The studies completed to date, however, lack sufficient scope and continuity to give the specific information needed to form a basis for evaluating the impact, direction, and duration of biotic effects of contamination following atomic bomb bursts. The inade- quacy of the biological monitoring program in keepingpace with the physical radiation measurements during the recent testinghas been of concern to many biologists. There is a lack of specificity in our knowledge of the many aspects of biological contamination following an atomic burst under water or near water, as would be the case were a bomb detonated in or near one of our fresh or salt-water harbors. Con-~ tinual evaluation of the size of the area affected, the duration of effect, etc., for each of the bomb materials used is essential to an understanding of the problem. The interest in radiological contamination has broader implications than an investigation of the immediate area about a bomb burst, for even in air bursts the fallout of radioactive materials finds its way into our waters, both fresh and marine. In addition, the very fact that the sea has been considered the practical dumping ground for radioactive wastes dictates the need for a broad understanding of the problems such dumping may produce. Although the Bikini-Eniwetok testing sites have some disadvantages for doing certain types of biological testing, they