Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
LIVtN~TOU COLLEGE l GRAOUATE PROGRAM IN ARTHRO~L=V Office of Rep. Stdney R. Yates 2234 Esybum House Offloe Building I am writing thls letter l s l follow-up to our meeting of April 14th, snd also m bring you Up to date on some points concerning the X&shall Islands and the hewetak resettlement. By now I am oertain of your gmwlng btilderment ;n these matters due to the many, and often contr~ietiry, re~rts your office receives relating to the Mrshalls. I must say that WU ham my sympathiesIn attemptin~ ta be of some help in your attempt ta understand the myriad complexities in the Marsha31 Islands. I should Ilke to say at the outset that I haTe always fayored prudence and eautlon when dealing with problems associated with radiation in the tllshalls$ and the entire hlstory of the United Statest testing p~gr~ h~~s the need for vem Gareful analysls and considerationof all rel ewant fsetors affecting the well-being of the Msrshallese. A case in point is the oument dilemmafacing the Enewetak Islanders, and particularly the peoplo of Wjebl, who ere ~derstmdably ~XiOUS ~ rgtum to their ancestral igland after llting in exile for thirty-three years. It is my sincere f eellng that the people of W$ ebl sheuld be allowed to return to their home island, but only on the ooncli tj. on that it is ‘safe- for them to return. I use quotations -Und ths Woti ‘s&e@ bemuse the whole quegtlon of Wjebi re~olves around the 1s one of the mst Imtly-debated Issues in the nuolear field, and It is nearly lmpossible to find two reputable radlatlon experts who till agree about s “safe@ level of radlatlon. In the following paragraphs, I would like to briefly outline some major points which I think are relevant to the Phjebi question, and I would like to reiterate my eorlier request for truly Independent radietlon e~erts in the Marshall Islands in order to prevent further conflicts of interest regarding the interpretationof radlolo81cal detc in the Harshens. If independent radiatlon experts prolong the BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Page 2
already sp&nt In exile by the Mjebl people. It is my-belief that pmdenoe and caution must take precedence o~er expedient and often-eatastmphlc pol~al considerations. In the ease of the ~jebi res~ttlement, If history should prove that we were tio - cautious and that we acted too pxudently, I assure you that it - would be a first In the Xarshall Islands. I know that I personally would rather be In the posltlon--say ten or twenty years hence-- of having to explain why there was a six-month delay In the EhJebl re–tum, rather than have to explain why one more previously “unexposed”group of Marshallesebeoame an ‘exposed* group because ‘qfa hasty decision made by some aconcemed* people who thought that things were aalrlghta on Enjebl. I think the followlng points will substantiatemy present concern over the MJebl resettlement and my request for truly independent radiation experts in the Marshall Islands. We can only stand to gain fmrn having an alternate point of wlew In relatlon to the radiological data and the recommadations therein, and X am continced that the Wjebi people can only benefit from our ac”tlngwith caution and pmdence; 1 ) The entire histo~ of the ‘nuclear age” has been beset with the constant downward retision of what constitutes a ‘safew level of radiation for humans- It was previously believed that a dose of 50 rem was asafe* for humans; the dose was then decreased by a factor of ten to 5 rem; and the current BEXR (BlologlealEfects of Ionizing Radiation) Committee of the National.Academy of Sciences-- which was itself dlvlded over the question of ‘safes radiation,levels~ by well-respectedradiation experts--recommendsa dose of 0.5 rem in Its 1979 updated Report. What thls”adds up ta Is a history of continuing uncertainty ~nce~tng the assessment of *safe* levels of radiation for humans$ end this ongoing debate 1s exemplifiedby Drs. Gofman and %11 in the encloued symposium transcript of the recent American Association for the Ad~ancement of Science (MS) sym~slum I was asked to chair. 2) Dr. Robert A. Conati, who was the former head of the Brookha~en National Laborato~-Rarshsll Islands Rogram, expressed great surptise over the late-occurfing thyroid effects in the exposed Marshallese populations. He clalmed that these late effects were not anticipated before 196?, and It is fair to say that we still do not how what 1s going to h&Dpen in the future in this population. Again, this Is a
Page 3
ma$or firid~ngin the Brookhaven studtes, and It points up the - continuingunoartalntles relating b the long-term effects of radiation, and the need for extreme caution and prudence when making policy declsions affe-he future health and safety -- of the %jebl people. 3) The deci=on to allow the Biklnl people to resettle on their ancestral atoll, and then the deci don to quickly remve them in li_ghtof the potential threat to their health stemming from the internal deposition of radionuclldetsin the form of ‘residual@ ‘radiationat Bikini surely mst not be forgotten when oonsldering the proposed &jebi resettlement. I have enclosed a 1975 radiation study fnm Lawrence Live~re Laboratory which should be oomparwl with the current Bender-Brlll study of Enewetak. It 1s unwmny & oompare the reassuring language in both studies, and the “musical chalrsa flaseo of the unfortunate Biklnl Islanders--whowere preciously Unexposed” and who are now ‘exposed”--shouldremind us of the continuing eni~s surnunding tho nuclear debate, especially as it pertains to “safe* levels of radiation for humans. 4) In retrospect, it seems clear why Japanese radiation sciantists-- who w~re Intited out to the ?iarsh~ls by Marshalleseand their elected 3ongelap and Utlrik. The history of mlstakes and mlsmanagementin radiation matters in the Marshalls exhibits the flaws associated with declsions being made from the recommendationsof a point of mew which hss conslstently been at odds ylth reality. Uhat has sorely been needed (and wanted) In the Marshalls is an alternate point of view concerning the radiolo~c~ data, and we now have the opportunity to carrect our past d stakes by allowing tmly independent radiatlon exDerts to assess &ewetak and En$ebi, as well as the rest of the Northern Marshalls which were affected by nuclear testing. ‘ 5) In ~Y 1979 address to the United Nations Tmsteeshlp Council, I requested $ndeDendent and non-~ vemmental radiation experts for an asses =!ent of the Marshall Islands. The Trusteeship Council agreed with ny request in its “Report of the ‘lmsteeshlp Council to the ~ourth Year, Special SupplementNo.”1, 9 June 1978 - 15 June 1979). To my lmowledge, there has been no such survey by Independent radiation experts in the MarshalIs, and the time is right for such a survey. In closing, I would like to mention that I haye recelmd a copy of a letter written by Mr. Theodore Mitchell (of Mlcronasian Legal Sertices), fio represents the ~ewetak people. I feel obliged to
Page 4
respond to”this letter, which was telephone conversationI had with taken out of in MaY, and which certainly calls inta question my axpertlse as a Marshals expert, -. as well as my mtives for hating a oontinued Interest in the affairs of the Marshallese. In our oonversatlon,Mr. Mitchell repeatedly asked me about *-e ‘competence”of Drs. Sender and Btill in reference to their study entitled “Assessmentof Radiation Health Effects of the Mitchell that there was mre than ‘competenceqat stake in the study, and that I did not necessarily question the “oompetenoe@of the two Brookhaven researchers assess United States Government data. I carefully expl~ned m Mr. Mitchell that the history of the united Statest testing program was one of repeated mistakes end mlscslculations, and the very least we could now do was b show our slncerlty to the MarshalIeseby inoluding non-Government radiation experts In When Mr. Mitchell asked me if I had the background to assess the Ecnder-Btill study, I said ‘Not exactly, because my emphasis In the Firshall Islands has been In the socloculturaldomain as it I did have “enough of a background in basic radiological studies to kIow that an independent survey was sorely needed in the Harshal.ls,a but he purposely negleoted to mention that part of our conversation In his letter to your Offlse. Horeove~ tight mention that Kr. Mitchell, who seems to feel that & Is some sort of radiation expert, should probably learn that the very first rule In making radiation Iow=leyel radiation (lIke the Mnd the Mjebi Islanders till be exposed to when and if they return tO their Island) are still a major source of contention amongst reputable radiation experts: Drs. Bender and Brill, as competent as they my be, are m&lng mere speculationsabut the long-term effeets of radiation at Enewetak. We maY not how for ten or twenty or thirty ~re years what the long-term effeots of lowIevel radiation are, and to date there has been no ~Nuolear Mosesa who has brought these answers down fnm Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. At the very least, our experience in the Plarshallsproves that we should nroceed with extreme cwtion, and if we are to e~or, let us do somemifie~a- and error on the side of health and safety of the unfortunate Marshallese. We have been pl~ng nuclear “roulette* With innocent lives for too 10ng. And it is interesting b note that the recent article in the
Page 5
Mitchell was behind the letter to Resident Carter which in fact was a Yery different letter than the one slgied by the three chiefs from Enewetak. It was my cxpefienee while a Peace Corps ~olunteer ‘- on Utlrlk that ?!amhalleseperer use the sort of language contained in the translated letter sent to the President, and I ean only surmise that the orlglnal letter was grossly distorted, and mlsrapresent~ the mews and feelings of the signatories of the letter. It Is ~ery interesting to compare this incident with the letter Mr. Mitchell wrote to your Offloe abut our telephone conversation, which gmasl~ distorted v ~ewa lbout the Marshall Islands. Cliff~ you should be aware that Giff Johnmn (of KIcnnesia Support CO- tteo) -d I hare aubmltted the Bender-Brlll study to several well-respected tiiation experts for their scmtlny and comments. We shell s~d thgir analyses and oomments along to your office as soon as we get thcrn,l s it 1s imperative that we haye an alternate point of vleu for tho Bender-Brlll study$ we are dealing With the health end safety of human beings who ham a hi story of ‘losing” with the United States ti~ernment, and wc can presently help to rectify some of our mistakes if we prmceed with caution.. Thank ~ou for talclagthe time ta consider these thoughts and wiews about the Xarshall Islanders. Arthur %terson, National Council of Churches Anton DeBmm, krshall Islands Government