Page 2, paragraph 4: Several possible misinterpretations in this paragraph should be clarified. 1. The impression is given that if enough resources are expended, scientific analyses and standards can define “affected” atolls. However complex and extensive any monitoring effort might be, any subsequent decision still will be based upon subjective judgement. Scientific knowledge can provide a basis for rational] decisions regarding land use restrictions. A radiological monitoring program, regardless of its extent, will not lead to the establishment of a relationship between radiation exposure and health effects. Studies of this nature require also extensive medical and personnel exposure records on very large populations (hundreds of thousands of exposed and unexposed persons) and/or higher levels of radiation exposure. To the extent possible, the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council have analyzed such relationships with available relevant data. When applied to the residence islands atolls of concern, except for Bikini Island, the health risks are projected to be very small. These relationships would, therefore, not serve as a basis for determining “other atolls.” Another "standard" could be the U.S. radiation exposure limits for the public. This criterion, while applicable to U.S. activities, may not be acceptable to non-U.S. interests. Furthermore, it is not derived from the health effect-radiation exposure relationship. In conclusion, science can identify what radiation is present, but it cannot define "affected;" that remains a subjective decision. Page 3, paragraph 1, part (c): The 174 should be 180 in order to account for those in utero at the time. Page 3, paragraph 2: As indicated above, we believe that the program period should be for a Period of 25 years, with a U.S. phase out supplemented by a Marshallese "phase-in.”