, ral ys a . 7 . Met, - . . 401810 documes! consicts. ‘of p | No & ABSarssain A eee ages , PEip igs “De, géhn 0, Bugher, 162,, Directer ~~) Division of Biolegy and Medicine ) | ‘ - -forfon M. Daming,Health Thysiet Biophysics Branch, Division oF BiolocyandMedizin” ” TNTERPRETATION OF URINALYSES FOR PU TN RoNGELAP xarves SYMBOL: BBP:GMD | (\C>na. - 4 This is a follow-up to your request for interpretation of Pa data on \ Rongelap natives contained in the attached paper. ye Aecording to LASL reaeareh, the relationships betreen Pu exoretion, | body arden, end tine after exposure may be expressed in the equation U @ 0.23 tO.77 poo Qo tos / FeediaeePe ny 10 Percentage of >, .dngeated dose 8 tay. oy an tine after ingestion. oe 4 ‘. ot: ‘ . . ‘ / wherer , 0,02 of the ingested dose, kromins that the rate of excretion of 6. CLASSIFIED INFO BRACKETED urine wae 1.5 liters/dey, then 4a COORDINATE WITH: TLA$5IFICATION CANCELLED | — _ 1 ¢/a/l = —— = 30h x 107no. Fuissible body bunten recomented tyHandbook 52 for _ .Periei nisi x peTherefore Bennie bx? =~ ~12 aah at 2h days 48%= Ta Se pest COPY ana "would correspond to a maximm permissible bodyburden, Three of the readings on the attached data eet are at or above Anisvalue, However, there appears to me to be uncertainty con- .Yoeraing6" abilityof the data pine it iewlikely, for. | @ximple, tha “‘patieat Kotado would haveexoretionrates of Pa that Aster bys feator ef 100'on two successive days. es +p, e aed 2 Lo | theete te Dre Harley,‘ NO. (¥.5.37078) ~ =vs defined -moma Leeth Toi rret tfargyr ceehit--reaesE- L NEEaac Satoh Oe iw 1, CLASBIF:CATION RET.AINED 2. CLASSIFICATION CHANGED TO: 3. CONTAINS HO DOE CLASSIFIED INFO omer DETERMINA’TION {CIRCLE NUNBE ACS) AUTHORIZED BY: On the ohth fay, the percentage of excretion would have been about contigfbngel tyyeppana-----ee <5 : Woe dA i bs at ’ 88 cofeewntere POINT ip OFFICE 16—€9701-3 | fan