To what extent, if any, is the assumed diet realistic or conservative? After what period of time is it anticipated that this diet will, in fact, be available as the primary, if not sole, source of food? For example, are the people now to some extent dependent upon imported food, and would this continue? How do LLL soil surface (0-3 cm) measurements compare with EPA recom- mentations (0-1 cm)? (Perhaps information related to this could. be obtained from the Rockwell comparative soil sampling program at Rocky Flats.) How reliable and consistent is the Pu:Am ratio of 2:1? Is it justifiable to assume a 2:1 ratio for both the surface soil (0-3 cm) and the root zone (0-30 cm)? How realistic are the occupancy factors stated? for women and children? Are these valid also For example, children might be expected to spend more time on a village or picnic island, but would their estimated dose be decreased because of avoidance of agricultural islands, increased because they might be expected to play in the dirt, sand or coral, or would the dose be essentially the same as for an adult? A gut transfer factor of 3.0 x 107 may not be conservative. EPA recommends i074 for Pu-239, 240 oxide, 107? for oxides and non-oxides of other isotopes of Pu, Am and Cm, and 5 x 10 ~~ material. 3 for biologically incorporated Use of 107 for Am is okay, but Pu-239, to say nothing of Pu-238, absorption factors may have been underestimated. This subject is one in which numbers are given in the report, but little is said about the experimental conditions or the applicability of the numbers to the Eniwetok dose assessments: a) Pu in chlorinated water may not remain as +6 in physiological milieu. b) Reference to Stuart is not given.