LASL
University of California
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
To:
W. L. Robison
-y-
DATE:
August
14,
‘
19.
pp. 32, Inhalation.
I am puzzled by the statement that
the dose is calculated only for the pulmonary
compartment?
Weren't the doses to bone and liver
calculated?
For Class W, the combination of NP and TB
must be done carefully because the fraction absorbed is
different for the two.
20.
pp. 33, Results,
lines 7-10.
I am no
the buildup of dose from ingestion of
gclear as to how
ypotebody dose.
Was a whole body dose
Sr?
If so, what does it mean?
21.
pp. 48,
Ist parag.
day half-life
calculated
for
Shouldn't you acknowledge the 630
in.a Marshallese woman mentioned on pp.
32?
22.
“Sr affects the
pp. 48.
In the discussion of probabilities you have
largely considered island averages.
How about the
question of people living on a wato.
Wouldn't this
serve to minimize the independence of these values and
possibly result in a higher fraction of high doses?
23.
pp. 49, 1st parag.
As I read the preceeding material,
3X seems to be about 95-96% of the people.
Thus, with
200
people
returning..to-_Enjebi- there
would
be _8-10
people above this value.
While characterized as a
"very small fraction" in this report, it means that
future monitoring efforts have a 5% chance per person
of values above the limit.
Can this be handled?
--
24.
Table 30 et al.
You have never told us how the bone
marrow doses from the transuranic nuclides were
calculgsed.
They are sizeable in comparison to those
from
Sr so
importance.
that
the
calculational
method
is
of
25.
Fig. 1. Shouldn't you indicate on this map the islands
that are no longer there because of the tests?
rT
thought that Enjebi was spelled with a j.
26.
Appendix B.
The value of 0.82 used for the conversion
from absorbed dose in air to absorbed dose in the body
is specific for the gonads.
It would be well to quote
values for other organ systems.
1979