Cligé Sloan Page 3 June 6, 1980 The anthors put major exiphasis on “natural background: radiation, * seemingly treating it az harmless, They also emphasize the inability to “detect” the difference between artificially induced anc “naturally” incucad cancers. These can be distinguished on the basis of longer period of debilitating disease prior to diagnosis. However, difficuity in tracing cause of cancer is hardly a reason to propose exposure of a population to radiation’ I am enclcsing two papers which deal with the value of the atonic bomb casualty studies and also the health effects to be expected with exposure of already damaged people to further radiation. The approach toward measurement was in terms of the individual--not the large population. This approach could be developed to predict effects to a particular group such as the Enewetak population. The other problems with the Bender and brill papers include dealing only with genetic effects in live-born offspring (p. 15), neglecting to mention spontaneous abortions and stillbirtha which may be expectec to occur, anc estimating radiation-induced cancer mortality i he jJifetine o lation, ignoring other general health damage and cancer susceptibility in future yencrations. Basing a cesettlenent decision affecting the lives of 500 peorle on the Bender ané Brill inadequate health assessment would be extrezely imprudent. I would be glad to discuss this matter further at your convenicnce. Sincerely, Rosgaiia Pertell, RB sew ’ Ene. — Qe ce: Saleses metmne “ng Giff Johnson PhL, SSH