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