containing 300 µCi (Table 3–10). Here the dosimetric differences between the inhalation and ingestion routes are heavily influenced by differences in the particles considered. Particle characteristics should be included in the table to emphasize these differences, but as they are not, the results for the “1950s particle” are very confusing.
“It is unlikely that there would be any records reflecting internal body contamination for the early years.”: On the contrary, sampling of feces of four men whose work was primarily in the stack area is mentioned in HW-10261, dated 6/11/1948, indicating that some records might be available. HW-12869, dated 3/1/1949, discusses the negative results of 24 sputum samples taken from Health Instrument volunteers working for various fractions of time outdoors in the 200 area. HW-7920, dated 10/30/1947, indicated that urine testing for 144Ce was in progress and that feces testing for 144Ce was proposed. Of course, any such records might have been destroyed or, as indicated in the first meeting of the committee, might be in medical files that are confidential.
Comments on Section 2 (Radionuclide Releases to the Atmosphere)
Page 2–3, Section 2.2.1, first paragraph
It is difficult to reconcile this paragraph with the summary of HW-7865 provided in the bibliography. The latter does not give the beta-to-alpha ratio, nor does it give the stated activity ordering for elements (Ce, Y, Sr). Examination of the source document indicates that the statements are accurate, but it would be helpful if the information in the text were included in the bibliographic summaries. Similarly, the list of additional investigations said to be provided by Parker in HW-7920 is not given in the bibliographic summary. In that case, however, no distinction has been drawn (as was drawn in the source document) between tests underway and tests proposed. For example, assays in animals were proposed but were not in progress.
In the bibliography for the active particles, one would expect to see references to HW-9259 and HW-11082.
“Assuming that this range reflects the 1st and 99th percentile of the distribution, we find that a consistent lognormal distribution of particle diameters would have a median of about 180 µm and a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of about 2.5.”: What is meant by “size” in this paragraph? What does “consistent” mean in this context? There is no need to make such assumptions about percentiles of the distribution. Figures 1, 1A, 2 and 2A of HW-10261 provide histograms for the distribution of sizes of 111 particles “picked at random”, allowing better estimates for the statistics of a lognormal distribution. The “sizes” provided in these figures are volume (Figures 1 and 2) or cross-sectional area (Figures 1A and 2A), either of which could be related to an aerodynamic diameter or to a mass-based “size”.