are listed in "~ble 1. Table 1 Major Participants in the Data Evaluations Group Group Leader: D. Wilson, LLL Data Handling and Computations: WwW. Martin, W, Phillips, (LLL) Calculations: Y. Ng (LLL), B. Bennett (HASL), . Rich (LLL) Evaluations and Applications: . Robison (LLL), B. Rich (LLL), Richmond (LASL), D. Wilson (LLL) Tobin (TTPI), E. Held (AEC), Consultants: Seymour (U of Wash.), P. Gustafson (ANL). McLaughlin (HASL), R. Conard, M.D. (BNL). 5. Communication of results. Finally, that the evaluation, as it proceeds in time, will be in close communication with the Division of Bio-Medicel | and Environmental Research (DBER) through a review committee headed by Dr. Nathaniel Barr (See Figure 1). The advantages to such a communication are two-fold: a. For maintaining point-in-time cognizance of our activities, methods, and results, which will enable DBER to review the final product more intelligently and more effectively under time constraints, and b. For providing guidance during the progress of the survey and to ‘serve as a point of contact for information available across the whole research program in the AEC on environmental radioactivity, including AEC experience in DBER and DOS regarding radiological ; assessment and rehabilitation on Bikini. The "Radiological Report on Bikini Atoll," April, 1968, by Dr. P.F. Gustafson, then of DBM/AEC and now of ANL, provides an excellent backdrop egainst which to view the current Eniwetok evaluation program. Comparison and contrast of the two situations (Bikini and Eniwetok) regarding radiological aspects provides a number of facts useful in developing a program plan. Most