.
.
ies)
1-163
i
being redeposited tend to knock small particles free.
Mey
1
In relation to this,
I'd like to give you a little subjective feeling for the hazard.
]
{
There is no
3
3
j1
official guidance on surface contamination by plutonium. Two years ago, in
}
i
1
%
an effort to determine some indication of the opinions of knowledgeable
persons with respect to environmental contamination by plutonium, abrief
with the hazards of plutoniuni.
|
i| ;
|
|
_
questionaire was administered to Se selected LRL employees (Kathren,
R.L., private communication).
{
|
|
ji
All were persons who were well acquainted
The group consisted of 16 Hazards Control
personnel, primarily health physicists and senior radiation monitors.
The
.
é
remainder were professional personnel from Biomedical Division, Chemistry, and Military Applications, who had extensive experience with plutonium.
Thad nothing to do with the survey, nor was I one of the mernbers who was
queried. The conjectured situation was that their neighborhood had been
i
meter.
te
tration Dr.. Martell found east of the Rocky Flast Dow Chemical facility . .
; fl
(Martell, E.A., 1970), --and bear in mind that a factor of ten is a smell
tf
difference relative to the large uncertainties associated with the hazards
ta
Scveral questions were asked.
would you allow your children to play in it?
levels be decontaminated?
area be cleaned?
89% said Yes.
Cne was,
- o
86% said No. ‘Should these
3
we
“weltyte;
ne’ is *. Man’ LUSEIE
from plutonium contamination.
And to what level should the
50% said to backperouned, gzero, onini:aue, or by zs
reduction of at least a factor of 40.
53
For reference, this value is roughly ten times the highest concen-
PE eee gts Ze Sues prege mgens oo
eontaminated by plutonium oxide to levels of 0.4 microcuries per square
This has no profound scientitie sig-
cee
=
“re Mifieanee. but indicates that miiny people conversant! of the hazard are not
= oa he FU Te ole 6 we welled Id we'S EeBd ell Ble
Sr
-
Bee . © tela dee” -”
-
Wad