ae 407916 DAY 2 — Ray: Yesterday, we just undoubtedly scratched the surface of questions you might have, and I expect that we will have many more this morning. I would like to suggest that we try for the early part of our discussion to keep (to) those questions related to what's in the pamphlet and what that means. And, then if there are things, other things, you would like to ask about we will either try to answer your questions here or take them down and answer them later, or perhaps even suggest other places that you might get those answers. : Ray: To repeat then, our purpose here for this visit is to report and explain the results of a particular survey that was conducted four years ago, and to give you this booklet to take back and use in informing the people you represent of the work that has been done and its results. Ray: Copies of that booklet and the scientific report have been furnished to the government and have been and will be furnished to anyone who has an interest, including lawyers, independent scientists, anyone to whom you wish to refer. And we are pleased to have it reviewed and both reviewed by anyone you choose. Ray: May we now proceed with your questions? Marshallese: I am referring to the paper, the supplement paper. If I understand that correctly, the instrument or the way of measuring of the radioactivity on Utrik and Mejit, was it the same instrument. Because it appears to me that the population of Utrik was moved and yet on this paper it shows that the contamination of Mejit exceeds that of Utrik. (and then by implication) Our population was not moved. Ray: In response to the first part of the question, the same techniques were used at both locations and so these numbers are comparable. they come from the same base of information. They are, The population of Utrik was Dok ARCHIVES