a
other measured quantity, that of the dose rate, as about 20 mr/hr, a
better value for either p or q must be chosen.
Since p, the fraction
retained, seems a conservative estimate at 0.2 amd is a fairly well
known quantity, one can accept it and see what value of q would lead to
the value of u(t, ) implied by the measured air dose rate, which is
ult,) © 20(867) = 170p0/tt?
Then
a= Blt) 2 3,
pAz(4;) 042(170)(0s0011) = a2 tt7/aay
or a faster of about 4 ag noted.
It is evident that when this is applied te the Shot 2 case, where only
the dose rate in air at 3.5 hr is known, this increase in area covered
will fnerease the dose estimate by the same factor. The figure of 2 ft”/day
seems more reasonable than that of 20 tt/aay.
If one keepe the assumption
of 2000 gm total vegetation eaten per day by the sheep, this implies that the
area contained about 25 gn/ft” of edible dry vegetation, Alternatively, the
animal could well have eaten more than 2000 gm per day.
It might of course
be suggested that only a fraction of the f4ssion products present on each
square foot of sof] was actually ingested, in which case the total ground
covered would be necessarily greater.
In any case, it is the product of
such a fraction and such an area which is importants it is only necessary
to assume thia “effective” area to be constant from day to day in both
localities.
This is probably not bad, sinee whether the same amount of
-8-
TOW ARCHIVES