-uIt must be realized that the values in Table 3 are subject to great
uncertainties, the greatest of which is probably how well (or poorly) a
single air monitor station can sample a fallout trajectory.
Contamination
of unmonitored parts of the state were undoubtedly both higher and lower
than indicated by these estimates.
It is unknown how closely the dairy
practice in St. George, Utah corresponds to that for the state as a whole.
In 1962 every case of high a
1
in milk could be traced to grazing on con-
taminated pasture or using contaminated feed.
Very little ysl appeared in
the milk of cattle exclusively eating feed which had been stored prior to
the contaminating event (773),
Most of the air beta in 1962 was from the Sedan shot
much of the Sedan activity was due to neutron-activated W
(2,3,4,5)
187 (10)
» but
Our
measurements of milk collected between the Sedan and Small Boy shots indi-
cated that about 75% of the 123+
Boy alone 3) |
from the July 1962 tests was from Small -
Normalizing to the 1089 pe/m> and 0.75 rad from Small Boy
would increase the estimated doses for previous years in Table 3 by a
factor of 2.4.
On the other hand, if the average intake for the total
state is assumed to equal the USPHS value for the Salt Lake City milk pool,
all estimated doses in Table 3 should be multiplied by 0.6.
E.
FISSION YIELD AND FALLOUT TRAJECTORY
In Table 3 no air beta data were available (to me) for the major milk
producing areas of Utah in 1951, 1953 and 1955.
Therefore, another method
was used to estimate the exposure for these years.
pst exposure was
assumed proportional to the yields of nuclear devices detonated between 1
April and 31 October of each year.
Vegetation eaten by milk cows does not
grow in the winter and thus is unlikely to be contaminated with I
131
from