m and its effects w oan result, to the benefit Gane United States and the world at large. 3.2. The Hot Particle Problem It is with the kind assistunce of Drs. E. A. Martell, Donald P. Geesaman, Arthur R. tamplin.and Thomas B. Cochran that we derive cor comments here concerning this unique radiological hazard. Drs. Tamplin and Cochran submitted formal comments upon this DEIS to the Defense Nuclear Agency under date of September 24, 1974, and we fully accept and endorse what they have said there. Their observations and concerns are entirely consistent with those of Martell and Geesaman, expressed to us in personal communications. For a discussion of the seriousness the hot particles problem we attach as Appendix II, E. A. Martell, "Basic Considerations in the Assessment of the Cancer Risks and Standards for Internal é..pha Emitters," (Statement presented at the public hearings on plutonium standards sponsored by the United States Environmental ‘Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, January 10, 1975.) To further emphasize Our grave concern about this problem, we attach comments and materials provided to us by.Dr. Donald P. Geesaman as Appendix III. We subscribe fully to the views they express and we insist that they be dealt with fully in the final impact statement. It is beycnd question that the presence of Plutonium-239, Americium-241 and perhaps other alpha-emitting radionuclides at Enewetak Atoll constitutes one of the most serious health risks for the returning population. It is highly likely that inhalation of very small amounts of plutonium ‘gives: rise to a high risk of lung cancer. 4 And the DEIS completely fails to address the recent