Results and Discussion
SURFACE SOLL SURVEY
Area 1 shows
Although more samples are available
tration,
the lowest soil concen-
since it is an exposed beach
from the 1975 Bikini survey than from
area that has been cleared for
any previous survey (Table 3),
housing.
there
:
278
and
Data from Bikini
is little consistency in the geograph-
Enewetak” have revealed that soil
ical distribution of 6005,
activity is directly related
137,
;
ey
239,240), and
and Eneu Islands
1
Ose
ae
to the
amount of vegetation present in the
Am on Bikini
area surrounding the sampling site.
(see Appendix C).
The maps and overlays in Appendix C
One possible reason for this is that
present the activities of these radio-
a heavy vegetative cover can protect
nuclides in picocuries per gram of
the underlying soil,
dry soil over the sites from which the
effects of weathering processes (e.g.,
samples were collected.
wind and rain erosion)
A list of
minimizing the
that transport
concentrations of all detectable
surface activity through the soil
nuclides for each sampling site is
column to the water lens.
given in Appendix D
field work at Enewetak Atoll has also
(microfiche
included in pocket on inside back
shown that,
cover).
areas,
A dry-soil density of 1.5
lWHowever,
litter increases
;
the soil
;
retention of radionuclides.
integrated profile uata into activity
per unle area.
in heavily vegetated .
-
a/em* may be used to convert the
Follow-up
1
Although soil concentrations of
some caution
radionuclides in Area 2 appear
to
must be exercised in such calculations
be higher for 06, and £39, 2405,
because a significant fraction of the
than in any other area on Bikini,
total activity may be located below
statistical analysis of
the sampling depth.
concentrations for each of the four
Table 4 presents
the means of
the 706,
areas on Bikini, uSing the Mann-
the
surface-soil concentrations of the
Whitney nonparametric
dominant nuclides for Eneu Island
no significant difference between
and for
the concentrations in the various
the four areas of interest on
Bikini Island.
The values for Eneu
areas.
However,
test,
shows
a more extensive
are consistently ten times lower than
analysis is needed to better define
concentrations for any part of Bikini
the real differences in concentra-
Island.
tions
As expected,
on Bikini Island,
-]?-
FY Sotaeug
in
the various
areas.