obtained from independent random samples of such items collected nj days per year from among the possible selections of the type available on Rongelap. The corresponding cumulative dose D(t) from all major exposure routes was estimated as: __ Mi 365 assumed expected value of 0.9, andj variability of (F) was assumed to be uniformip distributed between 0.8 and 1. These fssumptions approximately characterize the efnpirical data on the value of F obtained for 17 individuals reported by Schwartz and Dunning Interindividual variability in (4) } where c is a unit-conversion constant, where D,(t) and Din(t) are approximations of adult external-gamma dose (modeled as interindividually variable) and Am+Pu inhalation dose (modeled deterministically), respectively, and where Eq. (4) was evaluated using Monte-Carlo methods (see Appendix D). and on data reviewed by Schwartz And Dunning (1982) indicating slightly greater variability associated with the parameteq among 53 Variability in D,(t) was modeled using data from Table 3 and assumptions stated above (Dose Methodology, External Exposure, Gamma Radiation) concerning average times spent in the house, house surroundings,village area, island interior and beach/lagoon areas, and corresponding mean exposure rates. From these assumptions, it was estimated that household and house-area exposures would typically account for ~64% of total external gamma dose, with a coefficient of variation (CV), i.e., the standard deviation divided by the arithmetic H and SDg was obtained using moments. Uncertainty pertainirfg to be uniformly distributed (bet pertaining 1.107), such that the true value of to any specific individual was aken to lie within 10% of the expected vz uve for that individual. The population-average value annual intake, (R)}, of total 137Cs a mean, with respect to interindividual variability equal to'~45%. The remainder of external gamma dose was assumed to be equal to the corresponding population-average value, reflecting an expected interindividual averaging over commonly frequented island areas. ‘Accordingly, external gamma dose was modeled as D,(t}=(0.36+Y)D,(t}, where Y is a lognormally distributed variability factor with expectation 0.64 and geometric standard © deviation (SDg) = 1.536. Variability in the fraction, F, of ingested 137Cs input to the dominant biological compartment was assumed to be uniformly distributed between an uncertain lower bound ranging between 0.71 and 0.89, and an upper bound of 1. Thus, uncertainty in F was assumed to be uniformly distributed within + 5% of an expected daily intakes, (R;;) was nlodeled using the empirical distribution of aferage daily uptakes in Bq kg-! calculated fram the foodsurvey data for these same 34 aflult Ujelang females, which was here mukiplicatively scaled to have the expected daily population average value of (31.3 Bq d-170 kg-}), where 31 Bq d-! was taken (see Table 20) to Be 99% of the mean daily dose. This scale empirical distribution does not significantly Hiffer from a lognormal distribution having [n expected value, GM, and SDgof 0.447 Bq kg“d-", 0.319 Bq kg-! d-!, and SD, = 0.8217, respectively (see Figure 16); p>0.15 using Stepheg’s modified Kolmolgorov-Smirnov, Cramer-v@n-Mises, or