W. d. Bair June 1 8, 1979 Page 7 normal conditions what percent of the food is assumed to be important, or was the definition of "normal" left undefined and/or vague. The authors noted that they believed (even before the survey was conducted) that the diet estimates previously used were too high. What precautions were taken to ensure that their preconceived notions did not bias the way questions were asked of the Enewetak people so that biased responses were not obtained? Their survey results may truly reflect actual diet conditions, but they must be able to document that such is the case! What exactly is a maximum annual dose rate? 24. It should be explicitly defined. 25. Throughout the Results section the authors talk in terms of predicted dose rates. I would prefer that they talk instead in terms of projected or estimated doses. Also, nowhere do they indicate how "less-than" soil concentrations were handled in computing average soil concentrations. Concerning the dose tables, 2 rather than 3 significant digits is all that can be justified. Actually, 1 significant digit is probably all we can really feel comfortable with. 26. p. 15, Line 7 The childs entire diet intake cannot come from Engebi under “normal” conditions since the latter assumes imported foods are available. 2/. Tables 19-44 Condense into only one or two tables or graphs. wasted paper in present format. Too much It's also hard to get a quick idea of the overall picture with the present format. 28. Tables 47-50 Need "error limits" on doses. 29. p. 16 Do these maximum annual doses take into account the skewed nature of the soil data, i.e., was lognormal data assumed? 30. p. 17; How was the 10 month figure determined? Table 49. 24000 mrem/30 years is obviously in error (typo). Lines 6-9