The tables in which average concentrations of Pu range to 400 pCi/g are misleading. It is suggested that 10, 20, 30 and 40 pCi/g be used; doses from higher soil concentrations can be easily calculated. References should be given concerning the Pu to 24) ay ratio of 2 to l, and the root zone soil concentration (last paragraph, page 3). Also, the Stuart reference (page 5) is not given. There is a totally inadequate description of the data that are used in the paper. We are given no information on the number of samples or on their variability. In Tables 2, 5, and 6, the authors should provide the number of samples, minimum and maximum values, arithmetic mean, median, and the standard deviation for each group of data. The use of the term “average” island soil concentration (Tables 3, 10, 11, and 12) is confusing since the authors do not define this average. For example, is it the average of 1/4 or 1/2 hectare areas, or might it be the average of all the raw soil data as a whole collected on the island? It is suggested that the authors either define the word average or delete it. In the last line of Table 9, the datum 1.11 x 1072 is incorrect and should apparently be 1.11 x 107), Also, in Table 4, it appears that the datum 0.159 in the row for 20 g/day should be 0.149. The tables should be carefully proofread since there may be other errors. It would be helpful to the reader if the dose estimates for at least one of the tables (perhaps Table 12) were plotted on graph paper (% time versus dose for each hypothetical soil concentration). This would make clear the simple multiplicative relationships between the dose estimates in the table. 241 4239-240 . . . . Am Pu ratio data in fish muscle mentioned on page 9 The (last paragraph) should be presented, especially since the data are described by the authors as being "insufficient" to arrive at “meaningful averages."