Cliff Sloan Paga 2 June 6, 1°80 Vhere are inner scientific inconsistencies in this paper, example, on page 1 the authors state: For “. .. the only potential health effects are the induction of cancer among the exposed population anc the induction of genetic effects ... .” On page 13 they admit: "“. . . mutations may be induced in any body cell that has a nuclous .. .* and on page 18: “Of the somatic effects of ionizing radiation, cancer induction is that of greatest concern.” The population of Enewetak tall has the right to know that a@ value judgment has been made for then, namely, that induction of canccr is theix only concern. They may, if informed about hypothyroidism, aplastic anemia, premature aging, _ benign tumors and other such disorders, made a diffarent judgment. They also have the right to know that radiation is a promoter of cancer which is induced b, other environmental factors. The lack of expertise in bicatatistics is evident in Bender and brili's use of averaging. For example, on page 4 they intgeduce a 50-year dose commitment so ag to “reduce” average yearly dose of radiation. It is well known that most of the resonTS3, ia question doliver their dese in a relatively short time. for example, delivers its 50-year dose commitment in the fire two years. On page 5, they “reduced” the radiation cose of the ingabitants of Enjebi by averaging in the population less exposed. This is like telling onc member of a family his or her risk of lung cancer is lowered if the other nonamoking members of the family are included and an “average” risk given. It isa scientifically ridiculous approach to public health! On page 7, the authors compare the raciation dose received by the population of tha Colorado Plateau with the added dosas to he received by the people of Enjebi. In a recent survey of gamma radLation anomalies (OR-73), out of 6,253 high readings reported for Colorado, only 453, or 13.8%, were Cue to natural radioactivity. Thia Coas not include thc problems in Grand Junction, Colorado, where 14,542 high camma readings were made. There has been a remedial program in Grand Junction since 1972 under Public Law 92-314, The authors of the Enewetak position paper might better call for federal assistance for the people of Ccloraco, than call for increasing exposuro to tha population of Enewetak by a factor of 5.6 to match another polluted or high-risk area: