rerist ow
velta wir usw
Add
Lim cohv.u.
CMPoe es er
IN DTI
pte
cost-benefit analysis of potential adverse health effects
weighed against known benefits of the use of radiation by
Stated
members of a large population.
But take the Protective Action Guides, for the sake of
discussion, and apply them to the case at hand.
The question
then becomes which will do the people of Enewetak more harm,
living at Enjebi or denial of that opportunity?
Anda
closely related, extremely important question:
What will
do the people of Enewetak the greater harm, permitting
them to decide their own fate, or denying them that right?
When measured by the major concern which we all share,
that is the potentially adverse health effects of radiation
exposure, the risk today,
if
anything,
is
lower than
in
when the predicted health effects contained in the EIS
(Vol.
I,
Tables
5-12
and
5-13),
1975,
are compared with those
based upon the most recent dose assessment.
These are the facts essential to rational consideration of
and decision in this matter.
The most significant difference
between 1979 and 1975, is that the people of Enewetak are
now exercising their last chance to take a look at this
matter.
They have made their own evaluation and called
upon you to reconsider.
The relevant facts, as set forth
in the EIS, are essentially the same today as they were in