on the beach and lagoon, where external gamma radiation is apparently low and with an unrealistically low amount of time to be ‘spent in the interior of Bikini Island, where radiation is extremely high. Because we understand representatives of ERDA-AEC bese Table 2 on Enewetak data (see footnote 1, page six, English version, specifically attributing the data to the Erewetak Survey), we compared Table 2 to the comparable vaterial in the Enewetak Survey, set forth at page 33 of Volume I. “Ne find no valid resemblance between Table 2 and the contents of Table 4 at Volume I, page 33 of the Enewetak Survey. = photocopy of that Table is attached for comparison.with Tasle 2, a copy of which is also attached. 9052157