beta and gamma.
The above equation permits estimating the ling term
- gamma activity, provided there are one-hour dose rate measurements at
the locations of interest.
Il.
-
RESULTS
The first step in the analysis was to compare the do
estimates developed as prescribed above with recent surveys
for the Enewetak atoll}.
This comparison would indicate the
the soil and plant uptake.
Figure 1 is a map of the Enewet
Showing the location of 3 islands chosen for the comparison
Janet, and Yvonne.
Table 1 lists the measured dose rate fror
operations for these three islands as well as the 1972 esti
the cs?3? component.
—
The 1972 survey (reported in KVOD-149) provides avemce exposure
rates separately for cs}3? and co®9,
(This latter isotope iB
not a
fission product but results from weapon debris activation).
In addition,
average profiles are provided of cs)3? concentration (pCi/g}
versus
soii depth for Alice and Janet. It is important to note that there
evidently have been no cleanup activities (which would invaWidate the
comparisons discussed here) on Alice and Janet.
Yvonne is
different
Large variations in exposure rates occ ron Yvonne;
thus, mean levels are misleading. For this reason, Yvonne 11 be dropped
DOE ARCHIVES
from the comparison.
Table 2 provides the Cs 137 survey data for Alice an
The dose rates can be compared directly with the estimates
Janet.
f Table 1.
As expected, the estimates are high since among other reaso s it was
assumed that the activity was all on the surface.
The soil
~=:
of activity concentration versus depth can be used to devel
comparison
dose rate by relocating the activity back to the surface.
of this value with the estimate is useful in that the difference is
LG
Ae
the testing period.
ee
situation because of construction and earth moving activitids durina