NOTES
Table t. Oistnbation of acceptable doses preferred to bodily intunes
Boddy inrury
Loss of
small finger
Losa of
index finger
Loss of Uhumo
Lass of hand
Loss of arm
Loss of leg
Loss of two
unos
os
§
*
%
0.67
as
40
2.0
2
2
Whole body dose (rads)
%
100
1
Percentage of repives
200
oO
*%
%
6.1
®
%
*
2
19.7
mj
{22
45
2
14.4
2745
ih
$1
17.3
12.7
20.0
15.4
13,3
18.6
33
28
18.3
72.0
28
42
76
179
zs
"18
49
The bar graph (Fig. 1) shows the average
equivalent exposure the respondents were willing
to accept instead of the specified bodily injury.
In general, the data collected indicates a
reasonable trend with an expected increase of
acceptable equivalent exposure as the severity of
the bodily injury increases. Most respondents
would prefer an exposure greater than 200 rad
rather than accept the loss of a limb.
The extremes in some of the replies are
disquieting and may indicate significant probiems
in the credibility or a lack of knowledge of the
generally accepted risk coefficients. The respondent who wouid rather lose a finger than receive a
13.3
18.0
13.8
=1
“$
19.7
t73
25.2
8.7
th3
3
35.9
39.2
620
ICRP77 International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1977, “Problems Involved in
Developing an Index of Harm”, ICRP Publication 27 (Oxford: Pergamon Press).
Ki6éi Killmann S., Cronkite E. P., Bond V. P.
and Fliedner T. M., 1961, “Acute Radiation
Effects on Man Revealed by Unexpected
Exposures”, in: Diagnosis and Treatment of
Acute Radiation Injury (New York: IAEA &
WHO).
UN77 UNSCEAR, 1977, Sources and Effects of
lonizing Radiation (New York: UN).
dose of 0.Srad may not realize that many diagnostic procedures involve this order of whole body
dose (UN77). A significant number (6-9%) of respondents would rather be exposed to 300 rad than
lose a finger. Using published experimental data
(Ki6l: Hu78), the risk of fatality from an acute
exposure of 300 rem may be deduced to be between 15 and 25%. The persons concerned either
are not aware of the risk or do not accept the
value. Either of these possibilities seems more
reasonable than the assumption that the individuals would prefer a one in five chance of
losing one’s life than the loss of a finger.
The authors intend to extend this work to
determine responses of a broader segmentof professionals involved in radiation and also to survey
the rationale leading to someof the replies.
DONALD A. WATSON
bd
Safety Services Department
Ontario Hydro
Murray L. WALSH
700 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
Canada MSG 1X6
References
Ha78 Hall E. J., 1978. Radiobiology for the
Radiologist (New York: Harper & Row).
0017~9078/80¥050 1-08-46/$02.00/0
Health Physics Vol. 34 (May), pp. 846-851
Pergamon Presa Lid. 1980. Printed in the U.S.A.
® Heaith Physics Socety
Dosimetric Results for the Bikini Population
(Received 1 May 1979; accepted 24 September 1979)
DurRING the mid 1940s through 1958, the U.S.
conducted high yield weapons tests at Bikini and
Enewetak Atolls. These areas were contaminated
with fallout from the tests. A restoration program,
concentrating on the main residence islands of
Bikini and Eneu Islands at Bikini Atoll, began in
1969. Approximately 30 Trust Territory residents
including some former Bikini Atoll inhabitants
participated in the initial cleanup and redevelopment of the Atoil. During subsequent years, the
Bikini population increased to some [40 individuais at the time of their departure in August
1978,
Between 1969 and 1974, scrub vegetation on
Bikini and Eneu Islands was cleared and indigenous food crops were planted. These crops