—
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