Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
THIS COVER SHEET IS FOR THE TR4.!.!SMITTWOF UNCLASSIFIED MESSAGES,QNLY THIS TFL4.NSMITTATCONSISTS OF 4 PAGES. (ExcLUDING COYER SHEET) OR MAIL STOP f ‘(IF BY MAIL) THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS ONLY UNCLASSIFIED INFOR!!TION: BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Page 2
s Jack Healy, LASL Attached are notes taken by John DeYoung, Dept. of Interior, during the meeting they had with Ted Mitchell and Mitchell’s consultants regarding the Enewetak Dose Assessment document. The notes are for your information.ti,
Page 3
Notes on Meeting of Monday Y Auwst 13, 1979, with T..L. Mitchell and His This informal meeting was opened by Dr. William E. Ogle, Energy Systems, Inc. (formerly associated with the Los Alamos Project) who explained briefly how the radiation dose was computed. He noted that the “direct path” radiation was not very significant but that the “food chain” a:ped was the important aspect to be considered. Marine food chain with respect to Enewetak is “clean” at~dpresents no problem. Livet-mre Report was a good one-that a fine job had been done, althwgh he noted that over 50yeat-s you might find a 50% uncertainty. UsincjEngebi Island and the worst example, (i.e., rm Imported foods) but all food from Engebi or the N.E, islands, after 8 years of living on Engebi, the dose assessment which wculd be received by the people would be 200-250 miligram per year at the peak. Overa 30-year period, this would result in exposure of 4-7 R. Fed. Standards in USA for a 30-year period would be 5 R. Ogle raised a question as to how uncertain is the 4-7 R estimate. He noted that a year ago the estimate without the benefit of the recent “dose assessment study” was twice as high, i.e,, 8-14 R over a period of 30 1. No problemat all with respect to return of people of Engebi, incr~asing amount of imported food brought in, or by delaying use of consumption of local food, i.e., coconuts for another stated period. 3. He further noted that only 75% of food now consumed (3/10 of a daily 2 pound diet) is locally grown in any event. 1. Dr. Brill described what the dose assessmnt meant in tcmna Gf effecL on the people. He noted that there is 2-3$ chance of increase in cancer risk to people exposed to I/rem per year. You cannot tell which might be radtation induced or natural. Also in the U.S. there is a 15% chance of anyone getting cancer.
Page 4
population [454), assuming that they would all Ilve on Engebi, would eat local foods under “famine” conditions. Under this situation, dose w~uld be 360 r/yr. This would result in .84 cases of radiation cancer above the 68 natural ones expected during this s~vfiperiod. For a small group, then, the risk is 0+1, i.e., only 1 more cancer than would normally be expected would occur and you couldn’t 3. Dr. Brill ccnnnentedthat the greatest hazard Is that increased medical attention which will identify more cancer cases, But there would be no way to tell whether any of these were radiation Induced. He noted that radiation is a.low factor of risk. As an example, he cited that a “smoker” subtracts 225 days from life whereas radiation at the Engebi level would subtract only 16 days. He pointed out that cancer and genetic effects are the mly ones known to occur from levels of radiation as found at Engebi. s~udies at l{iroshlma prctduced 110 hard evidence of genetic effects in man. For “Engebi” he maximized the risk,.. took a presumed 7.5 dose (i.e., constant famine situation, etc., and assumed 7.5 R exposure to each child). Since there would be a 10-n% chance, in anyevcnt, that a chilci would be born with some abnormality, the additional ~xpusur~ risk.at add only .0004 to .0006 added risk, less than one-half of a would be a very small risk. Could expect 1 extra abnormality in each of 3 generations In short, if all the Enewetak population were to live on Engebi, under the , worsg-conditions, radiation would Induce “one” additional defect every 83 ,$!. years. These would not be “monsters” but variety of “defects”. Dr. Bender also stressed that the Federal Radiation Guides are “guides” only, not mandatory rules for people to follow, tienoted that people in Denver receive higher annual exposures than would the people at Engebi. . He stressed the exaggerated “fear” of radiation risk and stated that in his opinion there had been too much explanation and warning about hazards of radiation given to the people of the Marshalls and this has blown the situation out of proportion.
Page 5
A brief discussion of Federal Standards followed with comparison of Dr. Brill noted that many people in the U.S. accept a much higher exposure in certain jobs, etc., than the Federal standards. Dr. Ogle stated that U.S. standards were not intended to apply to individu~l or to a small group. Dr. Bender stressed that the Federal Radiation Guides are not “rules” but s~mply guidelines that set arbitrary levels, Dr. Bender also stressed that the “guldeline$” do not take into consideration doses people receive from medical x-rays, etc. This is estimated to be about 80 milirem a year, Ifyod add this to an average of 100 normal (direct) rad radiation, an ~ndividual in the U.S. regularly receives about 180 R a year. This is not mtichdifferent than the 250 people would receive on Engebi. Dr. Bender also ’$aid that the normal dose in the Marshalls {~{rect) is about 50 iniliremper year. He would have no hesitation about living on Dr. Ogle stated that in his opinion the real issue is emotional and political. In hls opinion, there are no physical radiation hazards that can be measured at Engebi, and probably none at all exist there. Hjgh Commissioner Rinkel asked how the “Engebi” situation compared to the T. Dr. Will, after stating that he had not investigated the Bikini situation in any depth, believed that the Bikini situation cleir~y was of a different order of magnitude. Dr. Bender concurred.” Both, though, w~u~d defer to analysis ofnmre detailed data on Bikini. 2, Or. Ogle was of the opinion (again qualified by stat~ng that he had not examined the Bikini data) tht there was appreciably more fallout at Bikini and the situation might be significantly different there, In short, these three experts appeared to be say+ng that there is no “danger” at present or in the “future” at Engebi and that no ill effects muld result if the people were allowed to returti to live there. ,,,.
Page 6
Department of Energy THIS COVER SHEET IS FOR THE TWYSMI~U OF UNCLASSIFIED MESSAGES ONL~ I WANT ORIGINAL BACK: YES, ~ l?cl~ OR MAIL STOP THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS ONLY UNCLASSIFIED INFORMTION:
The text continues in the original scan (8 pages).