the geometric standard deviation was essentially 2.0.
So that we assume
then that all radionuclides behaved in that kind of manner in terms of
‘their dispersion.
Now you may recall from the results that the Colorado
State group presented yesterday, this turns out to be quite well confirmed
by their numbers.
As I recall their actual calculations of geometric
standard deviations varied from 1.5 to 2.0.
factor --
this
The variation in the dose
again comes from studies at Oak Ridge where they have
carefully examined the data available for radiofodine in particular, and
also for Cesium-137,
and this takes
into account variations
in uptake
10
factors, biological turnover rates, size of the organ, and so forth.
ll
data indicate that 1.8 is the geometric standard deviation for that factor.
12
These
13
logarithm of this number,
since it is the logarithms that are normally
14
distributed,
sum
them up
in
the
usual
15
exponentiate
it.
So
that
our
overall]
16
are
all
summed
up,
according
to
this
way,
expression.
take
the
estimated
We
take
square
root
geometric
deviation for these calculations of dose from ingestion is 2.7.
Their
the
and
standard
Then if we
17
want to calculate an arithmetic mean, or look at the relationship between
18
arithmetic and geometric means, we can do so with this calculation.
19
this particular geometric standard deviation, the arithmetic mean is 1.6
20
times the geometric mean.
21
calculations for the litigants to estimate the uncertainty in the absence
22
of the dispersion of the results from our own models.
23
For
So that. is the process that we used for the
Moving on to the next viewgraph (LRA-21), we look at the calculations
24
of the dose from inhalation.
We did do this for the litigants
25
detail, as I will indicate later on.
26
calculation.
27
calculated
28
location in the nearest town as opposed to that town; but, nevertheless,
This is our standard method of the
This is a measured air concentration.
were
based
upon
measured
38
in some
air
All results that we
concentrations,
perhaps
at
a