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