.
.
. .
.
●
..
.
.
@ME!US (M DRAFTDOCiMEN7“PRELIMINARYReassessment
OF THE
PWENTIAL RADIOLOGICAL
DOSES FORRESIDEh7S RESETTLINGENWETAKA70LL”
Gtnerd
*
Comments
2. 7he report
throughout-that
;
.
—.
is clearly
stamptd “dmft”
and it cautions
FQT examplt,
results
are tehtttive.
base
.
be withh
.
l?. Psg6 2: ‘%ec&se of time snd budget”, fmd chain
collected.
evaluation
of only *bout 2S percent
of smples
is based
evslutt{ng
the data,..
c. Page 2: %e are currently
w?mther snalysis
of the other smpXes till
be necessary.”
tu detemine
“data
iS laOt 8S co~~ete
the reader
SS it will
8. POge 2:
next yem or two.”
“
on
. .
●
.
Psge 3: ?~evalwting the datl for ~ofi~~est i$~s~ds mnd ~uft
subsequent
assessments
will be done later.”
d.
.
md
?.
. .
time to ●vslumte
f.
Page 3: “insufficient
uncert~lnty
of the final dose estimates.?’
---
“1=
Page 20:
t*
md co 60*..f’
✎
.“
. . “. ,
. .
0.
1
.
-.’
‘:
.“ 1
✍✍✍✍
.“
‘%e draft
zeprt
h.
Page 10:
?ll~fp ne~sure~ents-..
3.
Page U:
“Results
for
j.
Page 15: “prelimimry
-d8pDSitiOnwould be less than
.
.
*
-.!
.i
be tqsnded
~
sUrveYe..
to include
and
CS 137
~ujor aye not co~lete.”
Lajua are preliminary.”
analysis
0.3.”
k.
Page 46: ‘hot yet ●vsilable
refined at ● later date.”
Pkgm 48:
1.
and ~f SO...”
will
the diet
-we Sxe C=rently
. . . indicate
and doses
evacuating
that the pulmmry
fxtm this
source
will
the d*t8*-*. to S*8 if...
I
4
:
I
‘“l*
-.
I
.
I
✎
Inwieu
of the above. it Would be unwise for ●ither the U.S. or Micxonesian
cleanup snd
governments
to cite this draft report ● s a basis for altering
In the spring 197S, LLL produced s draft dose ●stimate
xchsbilitation
plans.
study which considered
transurmic
elements only.
‘i%is study was the basis
for DoE xccomending
that cleanup guidelines
be mdcmre
strirtgent
and for
DNAin turn redirecting
its cleanup eff~=s.
Subsequently,
LLL reported
the~
TM
guidtli:
-estimates
were high by s factor
of ten due to =rithnetic
error.
change had not bsen necessary.