2. Relative - these constraints impose avarying degree of modification on the obtective, proportional to the power of the constraint (e.g, 20% of the funds necessary to reach the objective). Using this format, we will examine four options relating to the detection and treatment of: A. | Thyroia and other radiation-related diseases in the exposed and control populations, B. All of A plus other patients already taken into the study with non-rédiation related diseases (e.g., diabetes). This would inclucd= exposed and control group patients only. Cc. All of A and B plus all low level radiation exposed patients who have gone through full screening, irrespective of findings of disease,(e.g., the Bikini group). nt. | D. All of A, B, and C plus full screening of all inhabitants Living! 51ene? on, or scheduled to be repatriated to, the Marshall Islands we RAE pe contazinated by atomic fallout; i.e., background radiation ‘cronesian higher than median for all Micronesian islands. ry nee pln N uel naeae7 With these four options in mind, we must first consider the common constraints impinging on the subheadings listed under Column IT of the flow sheet (see Figure I). appropriate. 1. The unique constraints for each option will be Listed as The common constraints are: Under current operating policies, DOE responsibilities do not 44 eget include health care for non-irradiation related pathologic conditions. 2. The definition of “radiation-related"” pathologic conditions is not clear. 9052220 There is uncertainty among radiation experts as to J! yeie™