Fe ESLT TT
xe
aLA
‘
tye
nye
as
1,
1
3
a
t
De
\
‘
Dye
tT:
5
‘salt
tel
ey
toy
a
wing
ge
Cyt
ae
Horta!
of urine activity concentration variability, there was a 60% probability that
4
we
L
cet
bee
Sabo
ty
i
al
Py
ty
Pee
Subic.
the male value for Ke would’ be‘different from’ the female value by’ the factor
observed.
Thus differences in the derived activity ingestion rates and dose
‘
.
e
e
4
equivalents were not significant.
Figure 14 shows a semi-log plot of the 65 “Zn and
rate histories for adults on Rongelap.
gt.
13?"Ca activity’ ingestion
A curve was drawn between’ points, and
the appearance of an increasing >’ Cs ingestion rate duringthe1960's' indicated
the possibility of another contaminating event.
The Hardtack Phase1 series was
conducted just prior to the observed increase in the curve and fallout from the
Cactus, Yellow Wood, and Hickory experiments detonated at Bikini and Enewetak
would have reached Rongelap.
However, several observations fail to support the
conclusion that recontamination was significant. These are as follows:
1) the
increase in !3’cg ingestion rate was not in conjunction with an increase of
6570; however, since 6575 is an activation product it may have not been produce}
in the same proportions.
2) The peak 1370, body burden at Utirik occurred
nearly three years after the initiating event, Castle BRAVO, while the peak bo:ly
burden at Rongelap followed six years after the potentially contaminating experi -
ments of the Hardtack series in 1958.
3) The activity ingestion rate at Utirik
demonstrated a continuously declining pattern versus the humped pattern observe.
at Rongelap.
This occurred even though there was an equal external exposure
rate history following the Hardtack series as measured by the U.S. Public Healtl
Service on both Rongelap and Utirik (Un59).
4) The peak exposure rate on
Rongelap following the Hardtack series was 10,000 times less than the peak expo~
sure rate following BRAVO.
These facts suggest that the Hardtack series was woi
a major factor influencing the Rongelap body burden patterns.
Thus it is
postulated that body burden variations were caused by travel away from the atv] |
29
et
AMET
_
3