- 25 the medical findings for that group can be attributed definitely to internally deposited plutonium", On his page 12, the author states: “With equaljustification one may state that most of the serious medical findings in this group can be attributed to plutonium", and this he states apparently on the basis of his examination of the limited published information and his speculations. Where objective scientific assessments of risk are concerned, we do not think that the justification of the assessments or related claims should depend on whether or not one is a proponent or opponent of, or indifferent to, nuclear energy or its alternatives. That any risk associated with the MPLB, or fractions thereof, is totally unjustified is an opinion of the author. The evidence presented by the author cannot be considered supportive of his conclusions in light of the above comments. The opinion that there is no fraction of the MPLB at which the risk becomes insigificant appear unrealistic. Page 13, lines 12-14 - "The growing evidence suggests that as little as a few picocuries of alpha activity in the lung, in arterial tissue, and in other organs gives rise to a significant cancer risk." Comments: If the statistics relating cigarette smoking and lung cancer are the basis for the statement concerning lung, there is still a question concerning the relative importance of the few picocuries of alpha activity as compared withthe influence of the rest of the smoke (see previous comments on the authozs page 2, lines 13-17). The case for cancer risk in arterial tissue, if it refers to the author's postulate that atherosclerotic plaques are arterial tumors, is poorly founded (see previous comments on the author's pages 10 and 11). We are not clear what data has been provided to support the statement about “other organs", whichever