,
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