Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
HEALTH AND SAFE~ LABORATORY NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10014 James L. l,iverman, Assistant Administrator for Environment TTG ANALYSIS OF BIKINI PLUTONIUM BURDEN I think that TTG was most concerned that no one seemed to be looking at all of the data from Bikini and that this might be helpflll in estimating the native body burden. I agree with both of these points and believe that either a single lab or a group of 2 or 3 people shoulcl do a writeup on what is lcnown. We WOUIC1be happy to cooperate in any way you think that ~ve could be helpftd. Some of the problem has been in the HASL urine clata where we were Ltncertain about the levels in U. S. residents subject only to fallout. We appear to be confirming the lower numbers that we first found and these agree quite well with values calculated from our best moclels. This means that the Bikini natives are either more highly cxposecl relative to the U. S. or that their urine samples are contaminated. It is our opinion that oblaining 20 liter samples of urine from a nzti~re population is x lzrge r effor~ i,hzn coulcl be justified by the value of cleciiling this question. If ERDA is responsible for lhe hcalih of the natives I strongly feel that their exposu rc to airborne plutonium is ille major criterion. 1~’our to six continuoLls monitors run over a periocl of a year shoulcl give adequate clat.a to discharge our responsibility. It will probably be necessary to make other measurements sL~ch as external galnma or dietary sirontium-90, but this is a separate problem. It s houlcl also be kept in mind that, while ~vc have a responsibility for monitoring the natives, this is a most clifficult laboratory to use for experiments. I have expanded beyoncl your originnl question but I think the various