then attributable not to soil migration but rather to plant uptake and
other losses.
To develop this pseudo dose rate, the following equation
was used:
~
A(Ci/m?) =p 21078 faya
Oo
“where a is the activity density in pCi/g, z is the depth in cm, p is
' the soil density (1.89/em) and the factor of 1078 provides the con-
oe eee
8
; version from pCi to Ci and from cm“ Z to m C
The dose rate for cs)3?
is given by
D(R/HR) = 6.21 A(Ci/m®)
Table 3 summarizes the comparison between the estimated and measured
cst? dose rate and the. pseudo dose rate as well.
As can be seen, the
i estimate is a factor of about 20 higher than the measured value and
that roughly half of this difference can be accounted for by mechanisms
other than soil migration.
This comparison indicates that simple
~ estimates can be used to provide bounding upper Timits and that it
might be possible to refine these estimates to within an order of
magnitude by correcting for soi] migration.
The conditions for this
refinement would be:
a.)
that for the location of interest, there had
b.)
that the soil profiles would be similar to that
been no cleanup or major earth moving prior
to the survey and
found on undisturbed Enewetak islands receiving
fallout (such as Fig. 1409 of "Summary of Findings”
chapter of NVO0-140).
Having compared dose rate estimates with survey results for
' Enewetak, we can now turn to those islands in the northern Marshalls
that were contaminated by fallout from shots at Bikini.
Because the estimating scheme being used requires the one-hour
dose rate as input, it is important to first establish that off-site
measurements were made in all cases where there was fallout on the
{slands of interest.
quammmes
900897
If these data are incomplete, estimations cannot
s