Results and Discussion SURFACE SOLL SURVEY Area 1 shows Although more samples are available tration, the lowest soil concen- since it is an exposed beach from the 1975 Bikini survey than from area that has been cleared for any previous survey (Table 3), housing. there : 278 and Data from Bikini is little consistency in the geograph- Enewetak” have revealed that soil ical distribution of 6005, activity is directly related 137, ; ey 239,240), and and Eneu Islands 1 Ose ae to the amount of vegetation present in the Am on Bikini area surrounding the sampling site. (see Appendix C). The maps and overlays in Appendix C One possible reason for this is that present the activities of these radio- a heavy vegetative cover can protect nuclides in picocuries per gram of the underlying soil, dry soil over the sites from which the effects of weathering processes (e.g., samples were collected. wind and rain erosion) A list of minimizing the that transport concentrations of all detectable surface activity through the soil nuclides for each sampling site is column to the water lens. given in Appendix D field work at Enewetak Atoll has also (microfiche included in pocket on inside back shown that, cover). areas, A dry-soil density of 1.5 lWHowever, litter increases ; the soil ; retention of radionuclides. integrated profile uata into activity per unle area. in heavily vegetated . - a/em* may be used to convert the Follow-up 1 Although soil concentrations of some caution radionuclides in Area 2 appear to must be exercised in such calculations be higher for 06, and £39, 2405, because a significant fraction of the than in any other area on Bikini, total activity may be located below statistical analysis of the sampling depth. concentrations for each of the four Table 4 presents the means of the 706, areas on Bikini, uSing the Mann- the surface-soil concentrations of the Whitney nonparametric dominant nuclides for Eneu Island no significant difference between and for the concentrations in the various the four areas of interest on Bikini Island. The values for Eneu areas. However, test, shows a more extensive are consistently ten times lower than analysis is needed to better define concentrations for any part of Bikini the real differences in concentra- Island. tions As expected, on Bikini Island, -]?- FY Sotaeug in the various areas.