-2- some areas might not be c“ eaned that shou”d be cleaned according to the cleanup criteria. Discussion (1) brought out the following A telecommunication points. from Bruce Church on Enewetak Atoll (dated, I believe, April 25, 1978; copy given to Bill Bair) indicated additional data were being taken and should be available within a few days. The message suggested any decisions be delayed until these new data were available. (2) The scatter plot for Janet (Enjebi) does not suggest a bias in IMP It was noted that Janet has been cleared of brush so Am values. that brush attenuation corrections of IMP Am readings did not occur. have been made for brush attenuation Such corrections would tend to increase this correction No to any islands. IMP readings. Whether alone would remove the bias in the IMP readings is unknown. (3) New IMP readings have been taken on Lucy and Alice because the original readings were taken when the IMP was suffering from low and high voltage problems. desirable (4) New IMP readings on Belle are also due to low voltage problems on original IMP survey. It is my understanding (statistician, from discussions with Madaline Barnes DRI) that Frank Markwell probably computed his factor of 1.5 by taking the average of the five ratios (soil Am/IMP Am). This method of computing an average ratio will usually give a higher result than if one divides the average soil Am concentration by the average IMP Am concentration. can be large if the statistical Differences between the two methods distribution of the individual ratios is highly skewed, e.g., one or two ratios being much higher than the others. In this skewed case, the average of the individual ratios will be influenced greatly by these high values, and to the extent t’hat the high individual ratios are not typical of most of the data, the average ratio so computed will not be representative of the bulk of the ratios.