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