For example, comparing women over age 20 in the sucust 6, 1975 Preliminary Bikini Estimates to women and children to age five from Table 4, Volume I, page 33 of =ne Enewetak Survey (based on data from Ujelang, the northern Marshalls Atoll where the Enewetak People now live), we note Bikini Table 2 contemplates women will spend only 15 percent of their time in the highly radioactive interior of Bikini Island whereas Tahle 4 of the Enewetak Survey § -. estimates 95 hours per week, or about 55 percent of their time. in the interior of Ujelang for the nearest comparable group, women and children to age five. Even if we add to the fifteen percent interior of island estimate in Table 2 the figures of 123 percent for "Within 10m of home" and another 10 percent. for “Elsewhere in village", we reach a total of only 35 percent for Bikini compared to about 55 percent for the Enewetak comparable group. We believe Table 4 of the Enewetak Survey, Volume I, page 33, represents a reasonably valid prediction of life-stvle for a resettled Bikini, based on our own personal knowledge of Marshallese living patterns. We also understand clearly that if Table 4 of the Enewetak Survey had been used by ERDA-AEC in predicting External-Dose Estimates for Puture Bikini Inhabitants the predicted doses would have been much higher. * We know of no basis whatever for the assumptions set forth at in Table 2. We do know, however, that reliance on data such as nis could lead our people to acceptance of unknown and unreason- BSTESUSY ania risks of cancer and other cernetic and hezlth problems. ‘Ta alse “nots that we are competent +7 sersonally evaluate only 2 small part of tha data in ERDA-NEC reports but that, based on the data we can evaluate, such as comparison of the Table discussed nbdove, we have no basis for confidence in ERDA-AEC's reports ar recommendations. -J r . = . ~ —_—T, -7L1S 13 shown by a letter from JDe. Chabran to our counsel: n “ 4