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