Cliff Sloan Page 2 June 6, 1°80 Yhere are inner scientific inconsistencies in this paper. For example, on page 1 the authors state: “. .. 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 concesn.” The population of Enewetak ftell has the right to know that a value juégment has been madc for then, namely, that induction of cancer is their only concern. They may, if informed about hypothyroidism, aplastic anemis, premature aging, benign tumors and other such disorders, mate a diffurent judgment. They also have the right to know that radiation is a promoter of cancer which is induced b. cther environmental factors. The lack of expertise in biostatistics is evident in Bender and brili's use of averaging. For example, on page 4 they intgeeduce a SO-year dose commitment so as to “reduce” average yearly dose of radiation. It is well Known that most of the eeronnenssS3, in question doliver their dose in a relatively short Cine. for examyle, delivers ita 50-year dose commitment in the firet’ two years, On page 5, they “reduced” the radiation cose of the inBabitants 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 mexders of the family aro included and an "average" risk given. It isa scientifically ridiculous approach to public health! On page 7, the authors compare the raciation dese received by the population of tha Colornto Plateau with the agdeg doses to be received by the people of Enjebi. In @ recent survey of gamma radiation anomalics (OR~73), out of 6,253 high readings reported seid ae onenel a for Colorado, only 453, or 13.UK, were cue to natuxcal radioactivity Thie Coes not include thc problems in Grand Junction, Colorado, where 14,542 high camma readings were made. There has been 8 remedial program in Grand Junction since 1972 under Public Law 92-314. The authors of the Enewetak position paper might botter call for federal ansistanca for the people of Ccleoraco, than call for increasing exposure to tha population of Lnewetak by a factor of 5.6 to match another polluted or high-risk areas