ABSTRACT The task has been to determine whether or not DOE's 1982 Report proved that Rongelap Island is safe for habitation. The island was contaminated in 1954 during the testing of nuclear weapons. It should be borne in mind that the dosage under discussion is current dosage, e.g., 1954. from 1990 to 2020, and not that from exposure in The current dosage over a 30-year period is a matter of 3 ren, whereas the original exposure was one of 190 rem in 2 days. The evidence used by DOE plus additional and more recent information have been reviewed. Rongelap Island is safe for habitation by adults provided that the diet is equivalent to that formerly used. I do not believe that such a diet would present any difficulty. Measurement of plutonium excretion in the urine of Rongelap residents (1981) shows very great variation. The matter is a potential cause of concern and should be studied although it is not associated with overexposure. The dose to infants and small children is another potential cause of concern. Preliminary findings from a diet survey indicate, however, that the dosage is not excessive. This study should be continued. The whole-body counting for cesium should be resumed to establish a base line for later work at the time of resettlement. oll In the course of planning toftesettlement, the fact that Rongelap Island appears safe for resettlement now should not be lost sight of. Al Planning tofresettlement should consider the possible use of potassium-salt treatment of the soil and soil removal as studied at Bikini. To obtain a brief summary of the key facts of dosage and the more general, but important human factors that will affect decision-making, the reader is referred to Section 4.5 (Dose Summary) and to Section 5 (Discussion and Recommendations.)