y,/ot

rege (rk vel cf
DRAFT
Wachholz: Ilmh

3/30/75

Page 1, lines 12-23 - "It is difficult enough for the layman to

comprehend what the experts in the various radiological science fields

are saying about the effects of radioactivity, but that difficultyis
compounded many times over the differences of opinion found amongthe
experts, by the realization that even the experts agree that the long

term effects of some of the more dangerous radionuclides are not known
by anyone at this time and may not become known for many years to come,
and it is unsettling to learn that the standards used for the kinds and
amounts of radionuclides to be tolerated in the environment and in man
are criticized by reputable experts as unreliable and inadequately

conservative."
Comments:

This sentence emphasizesthe "difference of opinion found

among the experts" regarding the "effects of radioactivity" and the adequacy
of existing standards.
w,

.

It must be pointed out that the "reputable experts"
:

.

to ghom¢ this author refers (i.e., Martell, Geesaman, Tamplin and Cochran)
number four, and that, while they have expressed strong opinions regarding

plutonium, they are not recognized as experts in plutonium by the national
and international scientific community.

Assessment of the hazards of radio-

activity and the recommendation of standards are methodically, continually

and properly reviewed by those persons most knowledgeable and experienced
in evaluating the available relevant data.

This is true both for national

bodies such as the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and for international
bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

and the United Nations Scientivic Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR).

If newly published data dictates a change in the

established standards, it is usually evaluated through the normal scientific
process (e.g., publication) and is considered by one or more of the above
bodies.

None of the “experts'' referred to have been or are members of any

of these bodies, nor have their theories been presented through the normal

Select target paragraph3