burden curve for 90g,, more accurate history. A detailed presentation of the greater variation in radiochemical analysis of urine versus direct body burden measurementscan be found in Mi8l. Figure 9 illustrates, the variation exhibited in the body burden of 5 randomly chosen subjects oveye the 25 year monitoring ppriod, ; nt These individual «4 variations may have had a| drapatic impact on the’ mean data, In Figure 2, which illustrates the adult male, adult female, and adule population mean 137¢, be fy burden for the 25 year exposure period, a decrease tolloved by an increase was seen during the years 1958 through 1963. Al though the| Castle BRAVO test ini- cially contaminated Rongelap in March 1954, it had been proposed ‘that the Hardtack Phase I series added to this an amount of contamination equal to thar responsible for the Figure 2 body burden pattern (0063) .§ Figure 9 suggests «!:ac most individuals counted in those years had body burdens:swhich remained the : . or declined; however, one individual's burden (#881 M) rose and fell quite Several factors could have contributed to thi. variation from the mean such as departure and return to the atoll, sickness. Since the mean values are bas | The impact of the individual body burden pattern on the true mean value is moot since body burdens of all ind . i- ba ete wel in the few cases exhibited in Figure 9. 20 Sey wae Cas rahe 6 tate 2c toe uals were not monitored consistently throughout their residence intervale « sy we ok dividuals like 881 M influenced the mean body burdens to s greater degree ¢).. aa on small numbers of persons who were chosen at random, it is conceivable thit in- recontamination of the inhabited atolls, a ee dietary contribution of imported foods, etc. e yt <5 ce dananenebeaticeba | Pdlbeahineconten stebetonadSiecanta cl eee differently from the others. eee oe