“ Clige Sloan
Page 3
¢
June 6, 1980
The authors put major etiphasis on “natural backyround radiation, °
seemingly treating it as harmless.
They also emphasize the
inability to "detect® the difference between artificially inéuced
anc “naturally” incucod cancers. These can be distinguished on
-.
‘the basis of longer period of debilitating disease prior to
G@iagnosis. However, difficulty in tracing cause of cancer is
hardly a reason to propose exposure of a population to radiation?
I am encicaing two papers which deal with the value of the
_atouic bomb casualty studies ané also the health effects to be
expected with exposure of already daraged people to further
radiation. The approach toward measurenent was in terms of the
individucl--net the large population. This approach could be
Geveloped to predict effects to a particular group such as the
Enewetak population.
The other problems with the Bender and brill papers include
dealing only with genetic effects in live-borgnoffspring (p. 15),
neglecting to mention spontaneous abortions and stillbirths which
may be expectec to occur, anc estimating raciation-{nduced cancer
mortality
he
fetine
lation, ignoring other general
health damage and canser susceptibility in future generations.
Basing a cesettlenent decision affecting the lives of 500 peorle
on the Bender ané Brill inadequate health assessment would be
extrezoly imprudent.
ZI would be glad to discuss this matter further at your convenicnce.
Sincerely,
Rosaiia RPertell, PhL, JiSH
RB sew
é
rnc. - Gane
Laibmses Wriwee “leq
cc:
Giff Johnson