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.