to the
ve atoll.
|
entire
The
241 Pu
data for each
.;
island
PR
to make these
:
Ease
fey
ue
calculations are not yet available and the doses from their source will be
tefined at a later date.
islands.
We know their ratio will vary at some of the
The results of this increase in 241 4m is however insignificant
in the overall dose picture for sometime into the future.
Ingestion doses from 60 Co are negligible and therefore do not appear
in any of the tables.
samples.
Usually we can not detect 609 in vegetation
It is observedat low concentrations in soil samples but
incorporation in plants is such that concentrations rarely exceed the
detection limit.
Doses from ?¥sr and 13’cs via the inhalation pathway are very smell
and are therefore not listed in the dose tables.
An example calculation for
inhalation of 13’cg ang 2%sr for Enjebi (Janet) Island is listed in
Appendix E for comperison to inhalation doses from other radionuclides.
Uncertainty in the final dose values can result from the uncertainty in
three sources of input data:
(1) the radionuclide concentration in food,
(2) the dietary intake, and (3) the biological parameters such as
radionuclide turnover times in the body and fractiona] deposition in verious
organs.
The distribution of radionuclide concentration data was discussed in the
results and shown in figures 4 through 10.
The distributicn 1s lognormai
and the use of the arithmetic mean, %, includes some 65% of the population;
two times X includes 86% of the population and 3 X includes better then
95%.
The number of plants in the population with a concentration three
times the mean value is less than 5% of the total.
Therefore,
probability of a person finding his entire diet for 1,
5011125
5,
op
tego optPr
Mee
ce
the
10 or 30 years
.
ty
ee
TG
wad
}
fa
fy