Letter to Dr. Wachholz June 30, 1981 Page 3 Modelers can quickly lose credibility if their conclusions are shown to be totally impossible or even highly unlikely. The in- vestigators on this project must demonstrate that their dose esti- mates are realistic with respect to levels of radionuclides in the environment and in food. 3, 4. 5, I still wonder if there might not be some long-lived radionuclides at Rongelap and Utirik that have been overlooked. Is theory sufficient to rule out this possibility? Perhaps this question should be directed to Livermore. The model used by BNL for inhalation of large particles was not clear--especially for 30 to 100 um particles. (My notes are also unclear so I can't remember what bothered me.) Estimate of Dose to Thyroids of Rongelap and Utirik People. This effort should have top priority: What is contribution of radionuclides other than '?!I to thyroid dose? 6. What js bone marrow dose from ?°Sr in persons who lived on Bikini? Is the Livermore dose assessment for Bikini people consistent with the constant level of ?°Sr that is being observed in the Bikini people? 7. 8. How do '37Cs results at Bikini compare with Livermore dose assess- ment? Frequency of Whole Body Counting. I believe the whole body counting of the Bikini people can be terminated if they are now at background levels. Continuing bio- assay measurements should be made for ?°Sr and the transuranics until the ?°Sr clearance time is determined and the amounts of transuranics in the population who lived on Bikini can be assessed. A few tissue samples from autopsy cases might be all that is needed. 9. I believe the BNL efforts (medical and non-medical) and the Livermore effort must be more closely coordinated than in the past. By assigning clearly defined "turf" to each group should eliminate competitiveness and increase the level of trust. Because of the politically sensitive nature of the Marshall Island program, the interests of all parties (U.S. and Marshallese) would be best served by identifying a single spokesman for both BNL and LLL groups or at least a “clearing house" to assure internal consis- tency. Publication of results in reports and the open literature should be encouraged, but great care should be taken before publication to resolve discrepancies between the results of the different projects and eliminating unsupported conclusions and gratuitous statements.