The figure shows up in the NAS review. It says the lifetime risk of cancer death is about 20 percent without fallout exposure. It adds that "the risk posed by fallout is about 0.03 percent . . . so the lifetime cancer risk would be raised from 20 percent to 20.03 percent."

An executive summary by the NAS group adds that the increased risk "is of little health consequence."

According to the summary, NAS reviewers believe "that there is insufficient justification for a more detailed study of the amounts and effects of fallout radionuclides other than 131-I."

Pierce is concerned that the increased risk cited is only an average for Americans as a whole, not taking into account factors such as where they lived. Scientific studies — including some cited by the draft report itself — show that certain regions, such as southwestern Utah, were hit much harder by Nevada Test Site fallout than other parts of the country.

She made this analogy: suppose 10 people are in a room, one of whom has had far too much to drink while the remaining nine have consumed no alcohol. "Maybe if you averaged their blood alcohol content you could say it's safe for all 10 of them to drive, when really that one highly intoxicated person has no place behind the wheel," she said.

The academy criticized the draft study as long on population exposure estimates and short on calculating individual risk. "It is . . . more useful to put the primary emphasis on individual risk than on population risk, when this is possible," the NAS reviewers wrote.

Pierce said she finds it ominous that the federal government seems to be discounting the danger of fallout "at a time when the administration is requesting $25 million" to upgrade the Nevada Test Site.

Meanwhile, she said, studies of health effects from atomic testing are "either hung up or having the funding yanked."

It's hard not to be suspicious, Pierce said. "In this state, when your health is on the line, skepticism is a virtue."

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com