Pe enecrs ercanSoove’ eB already moved back to the southemm islands. which the Agency calls ‘relatively uncontaminated.” Meanwhile. the Department of Energy says the atoll’s northern The Enewetak people have an intense desire to return home, after 33 years on tiny Ujelang Atoll. And on the basis of this information, the Enjebi people voted to returm to their 43 nuclear tests occurred—should be ity of the study conducted by Bender and Brill, whose base is the islands—where the majority of the off limits for at least 30 years. since radiation levels are still high there. Because of the Department ruling, millions of dollars have been spent island in the north. But the objectiv- government-funded Brookhaven National Laboratory, has been questioned. Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a on building houses and community consultant to the Division of Stan- thousands of coconut trees in the southern islands: but no funds have been used to rehabilitate the north- study: facilities and on replanting dard Setting for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said of the em islands. This has caused problems among the Enewetakpeople as, traditionally. they are divided into two distinct groups: the Dri-Enjebi in the northern and Dri-Enewerak in the south. Accustomed to their own chiefs and land, the Dri-Enjebi are reluctant to live on another chief's land. In September 1979, the radiologi- cal information about Enewetak was presented by the Departmentof Energy to the people. Michael Bender and Bertrand Brill, two scientists hired by Micronesian Legal Services then testified that their study showed all the islands to be safe for habitation, including northern Enjebi Island. The chances of adverse effects were so small, they had concluded, that ‘cancer mortality in the lifetime of the population is estimated to be less than a single case."’S They asserted that the Department of En- ergy Overstated the msk: ‘DoE tends to exaggerate the probiem,”’ said Micronesian Legal Service Director Ted Mitchell.¢ **‘The population of Enewetak has the right to knowthat a value judgment has been madefor them, namely that induction of cancer is their only concern. They may, ifinformed about hypothyroidism, apJastic anemia, premature aging, benign tumors and other such dis- orders, make a different judgment. They ‘reduced’ the radiation dose of the inhabitants of Enjebi by averaging in the population less exposed. This is like telling one memberof a family his or her nsk of lung canceris lowered if the other nonsmoking membersofthe family are included and an ‘average’ risk given. It is a scientifically ndiculous approach to public health. Basing a resettlement decision af- fecting the lives of $00 people on the Bender and Brill inadequate health assessment would be extremely im- prudent."*? Glen Alcalay, a former Peace Corps Volunteer in the Marshalls. said the problem is ‘‘the inherent conflict of interest in Brookhaven researchers assess U.S. government data... . The historyof the U.S. testing program was one of repeated mistakes and miscalculations.”” In his view, ‘‘nongovernment radiation experts” should be included in all such surveys.® A May 1979 General Accounting Office report cautioned that *‘be- cause of uncertainty of the long term effects of exposure to low level radiation, it is possible that the people of Enewetak could receive doses in excess of current standards.” It also urged an independent assessment of Enewetak by “experts who have no direct connections with the nuclear testing program or the Enewetak cleanup project ... before resettlement of the people begins."’? This report was initially withheld from the Marshall Islands government for political reasons. Since deporting an independent team of Japanese scientists invited by Marshall Islands leaders to investigate the radiation problems in 1971, the United States has stead- fastly refused to allow independent monitoring of the Marshallese people and their environment. President Lyndon Johnson an- nounced in 1968 that Bikint—site of 23 bombtests—would be retumed to its people. who had been living in exile since 1946. In 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission said: "*(there is] virtually no radiation left on Bikini’ and “the exposures to radiation of the Bikini people do not offer a significant threat to their health and safety .""'° A smalj—-scale cleanup and re- having habilitation program was begun and December 1980 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 25