.
*
=
.
.
.
t
.
.
Cae
-
Ct
S
.
aay
.
>
ty panleposited tend ro haock call portictes free.
-
.
vo
In relation to this,
here is no
“Td dike to give you a JittleG subjective feeling for the hazard.
& Tin guidance on su vfree contamination by plutonium. Two years ago, in
Da
‘an effort to determine some indication of the opinions of knowledgeable
yO
persons with respect to environmental contamination by plutoniurn, a brief
“
questionaire was administered to 3d selected LRL employees (Kathren,
.
2.L., private communication).
with the hazards of plutonium.
x.
All were persons who were well acquainted
The group consissed of 16 Hazards Control
personneel, primarily health physicists and senior radiation rnonitors.
The
remainder were professional personnel from Biomedical Division, Chemistry, and Military Applications, who had extensive experience with plutonium.
:
had nothing to do with the su vey, noz was I one of the mermbers who was
Ae
ue
eSan
Z
,
.
7
ee
Rie.
queried. the conjectured situation was that their neighborhood had been
.
,
:
.
contarninated by plutonium oxide to levels of 0.4 microcuries per square
~
.
:
meter.
ths
.
,
For reference, this value is roughly ten times the highest concen
tration Dr. Martell found east of the Rocky Flast Dow Chemical fareLlity
Mfartell, ELA., 1970), --and bear in mind that a factor of ten ig a small
ue
difference relative to the iarge uncertainties associated with the hazards
from:-plutonium contamination.
~
Several questions were asked.
would you allow your childrento play in it?’ 86% said No.
levels be decontaminated?
area be cleaned?
89% said Yes:
Onc was,
Should these
And to what level should the
50% said to backporound, zero, Aniniintisn, or by io
rechtetion of at Teast a facto: of 40.
This hay nao protfound setomlitic sige
LEC oe. awsee,
ae,
:
oo
,
. canversant of the
moe
bul tudieit
es. that miiy
people
hazard are not
on ere