For
these last
two cases, we had
same
linear regression methods.
Thus,
the
ale
7
Because
the 197?
Enewetak data Show no consistent dif.
,
. 90
regression results are compared with
ferences in the uptake of
Sx and
137
;
Cs by coconut milk and meat, the
the median concentration factor and a
90.
Sr and
representative value is chosen for
coconut
our models.
are assumed to be equal.
The relationships between
137,
Cs
meak
.
.
.
concentrations in fresh
and
the relative uptake of different
tration factors
species are considered in a separate
(Table 11)
Coconut is
coconut milk
The concen-
from the Bikini data
are within the range of
1
those from the Enewetak survey,
so
section on concentration ratios.
Coconut.
fresh
the most
until more conclusive data are avail-
abundant species on Bikini and Eneu
able, we have assigned a conservative
Islands and thus it was sampled more
concentration factor of 0.024 for
0
?
Sr and 2.5 for
Cs to both coco-
extensively
than any other plant in
the 1975 survey.
coconut
Unfortunately, few
nut meat and milk.
Pandanus ~~
trees were bearing fruit so
Although the number of
the buik of these samples are leaves.
samples of mature Pandanus leaves is
Regression analysis comparing mature
insufficient for statistical analysis,
coconut leaves and soil sampled from
the
the same location shows correlations
from associated leaf-soii data for
that are significant at the 0.1 to
Bikini are within the range of
0.05 Level for 0c
level for re
for
239,
39,
2¢
240 Pu
at
and at
(Pigs.
concentration
“
from
the 0.1 level
;
tion factors of 0.9]
5-7).
for
Combining
Enewetak.
137.Cs
Sis with
ter caleulated
the median calculated concen-
¢
for mature
coconut leaves of 0.16 For Oe
;
leaves.
those
median concentra-
for
90
,
Sr and 15.2
Deeg
to mature Pat-
The concentration facfor
the one green Pan-
danus fruit available from the Bikini.
(Table 11), we obtain
final concentration factors
The
calculated
-
are assigned
danus
aefor 90.
survey (0.50
Sr and 5.4 for
137
3.0
Cs)
is comparable to values from
previous surveys and therefore, we
for 1378, and 0.015 for 239,240),
Concentrations
ir
the 0.005
the results of this regression analy-
tration factors
L
factors
in both coconut
milk and coconut meat were analyzed
for the two samples
from Bikini.
When
compared on a wet/wet or a dry/dry
basis,
wet weight for coconut milk and in
dry weight for coconut meat; coconut
milk is assumed to be 95% water and
coconut meat is assumed to be 50%
water.
there are no définitive pat-
terns in
the radionuclide concentra-
tions
meat
of
and
milk
taken
from
*Following the example of the Enewetak survey, results are given in
the
~-?6-
met
we
hk
ate
aes
gh
enough samples to justify analysis by
Location.