Cliff Sloan Pagc 2 June 6, 1°80 Yhere are inner acientific inconsistencies in this paper. For example, on page 1 the authors state: “. . . the only potential health effects are the induction of cancer among the exposed population anc the induction of genetic effects ... .” On page 13 they admit: ". . . mutations may be induced in any body cell that has a nuclous . ..*% and on page 18: “Of the somatic .- effects of ionizing radiation, cancer induction is that of greatest concern.” The population of Enewetak fitell has the right to know that @ value judgment has been made for then, namely, that induction of cancer is their only concern. They nay, if informed about hypothyroidism, aplastic anemia, premature aging, benign tumors and other such disorders, mate a diffurent judgment. They alsu have the right to know that radiation is a promoter of cancer which ia induced b. other environmental factors. Tha lack of expertise in bioatatistics is evident in Bender and brill's use of averaging. For example, on page 4 they intgeduce a SO-year dose commitment so as to “reduce” average yearly dose of radiation. It is well Known that most of the rectonnce S87, in question doliver their dose in a relatively short tine. for example, delivers its 50-year dose commitment in the firet’ two years, On page 5, they “reduced” the radiation cose of the dababitants of Enjebi by averaging in the population less exposed. This is like telling onc member of a family his or her risk of lung cancer is lowered if the other nonamoking mexDers of the family are included and an "average" risk given. It is a scientifically ridiculous approach to public health! On page 7, the authors compare the radiation dose received by the population of the Colorado Plateau with the added dosas to be received by the people of Enjebi. In a recent survey of gamma radiation anomelics (OR-73), out of 6,253 high readings reported for Colorado, only 453, or 13.8%, were cue to natural radioactivit Thia Coes not include thc problems in Grand Junction, Colorado, where 14,542 high gamma readings were made. There has been a remedial program in Grand Junction since 1972 under Public Law 92-314, The authors of the Enewetak position paper might better call for federal ansistance for the people of Celeraco, than call for increasing exposura to tha population of Enewetak by a factor of 5.6 to match another polluted or high-risk area: \*