then attributable not to soil migration but rather to plant Other losses. ptake and To develop this pseudo dose rate, the follow ng equation was used: A(Ci/m*) = p x wef Zz max a(z)dz 0 where a is the activity density in pCi/go, z is the depth in cm, p is the soil density (1.89/cr?) and the factor of 10°78 nrovides the con2 The dose rate for cs33? , version from pCi to Ci and from cm 2 tom‘, . fs given by t 4: i ‘ 4 D(R/HR) = 6.21 A(Ci/m?) : Table 3 summarizes the comparison between the estimated and measured c5t37 dose rate anc the.pseudo dose rate as well. As can b P Seen, the ; estimate is a factor of about 20 higher than the measured v Tue and i that roughly half of this difference can be accounted for b | mechanisms | other than soil migration. This comparison indicates that pimple estimates can be used to provide bounding upper limits and that it might be possible to refine these estimates to within an orBer of magnitude by correcting for soil migration. The conditions for this refinement would be: a.) that for the location of interest, there had b.) that the soil profiles would be similar to th been no cleanup or major earth moving prior to the survey and found on undisturbed Enewetak islands receivi fallout (such as Fig. 1409 of “Summary of Fin chapter of NVOO-140). Having compared dose rate estimates with survey re ings” its for ' Enewetak, we can now turn to those islands in the northern tarshalls that were contaminated by fallout from shots at Bikini. Because the estimating scheme being used requires dose rate as input, it is important to first establish tha Measurements were made in all cases where there was fallou istands of interest. DOE ARCHIVES e one-hour off-site on the lf these data are incomplete, estima jons cannot “3 0