A Review of Personnel Monitoring at Bikini

Page 1

As a result of the rcccnt mccttng at Kili by Trust Territory, ERDA and Microncsian LcGal Service officials concernin~ restrictions on rehabilitation of Bikini it is apparent that there are several points of misunderstanding in the minds of the Bikini people concerning statements radiological safety of Bikini. Before reviewing the obtaiued on LIIC people living at Bikini I would like I have made regarding the to clarify some of the conlusion. First, at the time of the Ad Hoc Cocanitteemeeting, the visit of the Trust Territory and AEC official$ to Kili in 1968 and my visit to the island in 1969, the statcr.cnts~de abcmt the radiological safety of Ilikini were justified based on the suney data compiled at that time. Subsequent analyses of personnel monitoring data on the people living at Bikini showed In all sincerity, I disclosed this as additio~al assurance to the people living there.,.. Based on these findings I would not hesitate to live in one of the houses on Bikini. Y am ., about me at the Kili meeting. people of Bikini and in no way sad about the statements a fe:,rpeople =de I have great friendship and respect for the and at any time have I tried to mislead them. of Bikini. It is only vely rcccntly that radiological s~rvey data has mzde I it necessary to impose further restrictions. I would like .toclear up another point of confusion regarding “medical” examinations. We have never done medical examinat5 )ns on the Bikini people for possible r~diation effects. The reason is that the radiation levels are ‘ so low that such examinations are not necessary. For this reason it is wrong for anyone to accuse us of using the people living at Bikini to study radiation . BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Page 2

since no radiation effects would likely bc detectable. The urine collection ‘ and rncasurcmcntsof the body for radioactivity are not xncdical procedures and are done by technicians. These measurcinents are important since they form the basis for reassurance of the people living on Bikini regarding their radiological safety. Though we are not doing medical examinations if our doctors request of the are at Bikinis aS in the past> we will always be glad to prescribe for any people that are sick - but only at the individual or the health aide. Unless requcs~ed by the people,it is not even necessary for our doctors to go to Bilcini. In 1969Jpersonncl monitorit~gprocedures were begun on a group of 20 ,\ workmen at a work camp on Eneu Island. By 1972 about 3 Bikini families -, had moved back (about 50) and also about 25-30 workers and agriculturists. ‘ii; Radiological monitoring at Bikini has been carried out annually since 1969. The size of the po~;ulationhas not changed riruch”since1973. In order to assess the radiological hazard the following personnel monitoring procedures have been carried out: 1. Rliliocllcmicalanalyses on urine samples: (individual 24 l~ourand pooled samples). These analyses require complicated chemical procedures and are done for us by the ERDA Health and Safety Laboratory in New York City. Such radiochemical analyses have also been carried tmt on water and local food products. 2. Direct mcasurcmcnt of radiation in the people by qamna spectrographic an”alysis:To do this tons of radiation-free lead bricks were shipped to the Marshalls and a shielded counting facility set up in one of our airconditioncd tr~ilers and transported to Bikini on our vessel (LCU-Liktanur).

Page 3

TIlCmcasuscmcnt of body radiation by such an~lysis is very sensitive and rc- , quircs comPICX electronic cquipincntand personnel hi~hly trained in electronics were derived from data furnished by other radiological suney groups. I%C results of the personnel monitoring since 1969 are prcscntcd in the accompanying data on people living at Bikini tables. Tinedata on urine analys?s are presented on Table I. Note that average pCi/liier for Eikini urine compared with Rongelap was for Sr 2.5/3.8 and for CS 638/3360. ICRP) these isotopes have been well below maximum permissible levels. Reassuring also is the virtual abrence of plutonium in the samples. Levels for internally absorbed 137Cs as measured by spectrographic analyses are presented in Table 2. Note the average values for males and females on Bikini compared with those on Rcngelap (in nCi/pg body weight) Tvas 1.4/6.4, aGain well below the maximum permissible levels. ‘IIlegraphs in fi=wres 1 people are well below the p~ak values noted in the Rongelap people. The Rongelap people reached a peak of 6-11% of the mximum 90Sr permissible Icvel (for general populations) and of about 22% for . These low values for internally absorbed radionuclides is in accord with the fact that che people on Bikini The contribution of gamma greater than on Rongelap. have been subsisting mainly on imported foods. radiation to the people on Bikini is somewhat

Page 4

4 Table 3 compares the total,bone marrow dose (the critical organ for sonutic radiation effects) for people living at Eikini, Rongclap, Utirik, Long Island, XcfJYor!cand Denver, Colorado. Since the people living at Denver have a considerably higher natural radiation and medical, dental contribution, the ex~osurc to the people living there is probably higher than people living on Bikini. The estimated dose to people on Long Island is somewhat less than Bikini doses, also it might be noted that many thousands of people living in.areas of South America and India are exposed to higher lCVCIS than indicated for Bikini due to high thorium content of the soil. There have been no reports of increased cancer or other illness in Denver or these other high level populations that might be related to their increased radiation exposure.+ More recent data from radiological surveys last June at Bikini showing higher than e:.qec~edradiation levels in the interior of Bikini and higher levels in pandanus and breadfmit have resulted in,some further restrictions on the future living patterns of the Bikini people. At the tiineof the Ad Hoc Committee meeting it was noc known about plarisfor building houses in the interior of Bikini 1:-and. Recommendations to put the firse village and food &ops on Eneu were not followed, nor was the recommc.;dationsto remove topsoil from planting sites of pandanus and bre~dfmit on Bikini followed. The recornendation for the addition of powdered milk to the diet of the people is being implemented. ~“c restriction regarding consumption of pandanus and brcadfmit may eventually be removed following investigation “ on growth of these plants at Eniwetak. Table 4 shows results of analyses of water samples from Bikini. Based on these findings the WCII water is in the permissible range. Catchmcnt (rain) water.is very low in activity. With she

Page 5

constmction of ncw cistcms and rnendlng of Icaklng ones there should be “ water for drinking and cooking.ample catchmcnt Consumption of rarinc life offers no radiation problem. Coconut crabs (see Table 5) appears to be high enoug’nin activity to be avoided. They are quite scarce in any event. lFurtheranalyses of local products (pigs, chickens, vegetables, etc.) have not ings, have not been completed. ‘!owever, it is reassuring that the ?rcsent available local foods and ground water based on these findraised body burdens of radionuclidcs above the low levels Bikini is the critical test of radiation levels in the people living on radiological safety. The exposure of the based on the prese~~t living pattern, arc in the ;cm .s range and as pointed out lower than some other communities in the world. As was pointed out radiation exposure is so low on Bikini that medical effects would not be discernible in this population (see June 27, 1974 from Mro ‘o ‘ive-n ‘0 ‘r” Chips Barry for estirated effects). We believe that continuation of personnel monitoring is important, however, to maintain a close check on the radiological status of the people. negative findings are tip,ortantreassurance for the pccple li’viagthere.

Page 6

Estirated Dose to Bone Narrow (inrcm/yr) * Dose on Marshall Islands based on personnel and environmental data coll~c:c~