ADDENDUM
Quantitation and Char id ication:
fel)
Minimum Detectable
10
FCi/liter at
Range of
Lo-
10
Vu
in
tevel
far Urine
(LASI. procedure):
y47 coufidenee Limits
urine
trom Bikini
Islands
(EML procedure):
FCi/tteer
*EML, has ceased
its Pu analysis operations since
Plutonium concentration
in Rongelap/Utirlk Islands:
teeth samples (initial
data):
Ronyelap
1854167
£Ci/gm
Utirik
2074198 £Ci/gm
tooth weight between 1 and 2 gms
Definitely detectable using the BNL procedure.
Note:
Bikini/Rongelap or Utirik ratio for Pu in urine is comparable
however,
Pu in soil
2)
Assumptions
(EML data)
Bikini/Rongelap Pu in soil is at least 4X and Bikini/Utirik
that
is
20X.
have to be made insolying for the Pu body burden from
excretion data
a.
b.
3)
ICRP LOA excret iguymodel holds for Marshallese
Distribution of
Pu in man model (see attached)
‘the average error of 25% expressed in I.
LASL accuracy for
precision is
239
is applicable
Rationale 1(b) needs to be corrected.
.
.
g
Pu determination in urine is 100Z
!102Z
chemical recovery ranges 41 - 46%
24 hour urine sample for reference adult man - 1.4 1/day
Some samples ure as low as 340 ml/day whlch amounts to 764% error.
An
average of 890 ml/day results in 36% error.
The error then averages
46% and can be as high as 86% as long as the chemical recovery factor
is known accurately aud no other systemic error come
contro]
to
play.
A
urine program to screen non-24 hour samples should decrease
the erroc considerably.
9009553