Dr. d. L. Liverman 2 January 12, 1977 The TTG concludes that the first question cannot be answered with available data and recommends that an effort be made to obtain urine samples from selected representative residents of Bikini under carefully controlled conditions that would minimize possibilities of cross contamination. This might be accomplished by use of the radiobiological research vessel R. V. Liktanur aS a clean environment during one or more of its quarterly visits to Bikini. Samples should not be pooled from different individuals. Dietary, work, travel and recreational characteristics of the sampled individuals should be accurately recorded. Control samples must be similarly obtained and analyzed. These would most appropriately be obtained from nonexposed Marshallese. It would also be important to establish with greater confidence the U.S. value for fallout plutonium in urine. With regard to the second question, the TTG was presented a brief review of information on plutonium in the Bikini environment and incomplete information on the dietary habits of the residents, and their sources of food. The TTG recognizes the need for continued monitoring of air, soil, water, and foodstuffs for plutonium and other transuranics. To minimize the cost of this effort a long range plan is needed that will consider pertinent experience from Nevada Test Site, Rocky Flats, and Savannah River studies, and which will assure identification of significant changes in transuranic levels. Samples are required that will be truly representative of the air the residents breathe and the food they eat. This effort will, of course, become more important if the answer to the first question is positive. An answer to the third question requires answers to the first two. The TTG recommends that when answers are obtained to questions 1 and 2, estimates of current body burdens and projected future body burdens should be made for current residents and their descendants, based on the best available models. The TTG does not believe in-vivo counting offers much hope at the estimated current body burdens. However, if the revised projections indicate body burdens attaining nanocurie levels, then in-vivo counting of all residents should be reconsidered. Based upon our experiences with Spanish subjects, it is unlikely that current technology would offer much hope of quantifying Tow chest burdens of plutonium under field conditions. The fourth question, regarding possible health risks, depends upon current and future body burdens of transuranics in Bikini residents. Data presented to he JTTG, if accepted at face value, suggests that the average burden is ~ 20 pCi 39,240Pu, but may be higher or lower by a factor of ten or more. Using risk factors in the BEIR and similar reports, estimates of the health risk assoctated with this level of plutonium can be calculated and would be very small. However, the TTG believes that the derivation of such estimates would be premature. Such estimates would better wait until the body burdens of the Bikini residents can be ascertained with more confidence. Also, such estimates of possible health consequences must be done in context with other radiation exposure, such as from the beta~gamma radiation from fission products dispersed on Bikini. The TTG is aware that obtaining answers to the questions discussed above requires a considerable degree of cooperation from the Bikini people. Efforts to obtain this cooperation might result in psychological or sociological stresses