Cli ¢¢é Sloan Page 3 June 6, 1980 The authors put major etuphasis on “natural backyround radiation, °® secningly treating it as 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 exposuxe of a population to radiation’ Z am encicaing two papers which deal with the value of the atoriic bomb casualty studies ané also the health effects to be expected with exposure of already dar.aged people to further radiation. The approach toward measurement was in terms of the individuazl--not the large population. This approach could be developed to predict effects to a particular group such as the Enewetak population. The other probleme with the Bender and brill papers include Gealing only with genetic effects in live-born offspring (p. 15), neglecting to mention spontaneous abortions and stillbirths which may bc expectec to oceur, anc estimating raciation-induced cancer mortality in th: fetine o lation, ignoring other general health damage and canser susceptibility in future jonecrations. Basing a cesettlenent decision affecting the lives of £00 people on the Bender ané Brill inadequate health assasasment would be extrezoly imprudent, I would be glad to discuss this matter further at your convenicnce. Sincerely, Rosaiia Lertell, whl, viSH RB sew , Enc. - [irwsel cc: Salvases, rte “Yn9 Giff Johnson