Yates
5
May 23, 1990
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Data and Results for DOE-1982
DOE-1982 was based on the aerial
survey by the EG&G group (1981) and a minimal number of analyses of soil
and vegetation on Rongelap Island by the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL). The report misstated the nature of the diet (this was
an editorial blunder). The dose was calculated to be 2.5 rem (30 years)
for residence on Rongelap, eating a specified diet, but five times
greater for residence on Naen Island.
U. S. radiation protection guide.
Rongelap Island therefore met the
Subsequent Material
My Report, published in 1988, included
additional data from three sources.
{a) LLNL had reported on vegetation taken in 1986.
These results
agreed with the earlier ones, so the LLNL estimate of dose based
primarily on diet remained the same.
(b)
BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory) had been studying
Rongelap people with a whole-body counter for about 30 years.
I
the dese to be about one-half of the LLNL dose.
Because the BNL
based on actual body scanning rather than on an assumed diet, it
considered to be the better one.
(c)
the
found
dose is
is
The BNL data for plutonium, based on urinary excretion,
appeared to be impossibly high.
However, even using this invalid dose,
the total BNL dose was within the protection guide limit.
After the
publication of my Report, BNL discovered that contamination of the urine
Samples was the cause of the difficulty.
This result is being checked on
209 samples from 150 subjects, the work to be completed by July 1, 1990.
Data from the first 60 samples indicate that true dose is very. small -no more than 5% of the total dose from all radionuclides (about 1.2 rem
in 30 years).
It is in practical agreement with the LLNL‘'s estimate,
based on diet.
(d)
With respect to the model for the dose calculations based on
the plutonium content of urine, the literature was reviewed by Leggett
and Eckerman in Health Physics 52: 337-346, 1987. Furthermore, it has
been pointed out that such model# tend to overestimate the plutonium
burden in tissues rather than to underestimate them (Kathren, Heid §
Swint, Health Physics 53: 487-493, 1987).
END
90001708