re
.
406
WHOLE BODY COUNTING RESULTS FROM 1974 TO 1979
"
Fuble S. Comparison of observed vs expected reduction factors for |’ Cs body burdens
|
# of
Description
4
Persons
Mean Reduction
Factor
Expected Reduction Factor for Adult Males‘)?
NA
2.4
.
Observed Reduction Factor for Adult Bikini Males
17
2.3
;
Expected Reduction Factor for Adult Females)
NA
3.5
Observed Reduction Factor for Adult Bikini Females
16
3.8
Expected Reduction Factor for Children Ages 5-14 °??
NA
5.9
Observed Reduction Factor for Children Ages 5-14
12
4
,
NA
=
Not
applicable.
(1}
Effective half time obtained from ICRP Publication 10A (ICRP 71).
(2)
Effective half time cbtained from NCRP Report 52 (NCRP 77).
As certain local food crops, coconuts, became
available in 1976, they were incorporated into
the diet tn the form of jekaru (the water sap of
burden through 1978 at which time a peak
body burden would be reached. Com-_
been near equilibrium with their April-September dietary uptake, individuals within the
1979 yields almost identical results forthe adult
male and adult female groups as shown in
Table 5. This implies that the Bikini population
near equilibrium with their environment and
that the body burdens on | September 1978
were not significantly different than those
measured in April 1978. The child data do not
agree with the expected values; however, the
difference is not beyond the range of half-times
listed in NCRP Report $2(NCRP77). Although
the report lists a mean half-time for children
ages 5-15, it does not specify the age dis-
tribution of the sample. Most of the Bikini
children (9) were in the 5-10 yr category;
hence. one would expect the observed reduc-
tion factor for this group to be somewhat
higher than the expected value.
sed
a
a
}
.
coe
Te
‘
ae
os
.
hae" wo TERS ty eels, Mag
Oa
'
“tf
population may not have been. This was apparent in the adult male. "Cs body burden
data where twoindividuals show no decline in
activity between April 1978 and January 1979
whole body count. In one case, the individual
was present on Bikini for only 5 monthsprior to
the April 1978 count. This places the individual
at approx. 60% of his equilibrium body burden
value. In the second case, there seems to be no
clear explanation for the lack of any reduction
in the body burden. Several possible explanations include: (1) the individual may havelived
away from Bikini pror to the April count;
hence, equilibrium was not established at the
time of counting, or (2) the individual changed
his diet pattern between April and September.
These deviations from the norm do notalter
the conclusion that equilibrium or near equili-
brium had been reached for the population as a
whole for '’Cs. Indeed, they illustrate varia-
tions about a mean value.
rf
“vey
-
ot
uo ae ve oan
apts
en
a ito
.
.
'
‘
Pah,
ree
ays
IER ae ee Py ©
Poe al a ge ten te
en
Furthermore, while the population may have
bogh
on Ue
°
.
Cafeos
Mey a
Bel SS Beteett
sees ak
and September 1978, this is not assurance that
the body burdens would not have increased
when new dietary items like pandanus and
breadfruit became available for datly consumption.
parison of the observed reduction in the '’Cs
body burden from 25 April 1978 to 24 January
1979 with the expected reduction in the body
burdens from 1 September 1978 to 24 January
ac‘. ae
Although the data indicates that the °’Cs
body burdens did not increase between April
the coconut tree) jekomai(asyrup concentrate
made from jekuru) and
7m
(drinking
coconuts). The maturation time of the coconut
tree ts 5-7 yrs. Consequently, one could expect
to observe a steady increase in the '’Cs body
r.
12.
abet
I
aN
ee
t
aa
"
Oa,
: ye
ayy
58