ln
© ninamenn-tintitti, e wt n
Ps
were much leas favorable than in those above, for different pararaters came into play simultanecualy.
Examination of graph 6 shows an interesting fact:
cow (B),
placed in the contaminated pasture two days after her companions,
did not show a peak for 115) gecretion in her milk.
One explana~
tion, which requires verification in future tests, was that the
1132 retained by the plant was incorporated and metabolized,
which could make it less available for the animal than the 23)
in freshly sprayed solution.
On the other hand, we note that the secretion curves show
Fluctuations which, in general, occur simultanecualy for all
three cows.
The rises observed could have resulted from an in+
crease in the specific activity of the grass following uptake of
1192 deposited in the Maat”,
As to 1232 activity secreted in the milk, in percent of ingested dose,
graphs 7 and & show that the observed values lie
between 0.22 and 0,68 of the daily ingeated dose per liter of
milk,
Results obtained during our 1962 experiments were also between
these extremes,
,
Moreover, results from graph 6 would seem to indicate that
there is no systematic difference between morning and evening
treatments,
IIT. Conclusions
Results concarning the exeretion of 1252 in milk are alightly lower than
those found by other researchere(®), if we conaider the results relative to
secreted activity expreesed as a percentage of the ingested activity,
Values reported during the Windacale accident, to whit that a deposition
of 0.4 py I52/a2 on the grass has produced milk containing 0,065 uci rSt/,,
S
.
. e
ae e
one cee eyeg
T
emer Oe T
:
PE
——
RTT TREO
et deren ce