122
DISCUSSION ON TOPIC I
THE SHORTER-TERM BIOLOGICAL HAZARDS OF A FALLOUT FIELD
account for what we know about thelife span
and permit us to have a unifying attitude.
Dr. Bertin. Colonel Trumis up here from
Oak Ridge, and informs me he has some ma-
terial which is pertinent at this time. I will
now call on him.
Col. Trum (Division of Biology and Medi-
at one time or another in some offhand state“ment.
Because ] happen to have available, and I
know from conversation that at least Bond,
Sacher, and Storerare interested, I would like to
present a fewslides.
The doses shownon theslide are “free in air
cine, AEC). Before I can make up my mind
that there is a single common denominatorto all
of this, I must at least note that individual
doses."
well as specific specics differences suggest a
there may be a flat depth dose existing during
the critical high imtensity period, as demon-
animals and individual tissues of animals, as
series of unrelated damages. Everyone who
has spoken on this has put their finger on this
®
They are so stated because at the
time the experiment. started we believed this
to better represent the conditions found in a
trne ‘fallout field.”
We were unaware that
strated by Vic Bond yesterday.
We are still
(4)
looking for more information of this type,
However, if you use these dose data it must
be
kept in mind that they are “free in air doses.’
On Figure 1 you will note that the decrease
in number of erythrocytes has reached npermal
levels in survivors of LD-50 studies at the end
of several weeks.
However, as maybe seen on Figure 2, in the
same group of animals the lymphocytes had
returned only to 50 percent normalat the
same
time, and as we can see in the following slide,
the lymphocyte countdid not approach normal
for 2 years post irradiation.
These happen to be the results of work on 20
burros and yet this is true of all survivors.
We
know of no similar data on groups of
animals
with sucha longlife expectancy.
to recovery, suffered reverses,
words, nonlethal doses.
posure (fig. 3). At this time it was predicated
from the post. irradiation history that anothe
r
animal that received 350 r at increm
ents of
25 r/fwk would probably die within the next year,
Col. Rust informs me that this animal
died
about 4 years postirradiation,
The results of an experiment in which
swine
were given 600 r (air dose) of gamma radiat
ion
is illustrated in Figure 4. They were
allowed
NUMBER PER o.mm. x 10%
a
@
3
% OF NORMAL
IRRADIATION DOSE
GROUP
TOTAL
a0
1184
843
687
1000
NONE
0
2
4
EAGH POINT IS THE AVERAGE OF TEN ANIMALS
MARKED IN PARENTHESES
6
8
10
{2
4
Ficure 2— White blood cella, irradiated and control burros.
6
18
YEARS AFTER EXPOSURE
448029 O..58——9
These animals died
of radiation sickness 2% and 3 years
after ex-
loo
H
Although one
had received 300 r and the other 530
r, both
were in radiation groups of 10 in which
no
acute radiation deaths oceurred—in
other
42
(2)
123
Now, note that two animals, survivo
rs of
LLD-50/30 studies, and apparently on
the road
Fioure 3.-~ Hematology of burros— Years
after exposure.