-3-
2.
I have read and I am familiar with:
(2)
“Preliminary Report;
Radiological Evaluation
of Phase II Housing Construction Bikini Atoll," August 6, 1975.
(>)
“Preliminary External-Dose Estimates for Future
Bixini Atoll Innabitants," by Paul H. Gudiksen and William L.
Robison, August 6, 1975.
|
My comments below, based on my personal knowledge, relate to the
radiologicai evaluation of the Bikini Atoll as set forth in these:
two reports (hereafter referred to as references (a)
3.
and (b)).
Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of Table 3-1
taken from the National Academy of Sciences' BEIR Report (also
attached as part of Exhibit C is a copy of the title page of
the report).
In order to make a similar evaluation for Bikini
Atoll one must correct for differences in populationand rate of
exposure.
For example, assume there will be roughly 1,000
people on the atoll (784 persons claim land rights on Bikini
Atoll according to p.6 of reference (b))after the complete
resettlement,
and assume they are exposed at 0.2 rem/year
Cases 2-4 in Table 4 of reference (a)).
the internal dose estimate.
(see
This does not include
The correction needed to normalize
che data in Table 3-1 of the BSEIR Report to the Bikini exposure
under these exposure assumptions would be
1000
2,000 ,000
x
ae
.
=
1/100,000
Tn other words, divide the entries in Table 3-1 by 100,000.
cr reasons
that
are discussed in Exhibit B,
(fu Snoulad use ine upper limic estimate in Table 3-if(i.e.,
relative risx mscdel - cases
(5)).
could exsecxr about 9,978/100,900
the
Under tnrese assumptions you
- 0.09
cancers per year,
years aS a result of this exposure.
2052149
I belie.
or one