1 “-.
-.’
-~
.
.:
8
might be beneficial genetically because it tends to remove the weaker
members of a population.
10
The report would have been improved if a Table 3 had been added
-.
giv$ng the estimated genetic damage. The overall genetic risk was
●
as 6 x
given
cant rem.
10-5
to 1.1 x 10
-3
genetic
mutation/gentically signifi-
This upper value is greater than the upper value of cancer -
risk so the reader Bhould be given the final estimates of genetic
risk.
.
11.
The report is in error in stating there are no human ●xposure
Q ata at low dose ranges, e.g. studies of in utero exposure and data on
II
Hanford radiation workers are low dose studies.
12.
The report uses only
much of the data
the linear and linear quadratic models, yet
on human population exposure conforms best with a
super linear model (e.g. effect = c =).
In other words, the
cancer coefficients are a power of dose less than unity in a number of
cases or the cancers induced per rem are greater at low doses than at
high
doses
o13It
because
of
overkill
at
high
doses,
damage
to
the
reticuloendythelial system, etc.
may
not be a good assumption that the cancer risk on these
islands is the same as that in the U.S. because the natural background I
radiation here is between 1/3 and 1/2 that in the U.S. and the Hanford
radiation worker data suggest that about half the cancer per year in I
the U.S. are the result of natural background radiation.
14.
I
question that leukemia is one of the best understood canc~rs.
The lack of leukemia induction by radiation in OLmstead County’ of
Minnesota (Lines et al. - New Eng. J. Med. 1111, May 15, 1980) *d
in
the Hanford worker data (Mancusoj Stewartl and Knea~e) suggest that
low chronic exposure to nomal
population (those not subjected to
fire, blast, disease such an ankylosing spondylitis, etc.)
die
Pre-
ferentially of forms of cancer other than leukemia.
15.
,
I
There is a peculiar statement on page 28 to the effect that the
3E~R III relative risk model gives a cancer risk 2 to 4 times the risk
etiimates of
l&ear
16.
U*S.
UNSCEAR 1977 and so it
seems
reasonable to accept the
risk model instead.
Why was the life span of these islands chosen as 50 years?
life span is 70 years.
The