— Reply To Mitchell LETTER: Dear Editor: Ted Mitchell's leng thy article in the September issue af the Micronesian Independent on the return of the Enewetak people to their atol] ignores some important points and treats a number of serious health and scientific issues in a jess then serious manner. Some examples are: 1) White Mitchell says that AOSD there are "none better than Drs. Bender, Brill and Ogle,! he ignores the serious disagreement among ‘the United States scientific community on the safety of Enewetak. Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a consultant to the Division of Standard Setting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision, said that the continued on page § Progressively WaTSe the being eaten by somebody, wne will presumably instantly.” in fact, drop dead government scientists have noted that cn Rengelap Atoll three species of terns in one year deposited mere than 90,00G pounds of waste. As other waste coconut planis as cOniamination irees and take up feriilizer, can tnis its pose a serious proslem in the food cnain. Secondly, although Mitchell expected far cach successive must know of the many year's ume betweru exposure to Pruciciivity Ang the feneration gevelooment conse quences population are in LO the be affected group." 2} The Ovfense Nuclear Agency calls the clean up Operation a "remarkable success." Yet inconsistencies government's which raise there in are the safety plan questions. For example, if you stand on the dome at Runit island, you are mot required to wear any protective clothing. But standing a mere 15 feet away on Runit Island, you are required to wear boots and also a face mask to avoid breathing plutonium S013? be treats wind particles. carried COPY AVAILABLE population the in less exposed. This is Itke telling one member of a family his or her risk of lung cancer is lowered if the other non-smoking members of the family are included and an average risk given. It is a scientifically ridiculous approach to public health." Dr. Edward Martell, 2 researcher involved in the Bikini and Enewetak iesting during the 1950's, said in 1974, "The reseisiement of such sites is extremely likery to have tragic consequences, particularly for the younger members of the inhabitants. Mitchell Lot 1 tet 3 the inhabitants of Enbeji by averaging 3) question of plutonium contamination from Runit or other islands with sarcasm, ridiculing the possibility of “a bird flying from Runit to some island in the south with deadly radiztion between its tecs and ma oe report on Enewetak's safely written by Bender and Brill “reduced the radiation dose of oof leukemias, tumors and cancers, he deals with this sericus issue only roking ly. 4) Most responsible scieniists use othe “linear® metncoae to estimate nazarcs from radialon exposure, tat is, heaith protlems are directly rejaied to the size of the dose dwon te the Vat this means smallest is dose. that no oe ee ee ee "safe" level of exposure exists. Every dose, to the smailest exposure carries some risk. We know radiation (which that natural comes from the sun, etc.) fs hazardous 35 me