the
conversion
and
the difference for other organs of interest should
pp.
11,
be stated.
ldavvor
iI85
aeriveu
lyr
smuulag
ve
Bsavew
(See comment 26.)
last parag.,
pp.
12,
ist parag.
I have some
concern with these beta dose rates.
The results are
given at 1 cm depth in tissue.
However, the presumed
sensitive cells are much closer to the surface than
this so that the beta dose could be considerably
higher.
I would use the generally assumed depth of 7
mg/em.
The
beta dose varies greatly with height so
that the dose at 1m is not representative of that
close to the ground or the dose received by sitting or
squatting.
While
it
may
make
little
difference,
I
believe that we should make the best and most realistic
estimate possible of the skin dose and dose to the lens
of the eye.
pp. 14, last parag.
A little more discussion on the
personnel samplers, would be in order.
From Table 5, I
estimate about 10°
qis/min per m-
in the air.
Thus, a
sample of 100-1000 m™ would be needed to get a positive
indication. -. This is more air than any personnel
sampler that I have seen would draw.
Which data in Table 5
samplers?
pp.
15, lines 1 and 2.
are
from these personnel
It is not clear to me how one
gets an enhancement factor of 1.54 for "normal
conditions" from the data in Table 5.
Are there other
data not given?
If so they should be included and the
derivation of these values made explicit.
,
In Table 5 under the heading "at Roadside", it is
not
clear
to
me
how
the
individual
survived
at
a
breathing rate of 0.023 m>/h.
10.
pp. 15, 1st parag.
How was the breathing rate of 20
m-?/day partitioned between "normal" and “high activity"
-eonditions?