has atm anil NAod QaRD Oe wrt AENAF 8 dled SareeBe,
oO.
wo
Oo
oO
357
nh
2
3
ICESIUM/POTASSIUM (pC1/g)
NOTES
196)
ae
1962
i
1963
i
1964
1
1965
1
1966
LL
YEARS
1967
J
1968
i
13869
L
1970
i
197
Fre. 2. Comparative levels of 47Cs in a population of United States, U.S.S.R. and Denmark,
(A1----U.S.S.R., (see Ref. 8). (B) O—-—© Los Alamos Laboratory (see Ref. 9). (C)
x Denmark (Aarkrog ef ai.). (D) @——e Brookhaven National Laboratory.
:4
MacDon cp, in Los Angeles, reported that though
the recent tests conducted by China and France did
not increase the levels of §’Cs in man, the rate of fall
has decreased after 1968.5) (Also see Fig. 1.)
The integral radiation dose from 18’Cs for the
is the only technique capable of supplying a direct and
accurate measure of }87Cs body burdens for these
populdtions studies.
K. K. SHuKkra
Cc. 8S. Domarowsk1
S. H. Coun
period from May 1962 to April 1971 was calculated to
be 7.75 mrem based on the calculations of Lozvincer
et al.'8)
According to Loevinger, the absorbed
radiation dose to a 70 kg man with height of 170 cm
from "Cs, would be 0.117 mrem/yr/nCi1’Cs and 0.136 mrem/yr from *°K/g K. Assuming an average
body potassium as 120 g, the integral dose from “K.
for the 9 yr period (from May 1962 to April 1971)
would be 146.7 mrem. The radiation dose from #7Cs
is therefore only 5.3°% of the dose from *°K for the
Medical Research Center
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, L.I., New York 11973
References
small sample and cannot be extrapolated directly to
1. §. H. Conn, E. A. Gusmano and R. A. Love,
Nature, Lond. 205, 537 (1965).
2. S. H. Conn, S, W. Lippincott, E. P. Cronxirz
and P, F. Reizensrein, Whole-Body Counting,
IAEA, Vienna (1962).
3. S. H. Conn, C. S. Domprows«1, H. R. Pare and
J. S. Rosertson, Phys. Med. Biol. 14, 645 (1969).
4. I. O. Anperson et al., AE-119, Stockholm (1963).
5. N.S. Mac Donatp,I. Ban, A. FLesuer and M.
Hackenporr, Nature, Lond. 228, 283 (1970).
6. R. Loevincrer, J. G. Hott and G. J. Hine,
Radiation Dosimetry, p. 801, Academic Press, New
York (1956).
7. C. R. Ricumonp and J. E. Furcuner, Radiat.
Res. 32, 538 (1967).
8. Yu. V. Srvintsgv, V. A. KANAREIKIN and O. M,
levels compares very well with the mean of a population of 900 Brookhaven employees counted at various
times during the same period. Whole-body counting
9. E. C. Anperson, R. L. Scuucu, W. R. FisHer
and W. Lanauam,Setence 125, 1273 (1957).
10. A. Aarkroc, Health Phys, 20, 297 (1971).
comparable time periods.
The maximum dose rate due to 8’Cs occurred in
1964. At this time RicHMonp‘ reported the radiation
dose resulting from "Cs for man weighing 70 Kg
with a height of 170cm as 1.5 mrem/yr. In the
present study, this value was found to be 2.1 mrem
using the calculations of Loevincer.'®) At the same
time, Sivintsev!8) reported a radiation dose for this
year of 6.5 mrem/yr for a 70 Kg male subject in
Moscowusing the ICRP recommended formula:
Dose rate = [1.7 x
nCi 87Cs
body weight (mrem/yr).
While the results of the present study are based on a
the population at large, the pattern of change in 87Cs
AruTinov, Radiobiologiya 6, 822 (1966).