LASL University of California LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 To: W. L. Robison -y- DATE: August 14, ‘ 19. pp. 32, Inhalation. I am puzzled by the statement that the dose is calculated only for the pulmonary compartment? Weren't the doses to bone and liver calculated? For Class W, the combination of NP and TB must be done carefully because the fraction absorbed is different for the two. 20. pp. 33, Results, lines 7-10. I am no the buildup of dose from ingestion of gclear as to how ypotebody dose. Was a whole body dose Sr? If so, what does it mean? 21. pp. 48, Ist parag. day half-life calculated for Shouldn't you acknowledge the 630 in.a Marshallese woman mentioned on pp. 32? 22. “Sr affects the pp. 48. In the discussion of probabilities you have largely considered island averages. How about the question of people living on a wato. Wouldn't this serve to minimize the independence of these values and possibly result in a higher fraction of high doses? 23. pp. 49, 1st parag. As I read the preceeding material, 3X seems to be about 95-96% of the people. Thus, with 200 people returning..to-_Enjebi- there would be _8-10 people above this value. While characterized as a "very small fraction" in this report, it means that future monitoring efforts have a 5% chance per person of values above the limit. Can this be handled? -- 24. Table 30 et al. You have never told us how the bone marrow doses from the transuranic nuclides were calculgsed. They are sizeable in comparison to those from Sr so importance. that the calculational method is of 25. Fig. 1. Shouldn't you indicate on this map the islands that are no longer there because of the tests? rT thought that Enjebi was spelled with a j. 26. Appendix B. The value of 0.82 used for the conversion from absorbed dose in air to absorbed dose in the body is specific for the gonads. It would be well to quote values for other organ systems. 1979