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 -