5. 5.1 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Comment Section 4.5 summarizes the basic results of this report. be viewed from two angles. They must First, from a technical point of view, they provide a reasonable basis for assessing the Rongelap dosage problem. It seems clear that under the ordinary conditions of Rongelap life, there is no significant radiation danger associated with residence on Rongelap Island for adults. The implicit assumption in this statement is that the diet will be equivalent to that of the past. To what extent that will be true after resettlement can only be learned by monitoring the inhabitants with whole-body counting equipment, as done by Brookhaven, supplemented as necessary by urine analysis. Any other method such as that used by the Livermore groups must assume a diet in order to calculate the dose. In the case of infants during the first six months, while they are breast-fed, it will be the mother's diet that ultimately determines the dose. However, knowing the mother's body burden by whole-body counting will make possible a prediction of her milk's specific activity. Or direct measurements can be made on the milk itself. Presumably, a "safe" mother should be associated with a "safe" baby. On general grounds one can estimate the dosage to infants and children. Whole-body counting can be done only if the child will be quiet. My interest in enlisting the help of Peace Corps Volunteers (who Speak Marshallese) was to see if the data obtained within the home would make it obvious that the children were receiving obviously excessive exposure. The result has been negative, at least thus far. These negative findings with respect to radiation hazards are unpopular ones, at least for some of the Marshallese (and their advisors), and understandably so. Their history of irradiation without warning, and the subsequent development of thyroid disease (although originally told nothing would happen) initiated a distrust of the Federal Government which has never left them, and feelings of uncertainty as to the nature of their environment. The second point of view is therefore that of the Rongelap person who does not have a grasp of technical matters, but who for one reason or another distrusts the establishment with which he or his representatives must deal. This situation is often if not always complicated by the fact that the concept of "objective" judgement is a foreign one. The judge is either for them or against them, but he cannot give a divided opinion. During the course of this work, I have had criticism from Senator Anjain and from two of the consultants who regard themselves as working for him. It would be fruitless to answer their comments one by one (two letters from them were attached to the Preliminary Report). Here I attach a letter from Senator Anjain of June 25, 1988, in order to present his views and reactions to this project. The letter is best judged by comparing it to the contents of this Report. Note 15. 43