TALS IC Pe (oe eSa Se RIT 1, IN THe EVENT EYE DAMAGE RESULTED, WHETHER THE US COULD CONSIDER THAT ALL PROPER MEASURES HAD BEEN TAKEN TO ASSURE PROTECTION MIGHT BE QUESTIONABLE, 2, IT INVOLVES A JUDGMENT OF ACTIONS AND REACTIONS OF NATIVE POPULATIONS WHICH WH IN THE TASK FORCE ARE NOT SUFFICTENTLY WELL INFORMED TO MAKE, it, PORING TEAK IN DAYLIGHT. RADIUS OF HAZARD ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN PART I IS 320 STATUTE MILES, WHILE POPULATION FIGURE OF CASE IN PART IIS REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 2300, REMAINDER OF CONSIDERATIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. UNDER COURSE OF ACTION IN PART LA, A VERY MUCH LARGER PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION WOULD BE INA POSITION TO BE EXPOSED AND THE PROBABILITY OF EYE BURNS, THEREFORE, QUITE HIGH, COURSE B, C, OR B WOULD BE MANDATORY AND WOULD HAVIs THE SAME FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE FACTORS, EXCEPT THAT THE TASKS WOULD Bi SLIGHTLY LESS IN MAGNITUDE, IIT, PIRING ORANGE FIRST AT NIGHT, RADIUS OF HAZARD IS 270 STATUTE MILES AND INCLODES OR BORDERS UPON THE SAME POPULATION AS IN PART If, LESS 400 PEOPLE AT AILUK RPT AITLUK, THE SAME FACTORS ARE APPLICABLE AS IN PART I, EXCEPT THAT NUMBER OF PERSONS PROBABLY EXPOSED WOULD BE LESS AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TASKS UNDER COURSES B, C, OR D WOULD BE LESS, EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF SOMEWHAT LESSER MAGNITUDE, THE HAZARD WOULD STILL EXTEND TO A LARGE PORTION OF THE SAME POPULATION AS IN THE CASE OF FIRING TEAK AT NIGHT, DATA GAINED WOULD NOT BE COMPARABLE, - i1 - Appendix "A'