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