in the figure nor were they included in any dosimetric distributions for any of the nuclides. Thus all persons considered, regardless of initial age in '°57, experienced a 23 year exposure interval. Figure 19 shows dose equivalent distributions according to age end Lic, among the Rongelapege. «% for The shape or the population distribution wa: skewed with a mean of 1.7 /Rem and a maximum of 9.0 Rem. 5.3 times the mean value. for 1376, on Rongelap. Thus themaximum vas An examination jof the surycoup distributions reveals that persons who were infants at the cime/of rehabi: ation at Rongelap also were the.recipiente of the higher doses. Thisiwas due tv the combined effects of lower average body mass, a higher average ingestion rate, and more rapid turnover og 137 Cs than that for adults or even children. [he pa- rameter having the greatest impact on the infant dose equivalent was body wass. The standard deviation for the adult male distribution was 49% of the meaii dose equivalent, for adult females 43% of the mean dose equivalent, and for adilescents 47%, Within a subgroup, the maximum observed dose equivalent was approxi- mately twice the mean value for all distributions considered here. Adolescents, young adults, and adults 50 au! up were the groups receiving lower total dose equivalents, while children and mid~ dle aged persons received higher dose equivalents during the residence in: cval. Measured 8520 data for persons who were infants at the return date were 4.1! reported in the publications by Conard et al. Figure 2l shows the dosimetric distributions observed for members of the Rongelap population for 6575. Again the population overall exhibited a 2:ved distribution of dose with a maximum value nearly three times the mean. (i): \Idrea demonstrated higher doses than persons who were adults during the entire 7! 39 a nen wt 2 avenger te oo wi * soe ww et et groups for 6305 on Rongelap. ethane ilar Shekel pete loe and ntbee cote Figure 20 shows mean dose equivalents as a function of returning ag.