First Part of Reply to Dunning's Memo re Shortcomings of the Rongelap Program

Page 1

In your memorandum of February 13, four apparent shortcomings of '7a h :::; 2 3 the Rongelap program have been indicated. Since the memorandum was addressed to me and since both the Biology Branch and:the Environmental Sciences Branch have acted in accordance with my recommendations in regard to the Rongelap program I wish to reply to the memorandum. The shortcomings of the Rongelap program that you point out appear to me to be as follows: (1) in paragraph one, a lack of desire or of recognition of responsibility to meet obligations of an operational nature; ( 2 ) in paragraph two, the refusal t o accept your recowendations for a resurvey previous to the return of the natives; (3) in paragraph three, the decision that it was not possible to make a survey of Aneaetok Island after the Department of State had recommended it; and ( 4 ) in paragraph four, tardiness in reporting the results of the July, 1957 survey. The replies are as follows: (1) The Division's obligation to conduct radiological and radiobiological surveys that often are required as a consequence of weapons tests, frequently on a crash basis- is fully recognized. At no time has there been a refusal to participate in such a program because of lack of recognition of the Divisions obligation in these matters or because survey work is not considered to be scientific research. (2) You spbke to me about a survey of Rongelap previous to the return of the natives just a few weeks before their scheduled return. I thought that a survey at that time was not feasible and was of the opinion that you were in agreement with my arguement and so was surprised to hear at this time that we were negligent in not conducting a pre-return survey. The argument was as follows: (1) the decision had been made to return the natives and

Page 2

itwas assumed that the information from another pre - return survey was not needed for the purpose of making this decision. decision to return the natives was made no request for a pre - return survey was made t o my knowledge. At the time the (2) I t was unlikely that a survey team could be placed i n the field between the time you spoke t o me and the time uf the return of the natives. The time required to obtain travel orders and to obtain clearance from AEC, .CINPAC, CNO and the Trust Territory Government isa mimimum of four weeks. scheduled to return in late June and a radio biological survey was scheduled, previous t o the time when the data was set for the return of the natives, for early July. To travel to the test site, arrange for special transport ation to Rongelap, collect samples and return uould require at least three weeks. The preparation and analyses of samples especially for SrgO would require another month o r two. In other words, the time fromwhen a survey i s requested to the time that any results for Sr90 analyses can be obtained i s about three months. Since results of the survey would not be immediately available it seemed tome that there was little difference in obtaining samples one week before or two weeks after the return of the natives. (4) Decline curves for many organisms had been established based upon a t least six or seven observations between March 1954 and the fall of 1956. Since surveys had been made since Redwing, it can be reasonably assumed that there was no new contamination at the time of the return of the natives could be predicted with some reliability. For these reasons the need for changing the time of survey, which was scheduled for early July,to June did not seem great and furthermore there did not appear to be enough time to get the survey party into the field before return of the natives. (3) The natives were