of laboratory staff as subjects. This is the only captive population of which Iam aware.” In folder labeled January 1982 ChronFile, in a letter dated January 27, 1982, Alpen asks for better tracking of radioisotope doses administered to research subjects. In folder labeled Dr. Alpen Corr ndence - January, in a letter dated January 14, 1981, Alpen responds to a Departmentof Justice request for a list of potential expert witnessesfor the Irene H. Allenlitigation. The requester is William G. Schaffer, Special Litigation Counsel. Schaffer includesa list of 26 cases which theoretically represent a cross section of the plaintiff population in the Allen litigation. This list includes the cancer contracted, the name, residence, date of death, age at death, date of diagnosis and occupation of those living “down wind” from Nevadatest sites. Schaffer states: “Ultimately, of course, we may elect to downplaytheclinical aspects of the cases or someof them, and concentrate on the radiobiological aspects.” wh“ “... | want to leave no stone unturnedin the full exploration and analysis of these cases.” In folder labeled NCR ual Mtg. - 4/1 - Washington, (also sports a handwritten label: “NCRP LD - 50 file”) in a note dated 2/14/86, Jim Buchanan says “Attachedis from L.S. Taylor’s ‘Big Black Book’. It is the earliest reference I have to the legendary ‘vote on the value of LD 50’.” This refers to the gathering of “experts” in 1947 to determine the medianlethal dose of radiation from atomic bombs necessary to immobilize troops. Attendees included James Cooney,G.Failla, Pendergrass, R.R. Newell, U.V. Portmann,L.S. Taylor and Shields Warren. Folder contains copies of papers on exposurecriteria, response of different species to total bodyirradiation,etc. These seem to be in preparation for Alpen to write a speech for the NCRP Annual Meeting on suchtopics. In a letter dated January 29, 1986, Lewis V. Spencer, Chmn, SC-63 of NCRP states to Alpen “I understand that you have been asked to chair a panel of NCRP for response to a formal request (Bensen, 10/3/85) to review the guidance presented in HomeOffice Publication 20/85. This request was addressed to SC-63; but while this committee has a direct concern felt that it would be inappropriate for us to attemptit.” Box 3: Nothing especially “hot” noticed.