Urinary excretion of radionuclides @ P. S. Harris ET AL.
1000
I
estimates of intakes in 1954** are presented here (Table
5). Urine samples were counted on numerous days to
BOO bose beret boo RE bee 4
"o
Po
a
GER
;
= (310(0
;
5
ac onclitomedtan tceeoxd amen 4
Cy
—a— NY324R
eG
iy
S
|
Df tae: :
—o— NY325R
> 400 be-be percept MER Rit LL ae NYB24§ fe
i} —e— NY325S
/
poi |
:
2
5
tS
BOQ
Lsssschesvecuesbeerecccecued
check for consistency of the decay rate.****** The count
rate data reported here were specifically from 30 March
1954. Count rates from '*'I in the pooled urine samples
Poi
See prenacan prensa pa ago
@
225
Zn
|
PL) eee ah ceil ou sac Maced ceerer rare arson nears =
obtained from adult Marshallese on March 16 and 17 on
Rongelap were nearly identical: about 70 counts per
second (c s ') per 500 mL obtained on 30 March 1954.
The count rate from the pooled sample of Rongelapese
on Sifo Island, Ailinginae Atoll, at the time of the Bravo
test was 33cs ! per 500 mL, about one-half of the value
for the adults exposed on Rongelap.****Ss
The count rate in a pooled urine sample from the
0
|
01.1
}
!
!
|
|
!
!
|
|
!
1
§ 10 2030 50 7080 9095
!
!
99
99.999.99
Cumulative Percent
Fig. 3. Empirical cumulative probability distributions of urine
volumes obtained from Rongelap and Ailinginae groups by the
Health and Safety Laboratory (HASL AEC-NYOO)(see Table 4
for a summary ofthe data).
1600
T_T
TTT
carvan en nanoatcucr yak enaentorenetl tee ncnons eran ttemsrewsef tral ocncrone toma wlbemnarencummc te ersraenatecend hnaranets =
e
oO
3
>
5
4000
[-------h--ec- eee bene eee feet ya
:
tg
- : enewsBeeches
samples, about 20 counts per second per 500 mL,*****85§
though when adjusted to the approximate 1 L per day
urinary excretion of the Americans, the count rate per
'’Cs on Rongerik compared to Ailinginae (see Table7,
%p
£ 1200
on an equal volumeof urine as that for the Marshallese
samples, was less than one-third of that of the Rongelap
24-h excretion was 40 cs ', higher than on Ailinginae.
This is explained by the two-fold higher deposition of
MO fonefa edn
4
American military weather observers on Rongerik, made
=
—o— LA319A
—a— LA319AP
4
|__|
asae
Simonet al. 2010b).
The intakes of '*'I originally estimated in 1954 by
Harris** were 2.1 MBq (56 pCi) for the Rongelapese
and 0.65 MBq (17.5 mwCi) for the Rongerik group.
Revised estimates by Harris" that included minorrevi-
sions for detector efficiency were 2.8 MBq for the
Rongelap group, 1.3 MBq for the Ailinginae group, and
0.78 MBq for the Rongerik group (Table 5).
1
Comparison of estimates of intake of radioiodines
A comparison of adult male and female average
intakes of '*'T for Marshallese exposed on Rongelap and
01
«1
1
5 10 2030
50
7080 9095
99
99.9 99.99
Cumulative Percent
Fig. 4. Empirical cumulative probability distributions of urine
volumes obtained from two Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
(LASL) samplings of American military weather observers on
Rongerik (see Table 4 for a summary ofthe data).
the tropics that occurs as a consequence of perspiration and
insensible water losses through the skin due to high humidity and temperatures. It is known that urine volumes in
humid, tropical climates are typically much smaller than
Ailinginae to Bravo fallout is made in Table 6 from
estimates derived by Harris in 1954** and later modi-
fied,’* Lessard et al. (1985), and Simon et al. (2010b).
Similarly, a comparison of estimates of intake for American military weather observers exposed to Bravo fallout
on Rongerik is made in Table 6 from estimates presented
by Harris in 1954,** Goetz et al. (1987), and Simonetal.
(2010b).
Average estimates of intakes of '*'T among adults,
depending on the assessment, ranged from 2.8 to 3.5
more temperate climates (Elebute 1973; Latham 1997); see
the Appendix of Simon et al. (2010b) for a detailed
discussion of that phenomenon. For these reasons, we
believe that the relatively small volumes obtained from the
Table 5. Original and revised estimates of intakes (MBq) of ‘I
by Harris.*
Sampled group
Marshallese were, on average, reasonable.
LA316R and LA317R
LA318A
LA319S
'S'T count rates and estimates of intake
Gamma-ray count rates per 500 mL from each ofthe
four pooled urine samples (Table 3) and the related
a ¢é
nr” is not reported.
Original estimates
Revised estimates
2.1
0.65
nt
2.8
0.78
1.3
(**)
(")