DDST Hy. Tommy F. McCraw Radiological Standards Suggested in 26 September Draft I am disturbed principally by two things: 1. Radiological limits proposed are more stringent than, to my knowledge, have ever been put into force anywhere at any time. 2. An inconsistency perhaps exists in the discussion of these Standards. In regard to the stringency of standards suggested, I am considering tiie whole body or the gonads and red bone-marrow limits. The 5 rems in 30 years suggested as a limit in No. 2 on page 7 is exactly the same as the 5 rems in 30 years for the U.S. general population (as results from the U.S. standard of 0.17 rems/yr for 30 years). However, this U.S. Standard is for a population that receives appreciable natural and medical radiation; for Eniwetck, the natural radiation is relatively unimportant, as will be the medical radiation for some years to come. Furthermore, this ficure for the U.S. general population has been scaled down by a factor of three from the national and internationally accepted figure of 0.5 rem per year, presumably to allow for the uncontrolled and unncnitored nature of the population. The Islanders are tne opposite of this. Therefore, it seems to me that the most stringent condition imaginable to advance for Eniwetok would be 15 rems in 30 years, rather than the 5 rems being advanced. The inconsistency mentioned in No. 2 above is that page I-6 and I-7 indicate the standards are reduced by a factor of two to allow for “future nuclear technology," but page I-13 indicates that the original number includes nuclear technology (by excluding only natural and medical radiations). An example of how cautious the proposed standards are as applied to Eniwetok is provided on page-I-13. At the radiological standard suggested, the increased incidence of leukemia for the Eniwetok people, if these standards are met, would be only a 0.005 probability of one leukemia case per year for the entire population. While such an objective is radiologically desired, the cost to achieve such a stringent standard must be weighed against the financial and ecological costs. The plutonium standards that are mentioned also deserve some clarification. On page 4, the conditions under which 40 or 400 pCi/gm apply should be distinguished. Furthermore, the area over which a 400 pCi/gm average residual can be tolerated should be stated. square meter or over an entire island?) (Is this over one