b) How valid are the statements (made at the meeting) that the mullet does not migrate, presumably either between islands or across ocean/lagoon barriers? If it is not a migrating fish, were the fish obtained in those areas most likely to be fished by the islanders? c) What is the basis for the assumption that the mullet is the most direct and representative link between marine contamination levels and dose to man? d) It is stated that there is some uncertainty about what fish tissue the Marshallese actually ingest. This sounds difficult to believe considering that we have had 30 years--more or Tess--to observe/study their diet. nothing else, why don't we ask them? Unreal! If If it is true that we really don't know, why are muscle and skin assumed? e) If there is a difference of a factor of 8 in the 2385 ,,/239 Pu ratios in fish (mullet?) muscle in different parts of the atoll, why are mean concentrations used and why is 3 x 10° used as the gut transport factor for 238502 f) On page 8 it is stated that use of 1073 instead of 3 x 10> 5 for Pu-239, -240 would increase the dose rate from 3.2 mrad/yr (Table 5) to 9.9 mrad/yr. Does this also include 238 Pu? 239,240 g) What if the 238 Pu component value is 10°? and Pu is 10° 4 or 3 x 107°? What this all reduces to is that we don't really know anything more about the marine pathway than we do the terrestrial or, for that matter, the inhalation one. If there may be a Pu problem at Bikini with surface soil concentrations of 10 pCi/g (page 11), how can we consider settlement at Eniwetok with levels of 10-40 pCi/g? The uncertainties of the inhalation dose calculations have already