-8-
collected from houses on Bikini had only a fraction of the amount found in the
\>
soil.
This is reassuring in view of the importance of the inhalation route of
absorption and the fact that the people spend the majority of their time in
their homes.
Recently, an article was published in the local Marshall Island
paper saying “dangerous levelstIof pu were found in the Bikini PeoPle~
caused considerable apprehension among those living at Bikini.
This
This problem
has been added to the many problems !hvolved in their rehabilitation.
Un-
fortunately statements by both ERDA and the BNL groups on radiological safety
have been looked upon with some degree of suspicion by the people.
The people
on Bikini badly need a statement of reassurance about their radiological safety
by experts in the field, other than the BNL group.
The BNL team is also desirous of further guidance by the experts in
handling the plutonium problem.
or lung burden of
Can any reliable measurement of body burden
239-240
Pu be derived indirectly from the present urine data?
Are there other suggestions about deriving body burdens indirectly”? Is it
feasible to perfozm ——
in vivo counting procedures for
these people?
The assay could possibly be performed in the
whole-body counting facility on the ship.
burdens or
in
In vivo counting is generally considered impractical, parti——
cularly under field conditions.
measurable
239-240PU or 241&
Should several Marshallese with
urine Pu be brought to the U.S. for counting? Would the body
9osr
such counting?
and 137Cs already present in these people interfere with
The BNL team would welcome advice and assistance on these
and other problemsrelated to the Pu contamination.
R.
S.
N.
J.
Conard
Cohn
Greenhouse
Naidu
“