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