Paae burden curve for 90¢,, recongtructed from raw data and Eq. 1, was considered « more accurate history. 4 A detailed presentation of the greater variation in radiochemical analysis of urine versus direct body burden measurements can be found in Mi81l. Figure 9 illustrates. the variation exhibited in the body burden of 5 randomly chosen subjects over: the 25 year monitoring period. These individual a variations may have had a dramatic impact on the mean date. In Figure 2, which illustrates the adule male, adult female, and adult population mean 1376, body burden for che 25 year exposure pariod, # decrease followed by an increase was seen during the years 1958 through 1963, Although the Castle BRAVO test ini- tially contaminated Rongelap in March 1954, it had been proposed thet the Hardtack Phase I series added to this an amount of contamination equal to that responsible for the Figure 2 body burden pattern (C063). « Figure 9 suggests that most individuals counted in those years had body burdens.which remained the same or declined; however, one individual's burden (#881 M) rose and fell quite differently from the others. Several factors could have contributed to this variation from the mean such as departure and return to the atoll, sickness, ihe dietary contribution of imported foods, etc. Since the mean values are based on small numbers of persons who were chosen at random, it is conceivable that in~ dividuals like 881 M influenced the mean body burdens to a greater degree than a The impact of the individual body ae bs ayia. 3 recontamination of the inhabited atolls. burden pattern on the true mean value is moot since body burdens of all individuals were not monitored consistently throughout their residence intervals except * has fe aa Cae hiletoy erebe oan in the few cases exhibited in Figure 9. 20 Poe Rah aiae FS ot Redo ac ee