\
te. ecexonictetod
Woy BAIR
!|
General Comments:
The document gives the impressi pn of being much more authoritative
oe
While the assu aptions used are stated, the extent
eee
than it actually is.
vad:
of uncertainty or degree of conserva tism/non-conservatism 1s not always -
_ iatBaTe
Sa
discussed (e.g., AMAD = 0.5 wm),
Perhaps even more {mportantly, the validity, reliability and/or
This becomes of significant
Syn sienoe oeTS
limitations of the data base are not discussed,
and perhaps critical importance with respect to the gut absorption factor.
Although the reported ranges are men tioned,
little in the way of applicability
or experimental conditions is discus sed (e.g., the reader may concluce that
aoe:
based on the LLL comments a factor of 1072 should be used for chlorinated
water, when apparently it is difficult to maintain Pu in the +6 state
under physiological conditions).
Aare
PRG qm |
eee
PHILLIPS AND VE. NOSHKIN:
ao)
+
BY W. L. ROBISON, W. A,
gryre
SAE en ome
el
COMMERTS 0 N THE LLL DRAFT,
~
"ASSESSMENT OF POTEN TIAL DOSES TO POPULATIONS
2S"
FROM THE TRANSURATIC RADI ONUCLIDES AT ENGWETAK ATOLL,"
cal
Bill - It may be that sowe of my comments/questions are less applicable
to the LLL document than they uight be to DOE or DOI. =~ Bruce kachholz.
gO
Similar comments pertain to other
Yor Ble.
ge
Sane concentration and ratio of Pu/ min soil).
Perhaps a comparative
listing of “conservative” and “real{ stic" vaiues would be appropriate,
or at least a table listing the several conservatisms or non-conservatisms.
9me
mass loading of 100 ug/in, all of wh ich is resptrable, all of which is
-
the effect of multiple conservatisins upon the final dose estimates (e.g.,
oe
It would be helpful for real warld decis{ons to have some idea of
Ee
|
parameters contributing to dose (e.g., coconuts, marine food).