-2-
some areas might not be c“ eaned that shou”d be cleaned according to the
cleanup criteria.
Discussion
(1)
brought out the following
A telecommunication
points.
from Bruce Church on Enewetak Atoll (dated,
I believe, April 25, 1978; copy given to Bill Bair) indicated
additional
data were being taken and should be available within a
few days.
The message suggested
any decisions
be delayed until
these new data were available.
(2)
The scatter plot for Janet (Enjebi) does not suggest a bias in IMP
It was noted that Janet has been cleared of brush so
Am values.
that brush attenuation
corrections
of IMP Am readings did not occur.
have been made for brush
attenuation
Such corrections would tend to increase
this correction
No
to any islands.
IMP readings.
Whether
alone would remove the bias in the IMP readings
is unknown.
(3)
New IMP readings have been taken on Lucy and Alice because the
original readings were taken when the IMP was suffering from low
and high voltage problems.
desirable
(4)
New IMP readings on Belle are also
due to low voltage problems on original IMP survey.
It is my understanding
(statistician,
from discussions
with Madaline Barnes
DRI) that Frank Markwell probably
computed his
factor of 1.5 by taking the average of the five ratios (soil Am/IMP Am).
This method of computing an average ratio will usually give a higher
result than if one divides the average soil Am concentration by the
average
IMP Am concentration.
can be large if the statistical
Differences
between the two methods
distribution
of the individual ratios
is highly skewed, e.g., one or two ratios being much higher than
the others.
In this skewed case, the average of the individual
ratios will be influenced greatly by these high values, and to the
extent t’hat the high individual
ratios are not typical of most of
the data, the average ratio so computed will not be representative
of the bulk of the ratios.