Table 6.
Utirik adult body burdens, 1979 (D = ratio-derived; NA = not
analyzed).
Males
Body
burden
( uli)
Females
Number
of
persons
Body
burden
( uli)
All adults
Number
of
persons
Body
burden
( ui)
‘Number
of
persons
Days
post
return
600,
D
D
6574
D
4.0x107>
3.1x1073
9.7x1074
3.5x1071*
2.7x1l071
3.7x1072
3.5x1073
7.6x1074
2
14
-
1.6x1071
3.3x1072
2464
8.7x1074
15
-
2.1x1071
3.5x1072
3924
29
1734
2464
55 6
D
1.7x1071
1.6x107!
1.6x1071
6114
90,
1.4x1073
1.2x1073
1370,
NA
1.5x1074
5
5
12
14
2.41073
1.3x1073
4.1x107!
2.9x107!
2.6x107!
1.2x1071
6.2x1072
NA
1.5x1074
2
6
12
17
1.7x1073
1.3x1073
NA
1.5x1074
24
31
8669
9225
NA
2.7x107)
NA
3.3x1071
NA
1004
9
1.3x1071
13
1.8x107!
15
27
19
2.0x1071
7.8x1l072
4.3x1072
15
2)
17
2.5x1071
1.0x1071
5.3x1072
7
11
30
22
48
36
1734
7213
1734
7213
8309
9225
*Measured at Argonne, not used in dosimetry.
90sr,
and 137¢s.
The standard deviation on this ratio is 15%.
These ratios
were determined only when the body burden for the nuclide of interest had
reached a maximum. Thus a significant time passed on Rongelap, 2 to 3 years
post return, before a body burden comparison was valid.
It was observed, in all cases, that the population mean body burdens
were lower by a factor of 3 than the highest for any individual in the population. The population mean dose equivalent and maximum dose equivalent likewise differed by a factor of 3. The population average daily activity inges~
tion rate and maximum value differed by a factor of 4. For the nuclides 137’Cs
and 657, a substantial sub-group in the population, children and infants,
received a dose equivalent higher than the population mean value.
- 118 -