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).