burden curve for 90g, reconetructed from raw date and Eq. 1, was considered a more accurate history. A detailed presentation of the greater variation in radiochemical analysis of urine versus direct body burden measurements can he found in Mi8l, Figure 9 illustrates the variation exhibited in the body burden of 5 randomly chosen sub jects over: the 25 year monitoring period. Se pao variationa may have had a drapatic impact on the mean data, These individual! In Figure 2, which illustrates the adult male, adult female, and adult population mean 137¢, body burden for the 25 year exposure period, a decrease followed by an increase was seen during the years 1958 through 1963, Although che Castle BRAVO test ini- tially contaminated Rongelap in March 1954, it had been proposed that the Hardtack Phase I series added to this an amount of contamination equal to that responsible for the Figure 2 body burden pattern (C063). » Figure 9 suggests that most individuals counted in those years had body burdens which remained the sime or declined; however, one individual's burden (#881 M) rose and fell quite differently from the others, Several factors could have contributed to this variation from the mean such as departure and return to the atoll, sickness, ihe dietary contribution of imported foods, etc. Since the mean values are based on small numbers of persons who were chosen at random, it is conceivable chat in-~ dividuals like 88] M influenced the mean body burdens to a greater degree than tecontamination of the inhabited atolls. The impact of the individual body burden pattern on the Crue mean value is moot since body burdens of all individuals were not monitored consistently throughout their residence intervals except in the few cases exhibited in Figure 9. 20 Sarre wa} Feb aeM