. "Appendix A: Specific Comments." Exposure of the American Population to Radioactive Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests: A Review of the CDC-NCI Draft Report on a Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Exposure of the American Population to Radioactive Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests
“For most of the country, the amount of cesium was 10 to 20 times the amount of plutonium deposited.” That must mean on an activity basis. It should read, presumably, “…the activity of cesium was….” In addition, Table 3.5 indicates that the activity ratio applies for 239+240Pu, not including 241Pu.
“…all Nevada Test Site tests, 34% of the 137Cs produced was deposited in the contiguous United States.” Were similar calculations made for the other nuclides? It might be useful to make a similar observation for the other radionuclides, and comment (if necessary) on the differences between the fractions deposited for each radionuclide.
Page 50, Figure 3.5
Results for the fraction of total 137Cs deposited in the United States from the NTS by year of test are presented as exact values (without error). It is recommended that the results be more appropriately described as approximations. This recommendation also applies to other inappropriate deterministic statements in Chapter 3 related to calculated results.
Page 51ff, Section 3.2.2
The discussion in this section relating exposure, external dose, effective dose, and absorbed dose is confusing. It switches illogically between exposure and dose, with non sequiturs. There is also a disconnect between the radionuclide-weighting factors of Equation 3.1 (not discussed in the text) and the radiation-weighting factors discussed later in the text.
“The conversion factors relating deposition density to exposure rate in air have been validated in many studies and are believed to be accurate to within 5% (NCRP 1999).” That statement must apply to situations where the deposition is on well-characterized surfaces. For deposition on surfaces in general, the uncertainty is probably higher.
It is recommended that where effective dose is introduced it be pointed out that the effective dose is a hypothetical dose in that it is based on use of the hypothetical linear no-threshold risk model.
Page 54, lines 18–20
The authors should note that this relationship applies only to low-LET radiations.
Page 54, first full paragraph
This paragraph is confusing, coming just after a discussion of the relation of effective dose to absorbed dose (Equation 3.1 and following text). The reader is given an approximate relation between exposure and effective dose, and then external dose related to effective dose (“numerically equal”).
Page 54, first full paragraph
Does this mean the roentgen-to-sievert conversion is 0.0066, or should it be 0.0093?