.
.
.
,.
.
.
9
.
.
MhTS
ON DRAFTDUCIMEhT“PRELIMINARYREASSSSMEW OF THE
PUTEMiAL RADIOLOGICALDOSESFGR RESIDENTSRESETTLINGENWiETAK AWLL”
Speclfi.c
(Mancnts
.
fS #VCn
M to mflne
Predic1. Psge 2, paragraph 2. m r8pfmp~03c
living pstterns.
lhe report would be mxe
thns for proposed altenste
valuable
if it also refined predictions
for the planned living pattern
(’i%e proposed ●lternate
living psttem
SS defintd
by Case 3 of the EIS.
to Cast 3 differs,
for exmple,
in thst tt does not allow
@st siruilar
“food gathering”
on northtitst
islands
and it IMts
cocenut consmp~ion
from northeast
islands
to 10 percent rather than 40 percent. } A =view
.of dose predictions
for Case 3 was dccned necessary when high doses were
discovered for people of Bikini Atoll.
The DDEreco=nended sgainst
the
*S h*d
p~anting of coconut trees on northeast
islands
of Enewetak Atoll,
.
.
..
..
bctn
.
.
-.
.
.
“