‘}
ohORE«
Pade SS Ft
-3-
a
4
A
This subject {s one tn which nu mbers are given in the report, but
rn tee emma
if
4
little fs said about the experi mental conditions or the applicability
of the numbers to the Enewetak dose assessments:
a)
Pu in chlorinated water may not remain as +6 in physiological milieu
b)
Reference to Stuart is not given.
c)
How significant is Pu-238 dose from marine pathway if transfer
factor of 1073 is used.
d)
Concentration factors (ratips?) appear very important for coconut
meat and milk.
To base suc h an important parameter upon 5 coconuts
(some of which are lower va Tues than "LT" values) raises questions
as to their suitability and accuracy.
(Jt is incredible that the
Renee "Pe ee Se
Bikini soil and coconuts have not yet been analyzed; also, presumably
nothing 1s known regarding biological incorporation of Pu in coconut
meat/milk!)
Is there no information on leat vs. fruit concentrations?
6)
Little was said about analytica
7)
All derivations progress from f pod, water and air concentrations to dose.
methods and deviations.
It might be informative to unde rstand inhalation/ingestion —> body/organ
content —> dose.
8)
The marine pathway raises a num ber of questions as to the '72 survey and
the '76 survey which probably c tn only be resolved by additional data.
The conflicts between the two s pts of data are not resolved, and the
reasons given for accepting the '76 values (@.g., the data match global
values) are not convincing, esp Pcially when the '72 samples were
conducted by 3 labs and the '76 data is qiven only by one.
(Is it
to be expected that the Eneweta k marine life Pu values should match
those in the North Atlantic or fhe Irish Sea?
I would be a bit surprised
Se
e)