-8- collected from houses on Bikini had only a fraction of the amount found in the \> soil. This is reassuring in view of the importance of the inhalation route of absorption and the fact that the people spend the majority of their time in their homes. Recently, an article was published in the local Marshall Island paper saying “dangerous levelstIof pu were found in the Bikini PeoPle~ caused considerable apprehension among those living at Bikini. This This problem has been added to the many problems !hvolved in their rehabilitation. Un- fortunately statements by both ERDA and the BNL groups on radiological safety have been looked upon with some degree of suspicion by the people. The people on Bikini badly need a statement of reassurance about their radiological safety by experts in the field, other than the BNL group. The BNL team is also desirous of further guidance by the experts in handling the plutonium problem. or lung burden of Can any reliable measurement of body burden 239-240 Pu be derived indirectly from the present urine data? Are there other suggestions about deriving body burdens indirectly”? Is it feasible to perfozm —— in vivo counting procedures for these people? The assay could possibly be performed in the whole-body counting facility on the ship. burdens or in In vivo counting is generally considered impractical, parti—— cularly under field conditions. measurable 239-240PU or 241& Should several Marshallese with urine Pu be brought to the U.S. for counting? Would the body 9osr such counting? and 137Cs already present in these people interfere with The BNL team would welcome advice and assistance on these and other problemsrelated to the Pu contamination. R. S. N. J. Conard Cohn Greenhouse Naidu “