the conversion and the difference for other organs of interest should pp. 11, be stated. ldavvor iI85 aeriveu lyr smuulag ve Bsavew (See comment 26.) last parag., pp. 12, ist parag. I have some concern with these beta dose rates. The results are given at 1 cm depth in tissue. However, the presumed sensitive cells are much closer to the surface than this so that the beta dose could be considerably higher. I would use the generally assumed depth of 7 mg/em. The beta dose varies greatly with height so that the dose at 1m is not representative of that close to the ground or the dose received by sitting or squatting. While it may make little difference, I believe that we should make the best and most realistic estimate possible of the skin dose and dose to the lens of the eye. pp. 14, last parag. A little more discussion on the personnel samplers, would be in order. From Table 5, I estimate about 10° qis/min per m- in the air. Thus, a sample of 100-1000 m™ would be needed to get a positive indication. -. This is more air than any personnel sampler that I have seen would draw. Which data in Table 5 samplers? pp. 15, lines 1 and 2. are from these personnel It is not clear to me how one gets an enhancement factor of 1.54 for "normal conditions" from the data in Table 5. Are there other data not given? If so they should be included and the derivation of these values made explicit. , In Table 5 under the heading "at Roadside", it is not clear to me how the individual survived at a breathing rate of 0.023 m>/h. 10. pp. 15, 1st parag. How was the breathing rate of 20 m-?/day partitioned between "normal" and “high activity" -eonditions?