Aww
q
~
received
at
~
lo
=
troposvaAeric
=
=
=
tnese
fallout
aw
sites.
25
ane
Comparisons
fron
Cw
the
ztrmoespheric
©
=
~
Com
2Pasurec
=
=
ANvposure
of
~
=.
ty
+
>
.7
.
wep eas
ae
nuclear
rares
nes
tesrs
-
”
Majuro Wwitn those at Kwajalein, watje and Ailuk Atolls in the
central and eastarn Marsnalis
Survey,
(Tasle 1}
a2 large-scale environmental
tend to support this
assessment of the reyional
impact of the testing progran parrorned in 19753.
ree)
ry
0D
2
cc
ner than those in the central
ct
b
ny
pa
wo
<
=
i
been contaminated by the Bravo
>
wd
th
ke
)
73
ct
oO
bh
hh
}4
}-4
QO
4
u
)
islan
we)
Oo
san
GQ
oO
hes
™
cS
and southern
uy
are
in the northern and northeastern Marshalls
fu
spectively,
@
ry
oO
and Utirik Atolls,
exposure rates measured at Rongelap
Q
It should de noted that
Test on March 1,
known
to
have
1954, and
virtually all or the contemporary incremental exposure rates
above background at these sites is attributable to residual '°’Cs
contamination in the soil and vegetation.
The reconstructed exposure rate at Majuro
close to the measured value.
(Table 3)
is reasonably
The difference is attributed to
the exposure rate contribution from “°K in biota (for which no
assessment was
ties
included in the calculated value),
in the soil analyses.
and to uncertain-
Tables + and 5 present similar analyses
for Ponape and Truk, both high volcanic islands in the Caroline
roup to
the west of the Marshalls.
These islands
differed
from Majuro by virtue of the conrributions of the uranium and
horium chains
rainfail.
in their volcanic soils,
and their higher annual
Comparisons of measure2 and calculated exposure rates
at Truk were exczllent.
the two valueas
at Benave
The significant difference between
is
attridute? srimarily to uncertainties