in the figure nor were they included“in any dosimetric distributions for any of the nuclides. Thus all persons considered, regardless of initial age in 1957, experienced a 23 year exposure interval. Figure 19 shows dose equivalent distributions according to age and sex for L37¢, among the Rongelapese. ; The shape or the population distribution was . | skewed with a mean of 1.7!/Rem and a maximum of 9.0 Rem. 5.3 times the mean value-for }?"cs on Rongelap. t dive . . Thus the maximum was An examination ‘of the subgroup distributions reveals that persons. who were infants at the time lof rehabilation e at Rongelap also were the:recipients of the highey doses. This was due to the combined effects of lower average body mass, a higher average ingestion rate, ' . i¢ and more rapid turnover of 13766 than that for adults or even children. The pa- rameter having the greatest impact on the infant dose equivalent was body mass. The standard deviation for the adult male distribution was 49% of the mean dose equivalent, for adult females 43% of the mean dose equivalent, and for adolescents 47%, Within a subgroup, the maximum observed dose equivalent was 4pproxi- vt mately twice the mean value for all distributions considered here. Figure 20 shows mean dose equivalents as a function of returning agr groups for O57 on Rongelap. Adolescents, young adults, and adults 50 an) up were the groups receiving lower total dose equivalents, while children and middle aged persons received higher dose equivalents during the residence interval, Measured 62H data for persons who were infants at the return date were not reported in the publications by Conard et al. Figure 2] shows the dosimetric distributions observed for memberg of the Rongelap population for 6500. Again the population overall exhibited a skewed distribution of dose with a maximum value nearly three times the mean. (Children demonstrated higher doses than persons who were adults during the entire ?) 39 th « - aos 7 eri opyey 2) AEM rd oT ‘