It ~ust be re: .zed that the
uncertainties,
.il..: .n Table 3 are subject to great
the greatest of wh. .s tro Dably how well (or poorly) a
Single air nwomitor station can savpie
. tiilout trajectory.
Contamination
of ummeritcrei parts of the state were undeubtedly both higher and lower
than indicated Sy ‘ese estimates.
it is cznknown how closely the dairy
practice in St. George, Utah corresponds to that for the state as a whole.
In 1962 every case of high 173+ in milk couid be traced to grazing on con-
taminated pasture or using contaninatei feed.
Very little I
131
appeared in
the malin of cuttie exclusively eating feed which had been stored prior to
the contaminating event (<5 3)
Most of the air beta in 1962 was from the Sedan shot (223+%5) gue
much of the Sedan activity was due to neutron-activated wi8?
(10) |
Gar
measurements of milk collected between the Sedan and Small Boy shots indi-
cated thar about 75% of the 129! from the July 1962 tests was from Small
Boy alone G3).
Normalizing to the 1089 pe/m? and 0.75 rad from Small Boy
would increase the estimated doses for previous years in Table 3 by a
factor of 2.4.
On the other hand, if the averege intake for the total
state is assumed to equal the USPHS value for the Salt Lake City milk peel,
all estimated doses in Table 3 should be miltiglied by 0.6.
iebeta “Gate were available (to me) for the mijor silk
“yeah fan 19S1, 1953 and 1955.
‘Therefore, another sethod
, the expeeure for these years.
5! ncosure was
assumed proportional to the ytelds of nuclear devices detonated between 1
April and 31 October of each year.
Vegetation eaten by ailk cows does not
grow in the winter and thus is unlikely to be contaminated with yt from