Clif¢ Sloan Page 3 The authors put major enphasis on “natural background radiation, ° seemingly treating it as harmless. They also emphasize the inability to "detect® the difference butween artificially induced anc “naturally” indcucad cancers. These can be distinguished on the basis of longer period of debilitating disease prior to @iagnosis. However, difficulty in tracing cause of cancer is hardly a reason to propose exposure of a population to radiation’ I am enclesing two papers which deal with the value of the atonic bomb casualty studies and also the health effects to be expected with exposure of already danaged people to further radiation. The approach toward measurenent was in terms of the individuazl--not the large population. ‘his approach could be developed to predict effects to a particular group such as the Enewetak population. The other problens with the Bender and brill papers include Gealing only with genetic effects in live-boyn offspring (p. 15), neglectiny to mention spontaneous abortions and stillbirths which may be expectec to occur, and estimating raciation-induced cancer mortality in the lifetine o lation, ignoring other general health damage and cancer susceptibility in future jencrations. Basing a cesettlenent decision affecting the lives of 500 people on the Bender ané Brill inadequate health assessment would be extrezely imprudent, I would be glad to discugs this matter further at your convenicnee. Sincerely, Rogaiie Pertell, PhL, GSH RB sew , Enc. - QYasesatl ec: Salraser mrune “ng Giff Johnson