. * = . . . t . . Cae - Ct S . aay . > ty panleposited tend ro haock call portictes free. - . vo In relation to this, here is no “Td dike to give you a JittleG subjective feeling for the hazard. & Tin guidance on su vfree contamination by plutonium. Two years ago, in Da ‘an effort to determine some indication of the opinions of knowledgeable yO persons with respect to environmental contamination by plutoniurn, a brief “ questionaire was administered to 3d selected LRL employees (Kathren, . 2.L., private communication). with the hazards of plutonium. x. All were persons who were well acquainted The group consissed of 16 Hazards Control personneel, primarily health physicists and senior radiation rnonitors. The remainder were professional personnel from Biomedical Division, Chemistry, and Military Applications, who had extensive experience with plutonium. : had nothing to do with the su vey, noz was I one of the mermbers who was Ae ue eSan Z , . 7 ee Rie. queried. the conjectured situation was that their neighborhood had been . , : . contarninated by plutonium oxide to levels of 0.4 microcuries per square ~ . : meter. ths . , For reference, this value is roughly ten times the highest concen tration Dr. Martell found east of the Rocky Flast Dow Chemical fareLlity Mfartell, ELA., 1970), --and bear in mind that a factor of ten ig a small ue difference relative to the iarge uncertainties associated with the hazards from:-plutonium contamination. ~ Several questions were asked. would you allow your childrento play in it?’ 86% said No. levels be decontaminated? area be cleaned? 89% said Yes: Onc was, Should these And to what level should the 50% said to backporound, zero, Aniniintisn, or by io rechtetion of at Teast a facto: of 40. This hay nao protfound setomlitic sige LEC oe. awsee, ae, : oo , . canversant of the moe bul tudieit es. that miiy people hazard are not on ere