c) How significant is Pu-238 dose from marine pathway if transfer factor of 107° is used. d) Concentration factors (ratios?) appear very important for coconut meat and milk. To base such an important parameter upon 5 coconuts (some of which are lower values than “LT“ values) raises questions as to their suitability and accuracy. (It is incredible that the Bikini soil and coconuts have not yet been analyzed; also, presumably nothing is known regarding biological incorporation of Pu in coconut meat/milk!). e) Is there no information on leaf vs. fruit concentrations? Little was said about analytical methods and deviations. All derivations progress from food, water and air concentrations to dose. It might be informative to understand inhalation/ingestion content body/organ dose. The marine pathway raises a number of questions as to the '72 survey and the '76 survey which probably can only be resolved by additional data. The conflicts between the two sets of data are not resolved, and the reasons given for accepting the '76 values (e.g., the data match global values) are not convincing, especially when the '72 samples were conducted by 3 labs and the ’76 data is given only by one. (Is it to be expected that the Eniwetok marine life Pu values should match those in the North Atlantic or the Irish Sea? It would be a bit surprising to expect similar values.) Other issues re marine food paths and derivations include: a) How representative is a single fish, the mullet, of either the islanders’ diet or of the fish and seafood population? I would think that other fish and the coconut crab should need to be sampled before stating that the dose via marine life is insignificant.