. ● ✎ Tsbles 7-9 fifihcr ● e=end ~es$cs by ssming xmdionuclides in ch~cken ●ggs sre equivalent to those in chicken (or -t meat or nesserscbidia Icaves). Reconncnd the xuthors zeview IAEA-SX-M9/6$ which report$ that Muptake by chickens is much greate~ athan $u uptake, that transuranic$ &re fomd primarily in the liver and that the only poztion of egg where lle contribution to dose frcirn donestic ~tat they are found is the yolk. lhwer, the Iirnited ●nd questionable is not ●xplicit in the drsft study. data enployed uould raise doubts about any predicted values. Reco~End b radionuclide concenadditional discu$sien be added en uncertainty . trations of pork, chicken and eggs. . ● The SOrn grid issho~ to include 0-S en 16. Page 16, last paragraph, .ssnples, in contrast to the in situ survey uhichreperted b 241 con%comend discussion be included conpsring the centraticm for O-3 cm. two sets of “surface data” ●nd ● clemr explanation of which dtta was It would appear that in situ is ussd for each dose estitate p~thuay. wed Cs 1S7 external but soil samp~es are used for Cs 137 ingestion; in situ is used for b 241 inhalation but soil ~le is ustd for Am 241 Sngestion. . . Recomiend d~sc~ssion 17. Page 17, paragraph 2. Soil samples ~re “screened.” whether m not those pkrticles were be included on sizt particles excluded, washed of surface contamination, treatment of organic ~atter present} e?.G The discussion should coapare with EPA guidelines Mich specify transurmic concentration in soil uith size less than 2 ~. Also, since in situ..%es” W soil, and soil saaples “see” only the fracticm which passes the sereent de the two techniques produce different results? “ ✎ 28. Page 17, last paragraph. lkofile averages are elaiued to be based on equal weights assigned to S CB increments but soEe increments were not S m. Explain that ueights these increments zeceived. ✎ ✎ ✎ 19. P8ge 17, last paragraph. Discussion indicates dose estimates for imgestion 8re based on soil sample snalysis rather than in.situ analysis. xplanstfon be givmfor selecting cme”set efdats in preference Recomend ● to smther. 20. Page S8, last paragrcph. Vague, If coconut trees hsve activity ‘extending to 60 cm and soil samples were taken to 60 cm, then why not determine CRto 60CD depth? tither than be consistent, the reference More itqmtmtly, why use the sane vould seem to indicatt inccmsistency. depth for all plants? Some justifiezttion is needed on why squash zoots draw nutrients fronthe sam depth as tree roots. 21. ✎ - .