males and females likely to be caused by chronic
low-LET radiation exposure and associated
analysis of statistical and model-related errors,
the uncertain factor W was taken to be
approximately lognormally distributed with
expectation 0.0004 cSv"! and SD, = 0.864.
Based on the analysis of interindividual
variability in expected dose, it was calculated
that the expected value_of 30-y integral
summarized in Figure 20 indicatejthat 99.5% of
hypothetical 1995 Rongelap res#ttiers would
never receive a 1-y dose greater than 1 mSvif
imported foods were routinely co.
, but that
~25% would receive maximum 1-yj doses greater
than 1 mSv if only local foods wer¢
consumed at
twice the caloric intake rate Jindicated in
Table 20.
population-average dose, (D(30)) is ~0.58 cSv,
1
and that the chance that (D(30)) > 2.0 cSvis
~1%, e.g., indicating that 2 cSv is the 30-y dose
most likely to be incurred by the fifth highest
exposed among 500 hypothetical Rongelap
residents (Figure 17).
The predicted
relationship between cumulative exposure time t
2 0.38}
S
= o.6}
$
‘@ 0.4
e3 0.2
and interindividual variability in (D(t))
(Figures 18 and 19) indicates that the lower and
upper 95% confidence limits on (D(t)) variability
are ~2-fold below and ~2.5-fold above,
respectively, the population-average expected-
value function (D(t)).
Oo
0
expected dose due to 137Cs ingestion than
predicted by the LLNL imports-available diet.
The distribution corresponding to the LNL
95th and 99th percentile values
2.0 cSv, respectively.
The results
15 1.75
2
(cSv)
0.48, 1.2 and
2 1.2
RB
o
4
Cos
®
Z 0.6}
o
33% of residents, respectively. The distribution
corresponding to the local-foods-only diet with
twice the local calorie intake indicated in Table
20 (light curve in Figure 20) has a mean of
0.83 mSv, and has 50th, 95th, 99th and 99.8th
percentile values of 0.61, 2.2, 3.9 and 5.8 mSv,
respectively, with maximal doses predicted to
population of 500 (NRC, 1993).
i
Bt
the 2nd and 3rd years of residence for 66% and
respectively. Note that a 99.8th percentile dose
indicated in Figure 20 corresponds to the most
likely value of the greatest maximum 1-y dose
predicted assuming a 1995 resettlement
1
dose corresponding to hypothetical residence on
Rongelap Island starting in J1995.
This
distribution has a mean of 0.58 FSv and 50th,
95th, 99th and 99.8th percentile values of 0.21,
0.52, 0.87, and 1.3 mSv, respectively. The
maxima of expected annual doses under this
dietary scenario are estimated to occur during
residence for 44.5%, 53%, and 2.5% of residents,
1
Figure 17.
Estimated disfribution of
interindividual variability in qxpected 30-y
imports-available model diet (bold curve in
Figure 20) has a mean of 0.25 mSv, and has 50th,
occur during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of
0.25 05 0.75
Cumulative 30-y doge
The calculated
interindividual variability in expected
maximum 1-y dose is shown in Figure 20,
contrasted to variability in that dose estimated
assuming a hypothetical LLNL-type localfoods-only diet with twice the local calorie
intake shown in Table 20. Such a local-foodsonly diet implies a nearly 5-fold greater
ey
c
3B 0.45
5 0.2}
0
Time (y)
Figure 18. Population-average Pxpected dose
from hypothetical residence on Rbngelap Island
starting in 1995 (middle curve)
corresponding
two-tail 95%
confidencef limits on
interindividual variability in exgected dose, as
a function of residence time.
48