p.6, lines | and 2. The three orders of magnitude should not be taken as a result of experimental work by Larsen. I suspect that it will be lower but must finish the review. p.6. lines 13-14. Justification should be given for the 1072uptake by americium. While data are scarce, what we have indicates a somewhat lower value. Again, this will be in the review. The discussion on the uptake is unsatisfactory in that the liver is not included and many of the values quoted included the urine component so.that they are not strictly comparable. p.6, line 21. It should be helpful to provide a better derivation for the plant uptake factors in Table II including the actual data used. enable the reader to better assess the validity of the values. This would Was americium assumed to have the same plant concentration ratio as plutonium? -7, par. 1. It would be useful to the reader if the data for the birds and bird eggs were included. In particular, the concentration ratios that were used in the calculations should be included. In the dose calculations throughout it would be useful if the exact parameters (bone weight, energy of alpha, etc.) along with the calculation methods were given. It is not clear, for example, whether the decay of 2@*!Am and 238Pu over the 70-year period is included. p.l2, lines 6-7. The mass loading of 100 ug/m> needs greater justification. For example, the time period of sampling and the activities in progress for the 80 ug/m° mentioned later should be described. It should be remembered that our interest is on the yearly average including periods of eating and sleeping as well as time spent on the water. The AMAD of 0.5 um seems small, particularly when the main source appears to be mechanical disturbance.