tissue (i.e., far beyond the 0.007 cm penetration depth assumed by Standards setting bodies in estimating skin dose. Also, one should determine whether or not there are co-relations or synergistic relation between beta-radiation and UV as there are between UV-A and UV-E in the induction of skin cancer. One might suspect that skin cancer is the predominate malignancy on the sun baked islands. 5. Since a large fraction of the radioactive contamination on the islands should be 905, + 909 and since 99 percent of Sr is depositec in the skeleton, why did the authors not discuss bone dose and radiation induced bone sarcoma and carcinoma as well as leukemia fron active bone marrow irradiation in the trabecular bone matrix? Published values of bone cancer coefficients range from 2 x 10° to 2.2 x 10-4 cancers per person rem depending on age, radionuclide, type radiation, etc. 6. Some of the comparisons of population exposure given do not adc to the quality of the report. U.S. If natural background radiation in the causes 6 x 10“ (c/pr) 80 mrem/y x 220 x 10° persons x 10°? 10,000 lethal cancers/y in the U.S., the objective should be to reduce this background radiation - especially that due to phosphate rock, etc. - and not use this as an excuse to permit more malignancies. bad thing does not justify another! radiation workers in the U.S. 7. One The comparison with exposures t« weakens the report. It seems odd that these writers were able to use data from BEI! III report. I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a copy of thi: unpublished report for over a year. I guess the fact that this repor is paid for by tax monies does not entitle university professors to . copy? 8 In estimating the genetic risk, it is not stated whether or no the risk was reduced by a factor of 10 (as is often the practice because the exposures are at low dose and low dose rate, i.e.: 3 (dose rate effect for spermatogonia) x 2 (2 sexes) x 2 (dose effect) = 10. Data of Lyon et al. (Nature New Biol. 101, July 1972) suggest use 0 is factor of 10 may not be warranted at very low dose rates. When the authors suggested small doses of radiation might eve be beneficial genetically, they might have added also that influenz