SWRHL-28r
131I DAIRY COW UPTAKE STUDIES USING
A SYNTHETIC DRY AEROSOL
by the
Bioenvironmental Research Program
Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
U. S. Public Health Service
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Las Vegas, Nevada
April 18, 1966
-------
PREFACE
Project Hayseed was the name given to this first in a planned series
of controlled field experiments to be conducted by the Bioenvironmental
Research Program (BRP). These experiments will be designed to
elucidate problems in radioiodine mechanisms of transport through
the biosphere and dosimetry under controlled conditions.
In this report, the introduction, discussion, and summary of the total
report were written by the senior staff. The sections dealing with
a specific part of the project were written by members of the units
of BRP to which that part was assigned.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
While most of the experiments reported were planned and executed
by the BRP staff, personnel from other programs at the Southwestern
Radiological Health Laboratory (SWRHL) contributed suggestions or
aid in sample analysis. U. S. Weather Bureau personnel under
N. A. Kennedy were responsible for placing and operating the
weather instruments and the meteorology section of this report is
based on their data. The Radiochemistry Program and Physics and
Data Analysis Service of SWRHL provided aid in sample analysis
and the Electronics Program aided materially in design and oper-
ation of the Remote Monitoring System.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
LIST-OF PLATES xi
INTRODUCTION 1
AEROSOL GENERATION 7
I Objective 7
II Procedure 7
A Aerosol Selection 7
B Aerosol Generation Tests 7
C Aerosol Tests 8
1 Particle size 8
2 Duration 8
3 Tagging Tests 8
4 Dispersion Tests 10
D Field Release of l 31 I Tagged Aerosol 10
III Results and Discussion 12
METEOROLOGY 14
I Introduction 14
II Objectives 14
III Procedure 14
IV Results 16
V Discussion 16
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY 19
COUNTING SYSTEM 27
I System Description 27
II Geometry and Calibration 27
III Error Estimates 29
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FALLOUT AND AIR SAMPLING 31
I Objectives 31
A Preliminary Program 31
B Project Hayseed 31
II Procedure 32
A Preliminary Program 32
B Project Hayseed 33
III Results 34
A Preliminary Program 34
B Project Hayseed 38
IV Discussion 49
A Preliminary Program 49
B Project Hayseed 50
V Summary and Conclusions 53
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS 55
I Objective 55
II Procedure 55
III Results 57
IV Discussion 68
V Summary and Conclusions 71
MOBILE MONITORING 72
I Objectives 72
II Procedure 72
III Results and Discussion 73
1 Dose rate monitoring 73
2 Air Sampling 73
3 Soil Sampling 7 3
IV Summary and Conclusions 74
CONTROLLED AREA MONITORING 75
I Objective 75
II Procedure 75
III Results 76
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV Discussion 78
V Conclusions 78
SAMPLE ANALYSIS 79
I Objectives 79
II Procedure 79
1 Milk and Water 79
2 Hay 80
3 Green Chop and Natural Vegetation 80
4 Soil and Grain 80
5 Charcoal Cartridge 80
6 Filter Papers and Fallout Trays 81
III Results 81
1 Uncontaminated Feed 81
Z Contaminated Feed 87
3 Milk Results 90
IV Discussion 132
V Summary 141
SPREAD HAY AND GREEN CHOP DEPTH STUDY 144
I Objective 144
II. Procedure 144
III Sampling 145
IV Results ' 146
V Discussion 146
SOIL AND NATURAL VEGETATION STUDY 149
I Objective 149
II Procedure 149
III Results 149
IV Discussion 150
V Summary and Conclusions 150
PASTURE CONTAMINATION 151
I Introduction 151
II Objectives 151
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III Procedure 151
IV Results and Discussion 153
V Summary and Conclusions 157
THYROID UPTAKE IN CALVES 158
I Objectives 158
II Procedure 158
A Calf History 158
B Equipment 159
C Counting 161
III Results 165
IV Discussion 165
V Summary 173
REMOTE MONITORING SYSTEM . 175
Introduction 175
I Objectives 181
II Procedure 182
III Results 183
A General 183
B Wind Data 183
C Temperature Sensors 185
D Radiation Sensors 186
IV Conclusions 187
RESERVOIR WATER SAMPLING 194
I Objective 194
II Procedure 194
III Results 194
IV Discussion 194
V Conclusions 195
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE TOTAL STUDY 196
CONCLUSION OF THE TOTAL STUDY 202
REFERENCES ' 204
APPENDIX
DISTRIBUTION
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Table
Table
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Production data on cows. 20
Feeding schedule for the dairy herd. 21
Counting efficiencies for 131I. 29
Sieve analysis. 34
Iodine -131 deposition. 42
Air sampler data. 44
Contamination level comparison (pCi/m2) between
fallout planchets and hand cut green chop. 45
Deposition velocities (relative to planchets). 49
Deposition ratios for various samples. 54
Particle size of pre -Hayseed test aerosol. 58
Particle size of Hayseed aerosol from Group I
photographs (109x). 58
Adjusted particle size from Group I photographs
(109x) data for stakes 5,7,8,9, 10, 11. 59
Particle size from Group II photographs (142x). 60
Hayseed aerosol particle size - final data. 60
Survey instrument measurements in the controlled
area. 76
Iodine-131 measurements in uncontaminated hay
fed to cows (pCi/kg). 82
Iodine-131 measurements in uncontaminated fresh
green chop fed to cows (pCi/kg). 84
Iodine-131 measurements in water and grain sam-
ples at Well 3, NTS. 86
Iodine-131 in high -volume air samples collected
at Well 3 for the month of October. 88
Iodine-131 in Group II contaminated spread hay. 89
Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 21. Iodine-131 in Group III contaminated green chop. 91
Table 22. Iodine-131 in Group IV contaminated green chop. 92
Table 23. Data for Group V control cows. 95
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows. 101
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows. 108
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green
chop cows. 115
Table 27. Data for Group IV contaminated fresh green chop
cows. 122
Table 28. Ratios of average daily peak pCi/liter in milk and
average daily peak pCi/kg in feed. 134
Table 29. Percent of iodine secreted in milk. 135
Table 30. Range of 1 31I values for individual cows within
groups (October, 1965). 136
Table 31. Summary of averages for feed and milk results. 142
Table 32. Chemical analysis of hay used for Project Hayseed. 145
Table 33. Iodine-131 activity on growing Sudan grass. 155
Table 34. Iodine-131 activity on fresh cut Sudan grass at time
of feeding. 156
Table 35. Data on calves. 159
Table 36. Iodine-131 activity data for calf thyroid study. 166
Table 37. Summary of calf data. 168
Table 38. Comparison of dosage calculations from this study
with those predicted by Federal Radiation Council
Report 5 (8). 173
Table 39. List of instrumentation. 184
Table 40. Peak average values and effective half-lives in the
different forages used. 202
Table 41. Average milk values obtained for the controlled
1 3l I ingestion studies. 202
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
PHS farm.
Aerosol generator.
Experimental area.
Meteorological instrumentation for Project
Hayseed.
Wind speed and direction.
T-10 meter vs 1 meter.
Portable stanchion.
Cow positions in Well 3 corrals.
Cumulative distribution of particle sizes.
Aerosol deposition on 15 x 15 m plots.
Aerosol deposition on 15 x 15 m plots.
Sampling grid planchet fallout data ((JtCi/m2).
Beta vs gamma data on planchets.
Planchet data.
Planchet data.
Pasture deposition from pasture samples.
Particle sizes on row 1 slides.
Particle sizes on row 2 slides.
Particle sizes on row 3 slides.
Particle size distribution curves.
Average net mR/hr surface (3 +
field.
in contaminated
Iodine -131 in air and milk samples.
Iodine -131 in milk following inhalation average for
4 cows - Group I.
3
9
11
15
17
18
22
25
35
36
37
39
40
46
47
48
61
62
63
64
77
93
128
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 24. Iodine-131 in milk following ingestion average of
4 cows fed contaminated spread hay - Group II. 129
Figure 25. Iodine-131 in milk following ingestion average of
4 cows fed contaminated spread green chop -
Group III. 130
Figure 26. Iodine-131 in milk following ingestion average of
4 cows fed contaminated fresh green chop -
Group IV. 131
Figure 27. Average 131I activity in feed. 140
Figure 28. Results of hay depth study. 147
Figure 29. Results of green chop depth study. 148
Figure 30. Daily cutting of the contaminated Sudan grass. 152
Figure 31. Average l 3l I data calf study. 169
Figure 32. Total pCi 1 31I in thyroid calf study. 170
Figure 33. Block diagram of information flow, Remote Moni-
toring System. 176
Figure 34. Particulate sampler. 178
Figure 35. Particulate sampler, front section. 179
Figure 36. Gaseous sampler. 180
Figure 37. Wind direction and speed during aerosol release. 188
Figure 38. Comparison of wind direction sensors. 189
Figure 39. Comparison of wind speed sensors 190
Figure 40. T and AT during aerosol release 191
Figure 41. Comparison of temperature sensors. 192
Figure 42. Radiation sensor outputs. 193
-------
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Group II cows in portable stanchion showing
high wall manger and water supply 24
Plate 2 Photomicrographs of deposited aerosol row 1 65
Plate 3 Photomicrographs of deposited aerosol row 3 66
Plate 4 Photograph of pre-Hayseed test aerosol 67
Plate 5 Photograph of TMC 400 channel pulse hieght
analyzer with 3" Nal crystal used to determine
total pCi in thyroid 160
Plate 6 Platform on wheels with mounted yoke and
crystal assembly welded to a Jack (-with calf) 162
Plate 7 Platform, on wheels -with mounted yoke and
crystal assembly welded to a Jack 163
Plate 8 Photograph of specially designed head holder 164
XI
-------
INTRODUCTION
One of the significant findings of a field radioiodine study conducted
following the Pike underground nuclear test was the measurement
of 131I in the milk of dairy cows eating only hay and grain. The
observed levels were a factor of approximately six lower than the
measured levels of 3 I in the milk of cows eating fresh green for-
age at the same location. In addition, the apparent effective decay
half life (T ) of I observed in the milk of dairy cows eating
fresh green forage appeared to differ from the effective decay half-
life of * 31I observed in the milk of dairy cows eating only hay and
grain.
A field experiment was also conducted following the Transient
Nuclear Test (TNT) of a Kiwi reactor . This field experiment was
designed, in part, to test the finding of the Pike experiment that
the kinetics of the secretion of radioiodine in the milk of cows eat-
ing contaminated hay might differ from that of cows eating contam-
inated fresh green forage. In two groups of study cows fed
contaminated hay from different stations, the results were appar-
ently contradictory. For cows in one group an effective decay half-
life of 5. 5 days during feeding was observed. This value is in good
agreement with a similar one of 5. 9 days from the Pike study.
However, cows in another group exhibited an effective decay half-
life of Z. 8 days. These results are inconclusive with regard to con-
firming or negating the Pike observations. In evaluating these re-
sults it was pointed out that the characteristics of the radioiodine
contaminants at the two different stations were apparently quite
different. The material deposited on hay at the closest station,
1
-------
which displayed a T of 2. 8 days, was predominantly gaseous in nature,
G-L-L
whereas the contaminant at the other station was more particulate
in nature. It must be emphasized that the radiodines generated during
the TNT came from an exploding reactor while those generated during
Pike came from an inadvertent release from an underground nuclear
experiment. The physical and chemical nature of the radioiodines
from such different sources might be inherently different with concomitant
differences in biological availability to dairy cows.
The next opportunity to investigate these matters occurred in con-
junction with the Palanquin event, a nuclear excavation experiment.
Our Palanquin study included specific radioiodine experiments to
measure dairy cow inhalation-only uptake, uptake from ingestion of
contaminated hay, and uptake from inges.tion of contaminated fresh green
forage. Any total assessment of radioiodine uptake by dairy cows must
include measurement of inhalation uptake, uptake from ingestion of
contaminated fresh green forage, uptake from ingestion of contaminated
hay and/or grain, and uptake from contaminated water. For the
Palanquin study the method used to contaminate forage for subsequent feeding
to dairy cows involved spreading hay and freshly cut green chop over a
suitable desert area within the expected fallout pattern. Considerable
success was attained in contaminating the forage in this fashion. It
is clear, however, that such artificial systems for obtaining contamina-
tion must be related to more realistic systems before we will be
able to completely interpret and evaluate the data obtained from
Palanquin. The major purpose of Project Hayseed was to relate our
artificial systems for obtaining contamination to a more realistic
system when the contaminant is a synthetic, dry aerosol tagged with 1 31I.
An ideal system for collection of contamination would be an actual
field of growing forage located in a fallout pattern. Since this has
rarely been available during the existence of this program, we have had
-------
A PPEAJ-D i ><-- I .E?Jr|:S-v.£AR M
COMTAMMlATCD A«M
5cAUC I "B
-------
to content ourselves with using artificial systems. The availability
of a good stand of Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense) at the PHS Experimental
Farm, Area 15, Nevada Test Site (NTS) (Figure 1) gave us the capability
of establishing relationships among the contamination characteristics
of the three systems:
1. Spread hay (as for Palanquin)
2. Spread green chop (as for Palanquin)
3. Growing Sudan grass
Ideally the radioactive material released should have been composed
of fresh mixed fission products of the same character as those released
following Palanquin. However, for various reasons we decided for
this experiment to utilize a relatively simple synthetic, dry aerosol of
diatomaceous earth tagged with l 31I. A dry aerosol was chosen because
such a material may simulate close-in particulate fallout from a
nuclear excavation experiment conducted in a desert environment.
Somewhat similar field releases of 31I over growing forage have
been accomplished previously at NRTS, Idaho Falls, Idaho3. Project
Hayseed differed from the NRTS experiments in the following particulars:
1. Form of activity released
Method of feeding contamin-
ated forage
NRTS
Molecular iodine
Grazing
PHS
Iodide labeled
fine particulate
dry aerosol
Weighed amounts
of green chop and
hay
In addition, in our experiment -we contaminated spread hay and spread green
chop side by side with the growing grass. This was not done in the NRTS
study. Another difference was that the contaminated pasture was green chopped
4
-------
each day so weighed amounts could be fed (called fresh green chop
in this study) whereas the NRTS cows were allowed to graze.
The primary objectives of the present study were:
1. To relate the amounts of : 31I deposited per kilogram
upon spread hay, spread green chop and growing Sudan
grass as a result of dissemination of * 311 in the form
of a dry aerosol.
2. To relate the kinetics of the secretion of 1 31I in the
milk of dairy cows fed the three different types of
contaminated forage described above.
3. To determine the uptake of l 31I and subsequently to follow
the kinetics of secretion of this 1 31I in the milk of
dairy cows maintained in a contaminated environment
but not allowed to eat contaminated food or water.
Of course, techniques for characterizing and disseminating the l 31I
tagged aerosol had to be developed prior to the experiment.
In addition to following the time course of radioiodine in cow's milk
resulting from the different types of exposure, ancillary experiments
were designed to determine the movement of 1 31I in soil, the penetration
of tagged aerosol through hay and green chop piles, the effects of spray
irrigation on pasture contamination, the evaluation of a Remote Monitoring
System, the thyroid uptake of calves drinking contaminated milk, the
particle sizes of the aerosol, and the variation in aerosol deposition
on the experimental plot. The results from successful studies such as
these could be used in the design of a more accurate model for estimating
potential dose to humans from radioiodine released to the environment.
The design criterion for this project was contamination of the experimental
r 7
plot to a level of 10 pCi/m with a dry aerosol tagged with l 31I.
-------
This level of contamination on green chop and hay was expected, after
ingestion by dairy cow, to give peak levels in the milk of approximately
104 pCi l 31 I/liter.
The experiment was successfully conducted during the time 0530-0600 on
October 4, 1965. The results of each separate experiment will be presented
in the following sections.
-------
AEROSOL GENERATION
S. C. Black
I. Objectives
The following objectives were set for the aerosol generation
portion of the Hayseed Project:
To generate a dry aerosol tagged with radioiodine.
To deposit this aerosol on an area 40 x 15 meters on
the farm.
To contaminate the desired area to a level of at
least 105 pCi/m2.
II. Procedure
A. Aerosol selection.
Since a dry aerosol was desired, the materials consid-
ered were clay, ball-milled sand and diatomaceous
earth(DE). The DE was picked because it was readily
available,, exists in small particle sizes, does not
clump excessively when wet and is basically siliceous
as the particles from a cratering event may be.
B. Aerosol generation tests.
An attempt to use a paint sprayer was unsuccessful so
the aerosol was placed in a suction flask with inlet
air coming into the flask both tangentially and normally
to the flask wall. In both cases quiet spaces were
created in the flask which prevented unloading of all the
aerosol. The generator finally chosen is shown in
Figure 2. A one-liter round-bottom flask, two-hole
rubber stopper and 3/8" glass tubing were used to con-
struct the generator.
-------
C. Aerosol tests.
The following tests were conducted to determine the
characteristics of the aerosol and the generator:
1. Particle size.
The smallest sieve available locally was Z50 mesh,
so all the DE that passed through this sieve was
used. This restricted the particle size range of the
aerosol to 61|J. or less. Since the density of the DE
was 0.26, the aerodynamic particle size range was
l6p. or less. Samples were collected for particle
sizing by operating the generator in still air and
collecting the particles on glass slides.
2. Duration.
It appeared reasonable to generate a cloud which
would require 10-20 minutes to pass over the
experimental area as this would approach fallout
cloud duration at close-in positions. Generation
time was varied by adjusting the volume airflow
rate and the amount of aerosol placed in the
generator.
3. Tagging tests.
Approximately 150 g. of DE was slurried with
400 ml of ethanol, containing l 31 I as Na l 3 U,
and dried by suction filtration. Only 15% of the
1 3l I was picked up even after stirring the mixture
for 20 minutes. In view of this, the method of
choice was to mix well and dry the mixture without
filtration. The dried material was sieved again to
break up agglomerates. To determine whether or
not the J 31I would be released from the DE, some
-------
In
-------
of the tagged material was mixed with hamburger,
fed to dogs, and thyroid uptake measured.
With an area of 600 m2 to be contaminated to a
level of 105 pCi/m2 , 60 uCi of l 31I had to be
deposited. If 5% of the cloud was deposited and
10% of the amount deposited stuck to the vegetation,
then 12 mCi was required. To allow for uneven
deposition and losses in tagging and re-sieving,
50 mCi of I were ordered.
4. Dispersion tests.
To determine the area covered by the generators,
a 15 x 15m plot was selected on the farm and
three generators, operating from one pump, were
placed 5m in front of the plot. Untagged DE was
used as the aerosol, and the generators -were
operated under a variety of wind conditions. De-
position was measured by collecting the aerosol
on glass slides placed on stakes at grass height
on the plot.
D. Field release of 131I tagged aerosol.
For the actual field release, it was decided to use 10
generators. Nine of the generators were sufficient to
cover the 15 x 40 m plot but a tenth one was placed on
the upwind side of the plot to permit more even distri-
bution. The generators were placed at 4.4 m intervals
starting 2.2m from one edge of the field on a line
which was 5 m from the upwind side. As of the day of
release, the 131I received would decay to 3 1 mCi. This
was divided into equal portions and used to tag ten batches
10
-------
'. 'ls //' n / w'VA >/' <;A-
JV 7 V /j^i'C'.'/'v/ e/ener£-l-t'i"^.
|D D D' /4;r 5Ampler j
t~\ C*\ r~* i'i t'j f I ' i
6
H-
V ; V V
.^_- 1
.2"
0
^L
V
i/2
O
-a
v v v
' //,4V
.a
'73
O
3-
t**-
>tf
~>i
-------
of 150 g. each of DE. The tagging was done about 70 hours before
release to allow sufficient time for drying and resieving. Each
batch was resieved individually and then counted. The recount
showed that 22. 1 mCi was available for release over the plot.
The arrangement of equipment in the experimental area is shown
in Fig. 3.
The aerosol generators were operated from three air pumps with
the flow rate for each generator controlled by rotameters. The
release occurred in the early morning hours (0530-0556 hours PST)
on October 4, 1965 and was governed by a weather vane placed
1 m above ground level. The generators were run when the vane
indicated a 330 to 360 wind.
were 30" above ground level.
indicated a 330 to 360 wind. 'The outlets from the generators
III. Results and Discussion
A. From the particle size test, it appeared that much of the heavier
material fell out in the first few feet. The aerosol deposited
21 feet away had a CMD of 17u.
B. The duration tests indicated that a flow of 2. 5 cfm with 150 g .
of DE in the generator would dispense the aerosol in 1 3 to 15
minutes.
C. The tagging tests indicated that there was negligible loss of
1 3 11 when the slurried DE was air-dried and resieved.
The two dogs had an uptake of 24. 6% and 26. 2%, three days
after ingestion, indicating that the DE readily released the
iodine tag under these conditions.
D. The dispersion tests, with untagged aerosol, indicated that the
morning drainage winds were suitable as a release condition;
12
-------
however, releases with higher winds, winds from a different
direction or highly variable winds could be used with a satisfactory
deposition. The three generators were adequate for covering
the 15 x 15 m area. The early morning release, though , required
17-18 minutes to unload the generators, probably because the
higher humidity caused some clumping or an increase in particle
weight.
E. The actual experimental field release was highly successful with
a relatively high percentage deposition and with all of the designed
area being contaminated. The release of all the aerosol required
approximately 30 minutes because the generators were turned
off when the wind veered too far in one direction and because
the humidity -was fairly high. The latter factor -was due, in part,
to the fact that the field was sprayed about six hours prior to
release so the grass would have a "dew" on it to make the aerosol
adhere to the grass.
13
-------
METEOROLOGY
S. C. Black
I. Introduction
It is reasonable to expect that obvious weather conditions such
as wind speed and direction, humidity and precipitation would
have some effect on aerosol deposition, particularly when
deposition in a certain area is desired. As a consequence of
this expectation, meteorological data is routinely monitored
in the area of interest during all field tests. The routine
measurements are wind speed, wind direction, temperature,
relative humidity and precipitation, with the first four meas-
urements made at both 1 meter and 10 meters above ground.
II. Objectives
For this project, the folio-wing objectives were set as the
minimum requirements:
1. To obtain background data in Area 15, NTS, on wind
directions and speed to aid the planning for the aerosol
generation experiment.
2. To gather pertinent localized weather data during and
after the experiment.
III. Procedure
Instrumentation was installed at the Area 15 farm to record wind
speed and direction so that trends could be observed and predic-
tions made. The arrangement of the instruments is shown on
Figure 4. This arrangement allowed measurements upwind and
downwind of the experimental plot as well as wind and temperature
14
-------
METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION FOR
PROJECT HAYSEED
7, >
-------
measurements at two elevations.
Analog recordings of'the instruments were made so that both
instantaneous and average values could be determined.
IV. Results
Preliminary data indicated that early morning would be the
optimum time for an aerosol release. At that time winds are
generally from the north(drainage winds) at about 3-5 mph
with an inversion layer close to the ground.
The release did occur near daybreak on October 4, 1965.
The meteorological data are shown in tables in the Appendix.
Graphs of the data during the time of aerosol release are
shown in Figures 5 and 6.
V. Discussion
The daybreak time was highly suitable for this experiment.
The inversion confined the aerosol to lower layers and the
1-2 mph winds allowed maximum deposition on the area of
interest. The slight variation in wind direction probably aided
the experiment by causing mixing of the 10 aerosol streams
resulting in a more uniform deposition.
16
-------
A
i
\
-\
/ \ /
/ v '"
Y
V
3
a
7
~\
*>. -
A
f
\
/ - \ «---
./-; "... A . H f - - tf-" - :- '
*" " ' ~; "r" ""~~. :" ;J " '""'" "' '" v "">' " '\
-, / ....... , ,/ - . -. \£ - :.:%»
.-" ; '. :'",..;, .;-'N'--, .;-;:;,,*>
"~ T . ~ '
-- ' '- ' - ---
-------
Fit v " AT (/In -
I J
7
'\
--4'
'."'/
-------
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
R. E. Engel
Holstein dairy cows from the Animal Husbandry Unit were divided into
five groups of four each. These cows were in the milking line and
grouped for this experiment as listed in Tables 1 and 2. All cows
were kept as free as possible of fecal and urine accumulations on
the mammary gland. Prior to applying the milking unit, the mam-
mary gland was washed thoroughly with running lukewarm water.
The gland was then wiped dry with a clean absorbent paper towel.
Each cow was milked with the same Surge milking unit throughout
the duration of the experiment. Normal milking procedures were
followed with one exception; the cows were released from their
respective corral areas according to group. This change in the
social order did not seem to affect the milk production after the first
day.
Grain was fed from a metal bin that was filled at each milking. The
grain was a commercially prepared ration and bagged in paper sacks.
To fill the bin, it was necessary to wheel it to a storehouse approxi-
mately 50 feet from the milking stanchions. The sacks were opened,
the bin filled and returned to approximately five feet in front of the
manger. The grain was scooped out by means of a special grain
scale-scoop. At no time did the scoop come in contact with the cows
or other structures other than the grain bin.
All cows in all groups were handled by identical means during the
milking procedure. Milk from each cow was saved in a 4-liter
cubitainer containing lOcc of 37% formaldehyde. From this point
in the procedure, each group was treated differently.
19
-------
Table 1. Production data on cows.
L.OW Days in
Group TV-, i T->
Number Production
I 1
5
46
47
II 12
19
21
25
III 15
18
27
29
IV 43
44
45
48
V 13
24
28
36
272
178
195
230
264
144
75
268
225
57
30
230
240
178
22
108
29
171
Liters
per day
27
11
22
23
11
13
22
35
20
17
30
31
21
16
21
25
27
24
27
Total
Prod, /liters
985
4670
4469
5466
4428
5560
2795
2453
5817
4776
1737
939
1386
5046
6347
552
2864
705
4854
177
/o
Butterfat
2. 1
3. 0
2. 3
2. 6
3. 5
2. 8
3. 1
2.9
3. 0
2. 8
2.6
2. 3
4.6
3. 1
2. 1
2. 9
2. 3
2. 3
3. 0
gm fat '
daily
567
330
506
598
385
364
682
1015
600
476
780
713
966
496
441
725
621
552
810
days
pregnant
N.P.
154
22
94
135
30
24
N.P.
92
169
N.P.
N.P.
140
92
145
N.P.
30
N.P.
112
EDP*
rating
73
97
110
123
99
112
100
104
104.-
96
107
76
N. V.
N. V.
112
93
103
54
135
^Electronic data processing (EDP) relative value index for the milking herd. The average cow
of our herd is equal to 100. This index is determined for us by the Dairy Herd Improvement
Association.
-------
Table 2. Feeding schedule for the dairy herd.
Group
I
II
III
IV
V
Notes:
Number
. _ Food Food
oi Cows
4 H
4 H*
4 H GC*
4 H
3 H
H* Contaminated hay
Food Remarks
GC Air uptake only.
GC Contaminated hay.
Contaminated old green
chop.
GC** Contaminated fresh
green chop.
GC Control cows.
spread as for Palanquin.
GC* Contaminated Sudan green chop spread as for
Palanquin.
GC** Fresh green chop
grass.
made from contaminated Sudan
H Uncontaminated hay.
GC Fresh green chop
grass.
made from uncontaminated Sudan
Group I cows were milked and then moved at H-3 hours from the
dairy barn (Well 3, NTS) to Area 15 farm, a distance of approxi-
mately 15 miles. They were placed in portable stanchions designed
to hold dairy cows comfortably (See Figure 7). These stanchions
permitted free movement of the head laterally and vertically,
restricting only the forward and backward movement. These are
similar to dairy barn stanchions but mounted on a steel platform
for portability. Cows 1, 5, 46 and 47 were arranged in that order
from east to west and spaced at approximately 1 m. These animals
were placed so as to face the north, 80 feet west of the third riser
on the south side of the third lateral at the southwest corner of the
Sudan plot (Figure 3). Plywood was placed on the ground in front
of the cows to prevent ingestion of any feed stuffs. No water was
21
-------
v^Ti^T'v
I i/xsr: .>--np'i
l/n IP!
Scale l'=20"
Figure 7 - Portable Stanchion
22
-------
made available during this period. Themuzzelof each cow was
washed from separate buckets at H + 1 hour. The four cows were
then loaded into a cattle trailer, removed from the contaminated
area and transported back to the dairy barn (Well 3). They were
decontaminated and placed in a; holding corral having community
water and feed mangers only for this group.
Groups II, III, IV and V consisted of the main milking herd and
remained at Well 3 corrals throughout the experiment. Each
outside stanchion had an individual high wall manger and water
supply (Plate 1) and was numbered with the cow's number and
group for the particular cow occupying each stanchion(Figure 8).
All cows were fed according to the schedule shown in Table 2.
Following the morning milking, at approximately 0800, Group II
cows were fed 10 kg of green chop. The uneaten green chop was
weighed to obtain the amount of green chop consumed. Then 10 kg
of contaminated hay was fed in the same mangers and again the
uneaten portions weighed to determine the amount consumed.
Daily individual samples of hay and green chop for this group,
as well as for all other groups, were taken by removing one hand-
ful from each surface corner and one handful from the bottom of
each individual manger and placing each combined sample in
separate plastic bags. Each cow was kept in its stanchion until
the afternoon milking.
Group III, IV and V cows were treated in the same manner with the
only difference being in the type of feed consumed. Group II and
IV cows were fed contaminated forage for a period of 6 days an'd
Group III for a period of 4 days. 10 kg of fresh uncontaminated green
chop was fed to each cow in all groups except Group III throughout
the duration of the experiment. An extra 5 kg of uncontaminated hay
was fed to each cow in the evening.
23
-------
I
^,VV*;:M.-~.
-------
No. 28 43 44 45 48
29
27
18
15
24
13
25
21
19
12
1
!
z
__, ._
'
1.4 j
. 1
1 Cow Cows
Group V Group IV
_ Cows Group III
Cows Group V
_
-
Cows Group II
!
CALF
WORKING
^^^
Cows
Group I
1
5
46
47
PENS
CHUTE
LOADING CHUTE
BARN
Figure 8 - Cow Positions in Well 3 Corrals
-------
The percent of butterfat, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) relative
value index, grams of fat per day and liters of milk per day data on
all cows prior to and during this experiment are shown in the Appendix
as are data on PBI, serum protein and CBC.
2.6
-------
COUNTING SYSTEM
A. A. Mullen
I. System Description:
A. Gamma spectrometry is done on a system consisting of a
TMC Model 404C400 channel pulse height analyzer, a Model
520 P punch control with HV supply, a Model 522 Resolver-
Integrator, IBM Model 11C typewriter, a Tally Model 420
perforator, and a Model 424 reader. The detector consists
of two 4" x 9" Nal (Tl) crystals mounted facing each other
with vertical spacing variable from direct contact to 14" separa-
tion. Each crystal has a HV supply and is viewed by four 3" PM
tubes. The crystal assembly is mounted in a specially fabricated
12-ton steel shield with 6" walls. The inside dimensions are
39" x 42" x 42" and the inside is lined with Pb, Cd, and Cu
sheeting.
B. The beta system consists of a Beckman Model 1610 wide-beta
with automatic sample changer, time-of-day and manual slide
options. Readout is by means of an IBM Model 26 printing card
punch. Argon-10% methane is used as the counting gas.
II. Geometry and Calibration:
For Project Hayseed, calibration was required only for I
though the presence of aged mixed fission products in some samples
required appropriate correction.
27
-------
The geometries used in the gamma analysis were:
Milk
Water
Soil
Grain
Hay
Charcoal
Green Chop
- A 4-liter plastic cubitainer, volume
adjusted with distilled water if necessary.
- Same as milk.
- Sample adjusted to 400 ml in a cottage
cheese container with lid
- Same as soil.
- Sample compressed in cottage cheese
container with lid.
- From air sampler, the cartridge was
opened and the charcoal placed in a 400 ml
cottage cheese container.
- Hand-packed into 3" x 7 1/2" diameter (800ml)
plastic container with lid.
Natural
Vegetation
Filter Paper
Fallout Tray
- Same as green chop.
- Placed in a plastic bag.
- 5" diameter by 1/4" deep planchet.
To prevent contamination, all samples were placed in plastic bags
and sealed with tape before being centered between the crystals.
For beta counting, the fallout trays were the stainless steel planchets
normally used in this system and were counted as is; filter papers
were placed in similar planchets for counting.
The counting efficiencies of this system are shown in Table 3 for
I in the various geometries used during this experiment.
28
-------
131
Table 3. Counting efficiencies for I.
Sample Type
Geometry
Efficiency
Minimum
Detectable
levels
Milk & Water
Soil & Grain
Hay
Charcoal
Green Chop and
vegetation
Filter Paper
Fallout Tray
Gamma Counting
4-liter cubitainer 18.6
400 ml cottage cheese
container 36. 2
400 ml cottage cheese
container 36. 2
400 ml cottage cheese
container 48. 0
800 ml container
flat plastic bag
5" planchet
28. 5
64.2
66.6
10_+ 5 pCi/1
80+_10 pCi/kg
100 + 15 pCi/kg
75 + 10 pCi/kg
Filter Paper and
Fallout Tray
Beta Counting
5" planchet
37.8 °,o
NOTE: The resolution of the gamma system is 9% based on the l 37 Cs photopeak
III. Error Estimates
We have not, to date, determined the error of the opposed 4" x 9"
crystals; however, reasonable estimates can be made for some geometries.
The Physics and Data Analysis Service, SWRHL, have reported their
errors with a 4" x 4" single crystal. Based on fifty minutes counts,
the minimum detectable level for milk samples (3. 5 liters inverted
aluminum beaker) was 20 pCi/1 with an associated error of + 20 pCi/1 or
2-9
-------
10%, whichever is larger. We reported in an earlier section of this
report that our minimum detectable level for milk and water cubitainer
samples was 10 -f 5 pCi/1. It is estimated that the counting error by
the opposed crystals is less than the 10% reported by Physics and Data
Analysis.
Samples such as vegetation, grain, hay, soil and charcoal, which were
packaged in 400 ml cottage cheese and 800 ml containers, were not simi-
lar in nature. Since the samples were not uniform, the minimum
detectable levels are reported separately. It is impossible to give
an accurate estimate of error, but the best estimate would be less
than 50%.
The filter papers and fallout trays were gamma scanned by the opposed
crystals, and the efficiencies were 64.2 and 66.6%, respectively.
It is difficult to give accurate values for minimum detectable levels and
associated errors. It is estimated that the minimum detectable level
was 50 pCi and the associated error -f 10%.
Air sample prefilters and fallout trays were counted for gross beta
activity by the Beckman System. The system has an efficiency of 37.8%
for 1. 5 Mev beta particles and background for this system was 10+1
counts per minute. There is no basis for an estimate of error for this
system.
30
-------
FALLOUT AND AIR SAMPLING
D. McNeils
I. Objectives
A. Preliminary Program.
An experimental program was devised as a precursor to
Project Hayseed wherein certain influencing parameters
were to be investigated. Some of the bulk physical pro-
perties of the candidate carrier, diatomaceous earth,
needed to be determined and a decision made as to its
adequacy for the operation. Specifically, the distribution
of particle sizes in the bulk material, the count median
diameter, and the equivalent aerodynamic size* of the
aerosolized particles are major factors in influencing the
transport characteristics and the respirable nature of the
aerosol.
The efficiency of the generators also required investigation
as to their sufficiency to uniformly cover a test area under
varying meteorological conditions and a determination of
the most favorable wind conditions, time of day, and
generator placement and: operation had to be made.
B. Project Hayseed
The objectives sought in the deposition studies were to
determine if the test criteria had been met, i. e. , whether
the lateral distribution was uniform and -whether the
*The diameter of a solid unit density sphere having the
same terminal streamline settling velocity as the particle
in question.
31
-------
contamination levels were 10 pCi 3 I/kg on the Sudan
grass in the test area. In addition, correlations were
sought between air concentration and deposition on
(1) a horizontal plane above the grass, (2) the Sudan
grass, (3) stacked green chop, (4) stacked hay and
(5) soil. Interrelationships between the depositions on ,
these various materials were also sought. j
I
II. Procedure J
i
A. Preliminary Program. !
The bulk density of the DE was computed by averaging a
series of mass to volume measurements and a particle ,
i
size distribution was determined by sieve analysis utilizing
a W. S. Tyler Ro-Tap Testing Sieve Shaker with Tyler
Standard Screens.
One 1000 ml round-bottom flask was used in generating
an untagged aerosol in an atmosphere that approached
quiescence. Clean glass slides were placed at 6.4 meters
from and at the same height as the source. A Zeiss
Photomicroscope, at 1000 magnification with a net reticule
which divided the field into squares 6(J. on a side, was used
in measuring the maximum horizontal dimension of each
particle. With the assumption that the particles are com-
pletely random in their orientation, the median size that
is derived from this type of measurement is that of a sphere
having the diameter of the average of these measurements.
A 15m x 15m test grid with 16 uniformly spaced sampling
stakes was used to determine the deposition characteristics
of the untagged carrier under varying meteorological con-
ditions. Glass slides with a thin coating of immersion oil
were placed at grass height at each of the sample stakes.
32
-------
After aerosol release, the samples thus collected were
subjectively graded according to the particle population
density with a value of 4+ being assigned to the slides
with the most particles and the other slides being
assigned values of 3+, 2+ or 1+ depending on their pop-
ulation density. Contour overlays based on density
gradient were made and optimum performance was noted
as a function of meteorological conditions.
B. Project Hayseed
For Project Hayseed, a test grid -with 45 sampling po-
sitions was prepared as shown in Figure 3.
Stainless steel planchets 4. 5 inches in diameter (0. Olm2)
were placed on stakes at a height of 1 meter at each of
the sampling positions to collect fallout as the cloud
passed.
Sudan grass samples were taken from the bases of the
stakes by hand cutting all the grass above 10 cm in a
0. 16m2 area.
Soil samples were taken by cutting three plugs near the
stakes which included a total area of 0. 0137m2.
The hay and green chop samples were not related to an
area measurement, but were correlated with the other
data on a per unit mass basis.
Four low- and one high-volume air sampler were operated
during the test at positions indicated in Figure 3. The sampling
train of each contained Gelman glass fiber prefilters and char-
coal cartridges. For the low-volume sampler, the prefilters
were two inches in diameter and were backed by approximately
33
-------
37 grams of activated charcoal contained in a 3" long x 1-1/4"
(ID) plastic tube. An MSA standard charcoal cartridge for
organic vapors was used with the high-volume sampler. The
prefilters were sprayed with clear plastic prior to removal
from the samplers so surface deposited particles would not be
dislodged during handling.
III. Results
A. Preliminary Program.
The count median diameter of the aerosol particles at
6.4 meters from the generating source was 1 7fo. with an
average geometric standard deviation, 6lfi indicating some uniformity in the size
progression.
Table 4. Sieve Analysis
Size (|J.)
> 354
> 175
> 124
> 88
> 74
61
1 61
Amt (g
1.
16.
9.
10.
11.
11.
190.
;ms)
70
55
20
30
10
70
40
% Total
0. 68
6.59
3.67
4. 10
4.42
4.66
75. 88
250.95 . 99.99
34
-------
100
\
v\
. SO*/. SI'
15.87% Siil.
V3.1S"
CMD --
-©
-.©
*
-------
L .
~Q-
w
' ! ? ' ' 1 ' '
.- »
1.^ .
'I
) -\- <
' 3^"''
r , . : . .
fl ' 'I J
V f '
'"/'r-Uf-fJ . . t i-
' : .1 ; |Y ' :- [
^TT'-": :'
T~J H
\4-t i i j , l
.. .. J j , ;
i ; j
! 1
t- - i . t
.* , , .-
> - j i . 1 1 /
/
"v:
-t>
4>
Xl.->'.-V'/ /cV4^/' ,'.
-------
N
3
A
A
, r // - .'
r.
-------
The first of the four preliminary field exercises on September 22,
1965, was conducted at 0625 hours to make use of the low speed
drainage winds at sunup. The average wind direction was from
the NW making approximately a 20 angle with the normal to the
front edge of the field. Wind speed was 2. 5 to 3. 5 mph and the
generation was accomplished in 18 minutes. Figures 10 and 11
show the contours of deposition density for this and the three
successive trials. Test number two commenced at 0710 hours
and lasted 17 minutes with winds variable about the normal to
the field front at speeds 1 to 3 mph. Test three commenced at
1323 at which time the winds had reversed in direction and were
variable out of the south from 3 to 6 mph with gusts to 12 mph.
Duration of the generation was 13 minutes. The generators were
run intermittently as winds appeared favorable from the south
at \vind speeds of 1 to 6 mph for the last test. This trial folio-wed
closely behind the third run. The deposition level was ac-
ceptable for each run but the most uniformly dense coverage was
received from the low speed drainage winds about sun-up where
approximately 31% of the grid was graded 4+ and 42% graded
as 3 + .
B. Project Hayseed
The deposition of the 1 31 I tagged DE, based on the planchet
fallout data, is shown on a unit contour interval isopleth of the
test grid in Figure 12. The generator positions and source
strengths are also noted. The figures are rounded to the near-
est fjiCi/m2 and these and all other data in this section are cor-
rected for physical decay.
The beta-particle detection data compares favorably with the
Y- ray measurements as shown in Figure 13. A slight deviation
38
-------
ilijtr
r?
V.
<
v.
1,3V
V
2.,0-f
\i
Z.26.
-------
5 i - T"
r-
o
t
r
o
p
! i
- rrrr"
i- - -
\~--.-/-
I --. ! .
j j__
i * i
OQ-
-^
F
r~iz 'S.~'.~~ ~:
... | .
"" ' "*" H r
-!.. . -.1-
_j L
^" " f ' ""] "T: ~ ±: -^-^-f^-i^^-^^-i- -j- - _-
- - -I -, \ ~ t - ',..-., i --.! - . . :
t - - .
-i - I
-------
from the theoretical unit ratio line may be noted in the
region of higher activity. This deviation is probably
due to the use of "dead time" compensation in the
y- scanner and not in the (3-counter. The deposition
on the crops, planchets, and soil is enumerated in
Table 5 and the air sampler data are listed in Table 6.
A comparison of the area deposition on the planchets
vs. the Sudan grass is shown in Table 7.
The total activity deposited was calculated from both
the Sudan grass and the planchet data. Figures 14 and
15 show the portion of the grid which includes the Sudan
grass, stacked hay, and green chop divided into geo-
metrical shapes to appropriately credit the sampling
positions for the planchet data. The numbers shown
are the activity on the planchets in uCi/m2 times the
alloted area in m2 . Approximately 6. 6% of the total
activity aerosolized is accounted for in this manner.
Likewise, the deposition on the Sudan grass went into the
construction of Figure 16 which accounts for 14. 3% of
the total activity generated. An additional 5. 5% was
deposited on the 909 kg of stacked green chop and ap-
proximately 1% on the 409 kg of stacked hay for a com-
bined total deposition of 20. 8%. Deposition velocities
were calculated using data from the three "on-grid" air
samplers and from the deposition planchets at the same
positions, i.e. , in the vicinity of stakes 3, 32, and 34.
Results of this calculation are shown in Table 8.
41
-------
l^Rle 5. l31 I Deposition,
Stake No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Planchets
uCi/m 2
8.
4.
2.
0.
6.
4.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
1.
3.
2.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
5.
3.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0.
17
97
86
86
98
47
89
01
38
88
52
53
72
04
16
40
18
80
42
79
80
88
12
21
28
41
15
34
54
11
53
Sudan grass
M-Ci/m2
9.
3.
20.
4.
7.
4.
17.
6.
5.
3.
3.
8.
3.
5.
8.
1.
76
39
99
30
85
03
61
44
38
87
61
55
18
34
44
73
Soil Soil Sudan grass Stacked Stacked
|j.Ci/m2 |j.Ci/kg |j.Ci/kg Green Chop Hay
X 105 pCi/kg X 105 pCi/kg
6.
1.
9.
1.04 .051 2.
3.
2.
8.
2.
3.
2.07 .051
1.
1.
5.
2.33 .085
1.
1.
3.
0.
35
62
23
82
90
30
36
35
19
38
93
41
45
96
65
67
Average 2. 72
(cont1)
-------
Table 5. 131 I Deposition (cont1)
Stake No.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 " "
45
Planchets Sudan grass
f- 1 2 /- 1 2
|j.Ci/m |J.Ci/m
7.84
7. 38
0. 26
1. 09
2.68
2. 10
3.96
2.60
2.96
3. 19
4. 91
4. 94
8.49
3.87
Soil Soil Sudan grass Stacked
|j.Ci/m2 (j.Ci/kg H-Ci/kg Green Chop
X 105 pCi/kg
0. 77
0. 80
0. 99
3. 37
0. 77
Stacked
Hay
X 105 pCi/kg
0. 34
0. 52
O.-.7.8..
0. 63
0.45
Grand Average 3.13
7. 15
1.8.
. 05
3. 54
1. 34
0. 54
-------
Table 6. Air sampler data.
Sampler
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flow rate
(cfm)
0.60
0.40
0. 85
0. 95
1. 20
12. 50
Charcoal
Cartridge
X 104 pCi
1.56
8. 37
0. 20
1. 10
0. 71
3. 52
Filter
X 104 pci
3.96
5. 28
1.69
0. 09
2. 90
15.60
Total
X 104 pci
5. 52
13.65
1. 89
1. 19
3.61
19. 12
107 pCi-sec
m3
19. 50
72. 35
4. 71
2. 66
6. 38
3. 24
Ratio f
cc
2. 54
0. 63
8.45
0. 08
4. 08
4.43
44
-------
Table 7. Contamination level comparison (pCi/m2) between fallout
planchets and hand cut green chop.
Stake No.
2
4
. 5
7
10
12
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
Green Chop
9. 76x 106
3. 39
20.99
4. 30
7.85
4. 03
17. 61
6.44
5. 38
3. 87
3.61
8. 55
3. 18
5. 34
8.44
1. 73
Planchet
4. 97 x 106
0. 86
6. 98
2.89
2. 88
1. 53
3. 72
2. 16
2. 18
1.42
1. 80
5. 12
2. 28
2. 15
1. 54
0. 53
Ratio (GC/P)
1.96
1.62
3. 01
1.49
2. 73
2. 63
4. 73
2. 98
2.47
2. 73
2. 01
1.67
1.39
2.48
5.48
3. 26
Average 2.81
95% Confidence Level ± 0. 62
45
-------
Figure 14
FLA1TCKE? DATA
42.50 23.13
35-CO
.no
> i I^/"' I'Qpoci'sjion on i"£,r:- j'^ii' ^
0.32 Green Qhots Stao".;' Decc^itio-
0.50 Hay Stac1; Depo=:itioc
6.57;y Total Dspocitior. on Area
-------
i Deposited, or. the Outlined Areas
XI
r
-------
fa '"'> ',1 i i *' c. .-5^
uGi Total
3*16 = 14.3^. Cr: Pasture
22 -°9 l.o; On Stacked Haj
3. 5/J On Stacked Green Choj
Total 20.8?;
-------
Table 8. Deposition velocities (relative to planchets)
.J_. , Planchet deposition pCi/m2 m
Deposition velocity = ; -c ; =
Total integrated doxe (air) pCi-sec/m3 sec
Position Deposition velocity
Stake 3 1.47 cm/sec
Stake 32 1. 08 cm/sec
Stake 34 and 35 Average 1.4Z cm/sec
Average 1.3Z cm/sec
IV. Discussion
A. Preliminary Program.
A review of the aerosol release data from the preliminary
experiment on the sampling grid shows a marked reduction
in generation time between the first and third runs. The
second trial agrees with this trend which appears to be
caused by the change in humidity as the day progressed.
The moist air passing over the dry powder early in the
day caused a slower release rate and an increase in the
particle or floe size.
This trend was borne out in the actual operation where
the exposure lasted longer than expected and the CMD
was greater than that of the sample previously taken
in a dry, still atmosphere.
One recommendation for future efforts would be to incor-
porate an air drying capability in the aerosol generation
apparatus. This would allow for better control of the
aerosolizing rate and a more reproducible particle size
distribution. This latter feature assumes that agglom-
eration of discrete particles causes the formation of an
aerosol of greater CMD.
49
-------
B. Project Hayseed
The fallout planchets represent segments of a horizontal
plane at one meter above the ground where deposition
ranged from 0. 26 to 8.49 [J.Ci/m2 . The lateral distribution
is quite uniform along the leading edge of the test plot
(Figure 12) and the uniformity improves toward the rear.
Peak areas along the front correspond, as expected, to
the stronger sources while the NE corner, which is the
region of lowest activity, was apparently on the fringes
of the aerosol plume. One extra generator was employed
to cover the upwind flank, but it appears that an additional
one should have been used to cover the downwind side also
to allow for variable winds.
A recommendation for future exercises is to collect ad-
ditional fallout samples at ground and at an intermediate
level to allow for a better characterization of the aerosol
cloud. Also, a ground level sample may better represent
the deposition on the field and would lend itself to depo-
sition velocity calculations.
The data presented in Table 5 (page 42) permit comparison
of the deposition on the planchets, Sudan grass and soil on
an area basis and also the soil, Sudan grass, stacked green
chop and stacked hay on a mass basis.
Using the three common points between the soil and the
planchets, the deposition appears approximately 1.7 times
higher on the planchets at the one meter level. The data
for this assertion are obviously limited and, therefore,
for future exercises more soil samples should be taken
and the deposition compared with that on ground level
fallout planchets.
50
-------
A comparison of the deposition on the stacked green chop
and the stacked hay indicates 2. 21 times higher activity
on the green chop. If the one inconsistent data point (the
deposition on the green chop at Stake 39) is eliminated,
this ratio becomes 1. 58. This is the reverse of what was
expected from the planchet data where the deposition
over the stacked hay is 1. 57 times higher. This anomaly
may be due to higher bulk density and a correspondingly
larger surface area on the green chop stack. The higher
moisture content of the green chop could also play a role.
A ratio of the averages of the deposition on the Sudan grass
in pCi/kg to pCi/m2 yields a field average of 494 grams
of crop per square meter. The crop height was estimated
at 15 to 18 inches. Preexercise forecasts were for a one
meter high crop and approximately one kg of grass per
square meter.
The erratic filter to charcoal cartridge activity ratio
presented in Table 6 indicates gross leakage in the pre-
filters. This was confirmed in two separate post-Project
Hayseed experiments. In one, a sampling train similar
to the ones used with the low-volume samplers in the
study sampled a similarly tagged aerosol from a container.
The results showed 10. 7 times as much collected on the
prefilter as on the charcoal cartridge. In the other
experiment, two charcoal cartridges from Project Hayseed
were opened for inspection. The packing filters on the
ends of the one cartridge plus the empty cartridge itself
accounted for approximately 99% of the total cartridge
activity. When the charcoal from the other was washed
with water and a wetting agent (Eastman's Filter Flo),
51
-------
approximately 85% of its activity was eliminated. This
indicates that in each case the preponderance of the en-
trapped iodine was in particulate form and suggests that
leakage through or around the prefilters did occur.
Correlations using the air sampler data are based on the
total activity collected. The total integrated dose levels
for the three "on-grid" samplers follow the activity
trends established from the fallout planchet data.
The data presented in Figure 16 show 14. 3% of the source
activity deposited on the Sudan grass and an additional
6. 5% on the stacked hay and green chop for a combined
total of 20. 8% or 4. 6 mCi. This information is derived
from the hand cut samples.
The data from the fallout planchets presented in Figures 14
and 15 show an accounting for 5. 8% on the Sudan grass and
0. 8% on the two stacks for a total of 6. 6% deposition. This
figure is less than the crop data because the planchets
sample only vertical fallout while the crop also samples
horizontally. The crop sample data indicate 2. 5 times
higher activity on the Sudan grass alone than do the
planchet figures, and 3. 2 times higher activity for the
combined test plot. It may be noted that both of these
figures fall within the 95% confidence limits of the average
point by point comparison between the planchets and the
hand cut green chop outlined in Table 7.
The 14. 3% deposition on the Sudan grass previously quoted
is based on experimental findings while the additional
6. 5% on the forage stacks is based on estimated weights
and is therefore not quite as reliable. The stack materials
52
-------
will be weighed prior to all future exercises.
The deposition velocities presented in Table 8 are
calculated relative to the fallout planchets at the one
meter level. They do establish a correlation between
aerial concentration and deposition which is uniform
over the limited data points. It is recommended that
consideration be given in the future to placing plan-
chets at different heights in the various sampling areas
and that additional air samplers be used to include these
areas. This would permit computation of deposition
velocities relative to the various crops or materials
involved in the experiment.
V. Summary and Conclusions.
An experiment designed to determine correlations among aerial
concentrations and deposition on certain forage materials and
on soil for a specific aerosol was conducted. Approximately
21% of a radioiodine-tagged aerosol was deposited on a 600 m
test grid with activity ranging from 3. 4 x 105 to 9. 2 x 106 pCi/kg
forage. The lateral distribution appeared to be uniform and the
drop in activity from front to rear averaged approximately 63%.
Deposition velocities (which associate airborne activity with
deposition) relative to the fallout planchets have been calculated
and average 1. 32 cm/sec.
Although some of the data are limited, the correlations attained
appear both reasonable and consistent. The experimental cri-
teria imposed on the deposition phase of operation Hayseed
were satisfactorily met by achieving uniform lateral distribution,-
activity levels of 105 pCi/kg on the growing Sudan grass, and by
53
-------
determination of deposition and concentration relationships.
Some of the ratios between various samples which can be
calculated from the results of this experiment are shown in
Table 9. Some of the variation in these results may be due
to the positioning of the planchets 1-meter above ground and
some may be due to sampling errors.
Table 9. Deposition ratios for various samples
Ratio1 "
pCi/m2
IAD
pCi/kg
IAD
,_, Spread
Planchet
Hay
* 1.32 1.27
. 0017
Spread Green Chop
7. 01
. 0042
Pasture
3.67
. Oil
Soil
0. 93
. 00026
Planchet
pCi/m 2
(3)
1.0
0. 30
054
0. 38
1. 50
(1) IAD is integrated air dose or pCi-sec/m3.
(2) Figures in this row are deposition velocities (cm/sec)
(3) This row is the ratio of planchet deposition to area deposition on other
samples.
54
-------
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
W. L. Wagner
I. Objective
The objective of this study was to determine, at certain pertinent
distances from origin, the particle size distribution and other
characteristics of the diatomaceous earth aerosol generated for
Project Hayseed. Characteristics of primary interest were the
geometric mean diameter and geometric standard deviation.
II. Procedure
Twelve stakes were placed in the 15 meter by 40 meter test plot in
an array of three rows of four stakes. A diagram of the placements
is shown in Figure 3 (Page 11). The front stakes (row 1) were
placed 5 meters from the row of aerosol generators, the middle
row (row 2) at 12. 5 meters and the rear row (row 3) at 20 meters.
The distance between stakes in a row is 10 meters with the end
stakes being 5 meters from the edge of the plot.
At grass height (about 18 inches from the ground) 1 inch x 3 inch
glass microscope slides were placed horizontally on wooden blocks
taped to the stakes. The blocks were on the side of the stakes facing
the aerosol generators. New slides were used and were cleaned with
lens tissue and distilled water just prior to placement on the blocks
at about 15-30 minutes before the generators were turned on.
Immediately after generation was completed, the slides were collected
and transported to the BRP aerosol physics laboratory in Las Vegas.
55
-------
The slides were examined and photographed using a Zeiss Photomicroscope
and Kodak Panatomic-X 35mm film. All sizing was subsequently performed
on photomicrographs representing magnifications of 109 and 142.
These prints will be respectively referred to herein as the group 1
and group 2 photographs.
The particles on the photographs were sized using a Zeiss TGZ-3
Particle Size Analyzer. This sizing instrument has an illuminated
iris diaphragm which is imaged by a lens on a. flat transparent plate.
A circle of light is visible through photographs which are placed on
the plate for examination. The diameter of the iris can be varied
manually and is coupled either exponentially or linearly to 48
counting channels which represent specified particle size ranges.
The photograph to be examined is placed on the glass plate and a
particle to be sized is centered over the iris image. The diameter of
the iris is then adjusted so that the area of light appears to be equal
to the area of the particle. A foot switch is pressed thereby record-
ing the equivalent area diameter of the particle in one of the 48
counters representing the appropriate size range.
The analyzer records either the number of particles in each size
range or the number of particles equal to or less than each size
range. It usually makes little difference which recording method
is used since both forms of the data are required for complete
analysis and one can be obtained from the other. The number of
particles in each size range is used to show a size vs. frequency
distribution curve and the summation of particles equal to or less
than certain sizes is used to obtain a log-size vs. probability of
occurrence curve. Both curves are necessary to characterize
an aerosol.
56
-------
Although particle sizing was done on each slide, it seemed more meaning-
ful to present the data on the basis of rows; therefore, the data from all
the slides in a row were incorporated and normalized to obtain a single
composite set of data describing the aerosol deposited at each row of
stakes on the test plot.
III. Results
In all tables Mg represents the geometric mean diameter * and + cr and
-crE represent two different cases of the geometric standard deviation.
mi i r i i , i 84. 13 percent size
I he values 01 + cr^ are obtained by the equation +
-------
Table 10. Particle size of pre-Hayseed test aerosol.
Sample
1
2
1
2
Table 11, Particle
Stake
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mg +
Microns
Group 1 Photos
12.5
14.0
Group 2 Photos
15.5
16.5
Average
14.6
size of Hayseed aerosol from
Mg
O
Microns +
28.5
29.0
27.0
25.5
18 .0
20.0
17.0
14.0
12.0
16.0
18.0
20.5
* g
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
Group 1
°~g
1.8
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.8
2. 1
2.4
2.6
2. 1
1.8
2.0
-ffg
3.0
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.4
photographs (109x).
- * g
2.7
2.6
1.9
2.6
-
3.0
6.8
-
-
16. 0
3.6
4.4
58
-------
Table 12. Adjusted particle size from Group 1 photographs (109x)
data for stakes 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 adjusted.
Stake
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
M
Microns
28.5
29.0
27.0
25.5
21.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.5
20.0
19.0
20.5
+ 'g
1.8
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
1. 5
1.8
1.8
2.0
cr
- g
2.7
2.6
1.9
2.6
4. 1
3.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
4.4
59
-------
Table 13. Particle size from Group 2 photographs (14?x).
Stake
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
M
g
Microns
30.0
28.5
27.0
28.0
23.0
22.0
19.5
20.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
23.0
cr
+ g
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
: 1.6
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
cr
- g
2.4
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.7
4.0
2.9
2.2
2.1
2.0
Table 14. Hayseed aerosol particle size - final data.
Row
1
2
3
' M
g
Microns
28
21
20
CT
+ g
1.8
1.8
1.8
(T
- g
2. 2
3.4
3. 1
60
-------
too
t
V
i i
I
*
X
- 1 - - - - i - -
' J £3
-------
IOC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t-J<4
X
X
X
-------
V
bo
x
-------
20
IS
D
' Qi
O ;
.5.- 10
, ; , j ,
IS l 20
i : :
: ROW 3;
(Stakes .9.^ 10, 11,.
25
. 3..'% of particles were .greater^.
than 60/u . ; .;:! i
_r r
30, 35j ,40
Particle! size
1
_:_...Csjtakes .5, .6
45 50
55 .60. 65' i 70: i 75
iri' microns
....{ 3% iof; particles, were, .greater...!. ...... i
j than: 60^ \ . : f I '
-0
2
I
10 IS : 20: : 25: : I 30 35' 40' : 45 50 55
.
Particle size) in microns
60
65 : : 7 . ; . 75 !
M
15
ROW 1 \
(Stakes..!, .2, 3,4)
0)
0
'$-(
4)
9% of particles
than 60yu
1Q :15 20 25
3d 35
4Q
45 50 55 6Q
65 70
75
i r^ mfr*
-------
,v
*
* -1*
tf
< JP-
V *
if' /
« ->*
»
* +
* *r
^
^ ^*
*t
. ^ »^ v
r,'* -"HfX-n
J*. ^ 4'*»^ * V "v
*^^ * %A >^^fc
A " ^'/,v^<
f
*'* \
-------
i
-------
-------
IV. Discussion
The pre-Hayseed test aerosol described in the previous section was
comprised of diatomaceous earth particles from about Ifj, to 60u .
Essentially no particles were detected below IJJL and only about 10%
were below 4[i . Ninety-seven percent of the particles were below
60|j. , but since the aerosol consisted of only that material which would
.pass a 250-mesh screen (pore size = 6l|o. ), this was expected. On
the basis of these initial findings, it was decided that the magnifications
of the final photographic prints would be adjusted so that the range
of about 2 to 5|Ji would fall into the lowest counter of the TGZ-3
analyzer. Using the reduced mode of the analyzer, the highest
channel would include particles up to 85(j, . To meet this requirement
two sets of photomicrographs were printed, one having a total
magnification of 109 and the other of 142 as mentioned in the proced-
ure section.
Although the difference in magnification of the two groups of
photographs should not affect the determination of M it can be
&
readily observed, by comparing the results in Tables 10, 11,
and 13, that it did. The geometric mean diameters for rows 2
and 3 determined from the group 1 photographs were smaller
than those determined from group 2. It was observed that the
group 2 photographs had far fewer particles in the range of 0 to 5|J.
than group 1 had. It was later discovered that the reason for
this was that the exposure time during enlargement of the group 2
photographs was not of sufficient duration to fully develop the
image of the particles in the size range of question. This can be
corrected in the future by the use of a higher contrast film and
more careful enlargement of the 35mm negatives.
68
-------
The number of particles less than 5(Ji was much greater than was
expected on the basis of the pre-Hayseed test aerosol results.
The percentage of particles in that range for the test aerosol was
about 16%, whereas it was as high as 30% for the Hayseed aerosol.
If anything, it had been expected that the Hayseed aerosol would
deposit fewer particles less than 5(i in size because of the humid
ambient conditions and the presence of a 1 to 5 mph wind. The
pre-Hayseed aerosol was generated in a relatively dry, quiescent
room. Consequently, it -was suspected that a large number of the
particles in this range were artifacts. To verify this, an investigation
was made of some glass microscope slides from the same box as
those used to collect the Hayseed aerosol. After being cleaned
with distilled water and lens tissue, as were the original slides,
a large number of particles in the range of 0. 5 to 5|j. were observed.
It was apparent that the cleaning of the slides must be more thorough
in the future. On all tests in the future, slides will be washed in a
detergent and rinsed with alcohol and double distilled water.
The background count did not significantly affect the slides in row 1.
It is assumed that this is because of the heavier deposition and larger
particle size and that contamination, though present, was not observable.
Considering that artifacts -were present to an undetermined extent, it was
decided to attempt to adjust the data on the basis of some reasonable
assumption which would minimize the effect in the less than 5(j. size
range. Since the particle range in question consisted of no more
than. 16% of the total for the pre-Hayseed test aerosol, it seemed
reasonable to assume that the number of particles could be adjusted
so that no stake had more than 16% of total particles below 5(0. .
The particles thus eliminated were assumed to represent that
portion of the particles below $(o. that was present as contamination
69
-------
on the glass slides. Table 12 contains the results achieved when
this adjustment was made. The group 1 adjusted data give results
comparable to those of group 2. This group 2 data were essentially
modified mechanically by the short enlargement time which eliminated
a portion of the particles in the smallest range. Since only the smallest
size range was affected, it was felt that the results from the group 2
photographs could be used for further determinations. Supporting
this is the fact that the group 1 and group 2 photographs give data
which compare favorably to data achieved by visual sizing in
which no particles below 2u were included. Particles of less than
2(j, were excluded since only 4% of the pre-Hayseed test aerosol
particles were in this range.
Even though the distribution of particles below 5u is uncertain and .
can only be assumed, the distribution of particles above 5u is
accurately shown. Therefore, the slope and position of the log-probability
curves were, for the size ranges at about the 50% size and above,
not greatly affected. The geometric mean diameters and the geometric
standard deviations represented by +cr are reasonably accurate.
o
Since there is no reason to believe that the particle size of the
diatomaceous earth aerosol is not normally distributed, the dotted
lines shown in Figures 17, 18 and 19 indicate what the curves of
the deposited aerosol might actually be.
The distribution curves, of rows 2 and 3, Figure 20, are slightly
bimodal because of the high percentage of particles in the 0 to 5(J.
size range. There is a slight possibility that the curve is truly
bimodal if a carrier material was present in the aerosol. The
more probable reason is that the amount of material on the slides
representing contamination, either atmospheric or preexisting,
was greater than assumed. A distribution curve plotted from
70
-------
the dotted line shown in Figures 18 and 19, for example, would
not be bimodal.
It is evident from Figures 21 and 22 that the larger particles and
conglomerations of particles were predominantly deposited on the
front row and that the particles -were both fewer and smaller on the
back row. One problem in determining M for the front row -was that
&
there is no satisfactory method of evaluating whether the conglomera-
tions occurred prior to or after deposition on the slides. All
conglomerations were counted as single particles.
As mentioned in a previous section, the bulk density of the diato-
maceous earth was determined to be 0. 26 gms/cc. An approxima-
tion of the aerodynamic particle sizes can be obtained from this
figure; however, the effect of shape is unknown. Since the particles
are in the shapes of flakes and rods, the true aerodynamic sizes
are probably less than that which would be determined by the above
factor.
V. Summary and Conclusions
Particle size distributions for a diatomaceous earth aerosol deposited
on glass slides were determined and are presented in graph form.
Geometric mean diameters were 28|j. at 5 meters from the aerosol
generators, 21[j. at 12.5 meters, and 20[x at 20 meters. The
particles were sized from photomicrographs.
Background contamination was high and quantitatively unknown in
the size range less than 5(J. introducing some error in the results.
The data were adjusted to minimize the error.
71
-------
MOBILE MONITORING
R. L. Douglas
I. Objective
The objective of the mobile monitoring for Project Hayseed was
to determine if any of the radioactive aerosol which was released
escaped from the farm to an area where it might constitute a safety
hazard.
II. Procedure
Two mobile monitoring teams were located downwind of the farm on
the nearest major roads, and were directed to the best location by
the Test Director based on wind direction data at the farm at the
time of aerosol release. Team 6 was located at the
junction of the Mercury Highway and the Area 15 road.
was located about 0.8 mile east of Team 6 on the Area 15 road. In
relation to the farm, the approximate locations of the two teams were:
Team 5, 175° at 1. 7 miles; Team 6, 155° at 2. 0 miles.
Each team consisted of two men in a four-wheel drive vehicle
equipped with a two-way radio. The monitoring and sampling
equipment carried by each team included:
2 Eberline E-500B survey instruments
1 Precision "Scintillator" survey instrument
1 Gelman air sampler
13.5 kw generator
Miscellaneous monitoring supplies
The two teams left the farm at about 0500 hours. Background dose
rate measurements of both beta plus gamma at ground level and gamma
at three feet above the ground were taken with survey instruments
prior to the aerosol release. After the release, the air samplers
72
-------
(equipped with prefilters and charcoal cartridges) were started and
the dose rate was measured periodically. At about 0640 hours,
the Test Director instructed the teams to stop monitoring and return
to the farm. Team 5 collected a surface soil sample before leaving
its location.
III. Results and Discussion
1. Dose rate monitoring.
The background at the monitoring locations varied between
0.1 and 0.4 mR/hr. Background is at a higher level here
because the area is covered with the throw-out from the
Sedan Event, and variable because the loose surface dust
is stirred up when one walks in this area. No activity above
background was observed with the survey instruments after
the aerosol release.
2. Air Sampling
The air sampler operated by Team 5 overheated and cut
off after running about six minutes. The prefilter and
charcoal cartridge showed no detectable 131I activity.
The air sampler operated by Team 6 ran from 0530 to
0640 hours. The samples from it also showed no
detectable 131I activity.
3. Soil Sampling
No activity due to 1 31I was found on the soil sample collected
by Team 5.
73
-------
IV Summary and Conclusions
Two mobile monitoring teams were stationed downwind of the Experimental
Farm during Project Hayseed to detect any 1 31I activity which might
have escaped from the farm. Both teams took dose rate readings with
portable survey instruments and collected air samples with a Gelman
sampler. A surface soil sample was taken at one location. No
activity due to l 31I was detected at either location.
74
-------
CONTROLLED AREA MONITORING
J. G. Veater
I. Objective
The objective of this portion of the study was to measure the
radiation levels in an area contaminated with J 31I aerosol.
Included in this area were growing Sudan grass, a pile of green
chop, a pile of hay, and 4 cows in stanchions.
II. Procedure
One E-500B survey instrument, five Thermoluminescent
Dosimeter packs, (CaF Mn, EGG&G Model 2) and fifty Dupont
film badges(range 30 mR to 5000 mR) -were used in the survey.
Background measurements were taken throughout the prescribed
area, on the feed piles and at the stanchions two days and one
day prior to the event. Measurements included y a.t 3 feet above
and at the surface and (3 + y on the ground surface. Film badges
were placed throughout the area and dosimeter packs were placed in
the field, on the piles, and at one stanchion.
One hour after the release, measurements -were taken throughout
the field on the feed piles, and on the cows. Twenty-four hours
after-ward measurements -were taken in the field and on the piles.
Radiation intensities were measured at representative spots
throughout the area of contamination on succeeding days until
levels again reached background.
75
-------
III. Results
All gamma measurements -were not significantly above background.
The (3 4- y on the surface did indicate levels above background and the
results are summarized in Table 15. All of these measurements are
reported as net (above background).
The film badges and thermoluminescent dosimeters had no measurable
exposure above the lower detection limit.
Average levels of (3 +y activity at the stakes nearest to the aerosol
generators (5 meters) was 0. 38mR/hr at H+ 1. The back row, 20 meters from
the generators, averaged 0.05 mR/hr. The range was fromO.Olto 0.76 mR/hr
above background. Measured activity in the field decreased by approximately
50% daily. The decrease is attributed to physical factors other than radio-
active decay. Figure 21 shows the average P +y dose rate in the field as
a function of time.
The dose rate on the cows' backs averaged 0.05 mR/hr and on the legs
0. 1 mR/hr. This indicated a low lying cloud which was approximately
2 to 3 feet high as it entered the measured area.
Table 15. Survey instrument measurements in the controlled area.
Date
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
4, 1965
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
Ground Level
Time Average Net mR/hr Location
Beta and Gamma
H
H
H
H
H
H
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 24
- 24
- 24
. 17
. 30
. 25
. 08
1.40
.04
.03
Bkg
All of field
Green chop pile
Hay Pile
All of Field
Green chop pile
Hay pile
Field (7 stakes)
Field (7 stakes)
76
-------
rr iT- ll-lii-
...)_..
»
1 ii
< -r !4
- m
^^
I I i^'L
i M -1 i"
--
i ' * i
. ^...j . ^
. t
! H
i t:.
.44!;
>->'
Xi
T 4-t |-j,. jlfl^WWi-Kffl-1-fri- M
!li] h- t.M:M:iM'iiim-M-T-tl
nMMiTMM
Ml! LM. Ml
MM.-L:; ,i4.i:LU.
: ! 1 .1 MM M I i- . !
it-MI'trf
_l_j.
i- i
ki
-fir*
-------
IV. Discussion
The measurements collebted should be considered as relative values
only. The two major reasons for this are:
(1) the instrument had been calibrated for measurement of
mixed fission products, and (Z) this area was contaminated
with aged fission products from a prior event which resulted
in a high, variable background. The precision of the survey
instrument and the fluctuating background leave much room
for error.
V. Conclusions
The gamma levels in the contaminated area were too low to measure
with survey-type instruments. Beta plus gamma dose rates at
ground level were measureable and decreased with a one-day
effective half -life." The one-day effective half-life was probably due to
removal of activity by green chopping operations, by wind action
and by irrigation.
78
-------
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
W. Shimoda
I. Objectives
1. To determine 131I activity in all samples submitted for analysis.
2. To relate the secretion of ! 3 11 in the milk of dairy cows to their
intake of contaminated forage.
3. To determine the uptake of * 3l I and subsequently to follow its
secretion in the milk of dairy cows following aerosol inhalation
when the cows are not allowed to consume contaminated food
and water.
II. Procedure
All samples were taken to a central location, logged and numbered
in chronological order. All samples were gamma scanned by two
4" x 9" opposed Nal crystals. The samples were counted until a
minimum of 2000 counts was achieved in the 0. 36Mev 1 31I channel
or a maximum time of 40 minutes. The filter papers from the air
sampling equipment and the fallout trays from the aerosol generation
were also counted in the Beckman Wide-Beta gas-flow counter.
The samples were beta counted for 10,000 counts or 10 minutes,
whichever came first. The various samples were handled in the
manner described below.
1. Milk and Water
The volume of milk and water samples was kept constant at 4-liters
by removing excess milk or water from the cubitainer or adding
distilled water to the container. The 4-liter plastic cubitainer was
washed, weighed and placed into a large plastic bag and sealed
prior to gamma scanning.
79
-------
2. Hay
Each of the hay samples was contained in a sealed 9" x 15"
plastic bag with a 6mil thickness. The bag was three-fourths
full and packed. The hay samples were weighed and the bagged
hay sample was compressed by means of a 12 ton Carver Labor-
atory Press so that the compressed hay would fit into a cottage
cheese container (400 ml volume). The cottage cheese container
was placed in a plastic bag, sealed with masking tape and gamma
scanned.
3. Green Chop and Natural Vegetation
The spread and fresh green chop and natural vegetation samples
were placed in plastic bags. These samples were weighed and
placed in a rigid round plastic dish (800 ml volume) with a cover
and then counted.
4. Soil and Grain
Each of the soil and grain samples'was placed in a 400 ml
cottage cheese container which was covered and sealed.
Each of the samples was weighed and placed into a plastic bag,
sealed with masking tape and counted.
5. Charcoal Cartridge
The charcoal cartridge from the air sampling equipment was
opened and the contents were transferred to a cottage cheese
container. The container was sealed with masking tape,
placed into a plastic bag, sealed and gamma scanned.
80
-------
6. Filter Papers and Fallout Trays
The filters were placed in a plastic bag, sealed and gamma
scanned. The fallout trays were contained in 5" plastic petri
dishes and the dishes were placed in plastic bags, sealed and
gamma scanned.
The filter papers and fall out trays were then removed from
their sealed environment. The filter papers were held in place
on a 5" planchet by double edged masking tape. Then the planchets
and fallout trays were placed in holders and beta counted.
III. Results
1. Uncontaminated Feed
As a standard procedure, uncontaminated feed such as hay, green
chop, grain and water fed to the cows was analyzed for * 31I activity.
The average quantity of nonradioactive hay and green chop consumed
by all cows of all groups was 10 kg per day. The grain consumption
averaged 6 kg per day for all cows.
Tables 16, 17, and 18 show the results of the 131I activity measurements
in the samples mentioned above.
The results indicate that I contamination was as high as
8.6 E3* pCi/kg for supposedly uncontaminated hay, green chop and
grain samples. The water samples analyzed for activity also
indicated concentrations up to 150 pCi/liter. The overall daily
averages of 1 31I activity in hay and green chop samples did not
exceed 749 pCi/kg/day during the experiment. The activity present
-:- 8. 6E3 = 8.6 x 103 = 8600
81
-------
Table 16. 3 I measurements in uncontaminated hay fed to cows (pCi/kg).
(1)
Date Group I Group II
10/4 740
10/5 750
10/6 6ZO
10/7 ND
10/8 510
10/9 560
Group III
ND
440
580
210
310
8ZO
460
700
460
610
ND
ND
Z70
460
182
75
ND
ND
570
136
ND
1000
Group IV
570
940
ND
160
412
430
660
ND
270
340
590
ND
180
500
317
430
160
150
ND
135
ND
ND
ND
ND
290
ND
ND
ND
Group V
8600
350
ND
ND
ND
ND
72
(1) Group II was fed contaminated hay from 10/4 through 10/9.
ND = Not Detectable,
1 82
cont.
-------
Table 16. 31I measurements in uncontaminated hay fed to cows (pCi/kg).
(cont)
(2)
Bulk Supply Samples
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
10/14
10/15
10/16
10/17
10/18
10/19
10/20
10/21
10/22
1100
ND
ND
250
ND
ND
360
1300
ND
ND
ND
ND
1100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
350
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average pCi/kg/day
Group I Group II Group III Group IV Group V
291 231 276 226 483
(2) Beginning October 10, only two samples were taken daily
from the bulk supply. The average of these two samples
was then taken as representative for Groups I, II, III, IV
and V for the purpose of computing the over-all background
averages for the duration of the study .
ND = Not Detectable
83
-------
Table 17. 3 1 measurements in uncontaminated fresh green chop
fed to cows (pCi/kg).
Date
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/8
10/9
Group I Group II Group III (1) Group IV (iproup V
ND 680 ND
80
850
ND
402
1400 940 450
1300
890
900
1007
830 504 780
770
180
1200
672
1600 2000 7600
1400
3300
6900
3400
690 1300 1000
890
450
270
727
430 520 870
1800
2600
2000
1700
(1) Groupe III and IV -were fed contaminated green chop from 10/4 through 10/9.
ND = Not Detectable
84
-------
Table 17. I measurements in uncontaminated fresh green chop
fed to cows (pCi/kg). (cont1)
(2)
Bulk Supply Samples
10/10 420 ND
680 380
550 190
10/11 557 596
10/12 444 444
10/13 812 154
1.0/14 166 123
10/15 72 55
10/16 140 190
10/17 ND 190
10/18 ND 210
10/19 390 ND
10/20 420 180
10/21 ND ND
10/22 ND 640
Average pCi/kg/day
Group I Group II Group III Group IV Group V
359 749 259 259 528
(2) From this date on, two samples only were analyzed
daily from the bulk supply. The average of these two
samples was then taken as representative for groups
I, II, III, IV and V for the purpose of computing the
over-all background averages for the duration of the
study.
ND = Not Detectable
85
-------
Table 18. 3 I measurements in water and grain samples at Well 3, NTS.
Date
Water pCi/liter
Control Inhalation
Grain pCi/kg
Control Inhalation
9/29/65
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/8
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
10/14
10/15
10/16
10/17
10/18
10/19
10/20
10/21
10/22
ND
60
80
40
70
30
30
50
150
40
70
10
30
50
40
40
60
40
50
""
70
90
20
60
ND
__
60
110
40
70
30
40
70
60
70
60
60
__
'"
..
ND
200
ND
290
460
ND
230
ND
ND
ND
250
ND
ND
310
230
300
ND
380
"
270
300
ND
270
210
ND
ND
230
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
100
320
"
Control Group 2, 3,4 and 5 cows
Inhalation Group 1 cows
ND = Not Detectable
-- = No sample taken
86
-------
in the uncontaminated feed samples does not significantly alter the
overall intake of l 31I since the level was low compared to the high
activity of the contaminated feed. Of course, this contamination did
affect the control group and corrections were made for the added intake
in the experimental group to obtain net activity in milk samples. No cor-
rections were made in the 131I feed intake values for cross -contamination
in the feed. More stringent measures to avoid cross-contamination
are being examined for future experiments.
As a partial solution to the cross-contamination, the air sampling
data obtained at Well 3, NTS (Table 19) and the control group milk
results are compared in Figure 22. It can be seen that the two
curves have a strong correlation. The average level of * 31I activity
in each group of cows at the a.m. milking on October 4 -was taken
as the base line control value for that group. At each subsequent
milking this base line value was corrected by a linear factor obtained
by taking the Group V average for that milking and dividing it by the
Group V base line value. The average background value so obtained
was subtracted from each cow's gross J 31I level in the milk to obtain
the net activity.
Contaminated Feed
The 1 3 ! I in spread hay, spread and fresh green chop fed to cows is
shown in Tables 20, 21 and 22. The hay was sufficient in quantity to
feed four cows for six days as was the fresh green chop. The spread
green chop was sufficient for only four days for four cows.
In Table 20 is listed the amount of J 31I ingested by the individual cows
in Group II, which received contaminated spread hay. The table includes
the quantity of hay consumed by the individual cows and the total l 3 11
activity per daily feeding. Each cow consumed an average of 6. 1 to 8. 0 kg
of hay per day and average intake concentration by each cow ranged from
87
-------
Table 19. l 3 l1 in high-volume air samples collected at Well 3 for the month
of October.
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Volume of Air-m3 Prefilter -pCi
225
262
175
224
233
195
218
225
276
221
213
225
210
Continuous Sampling
441
235
254
272
210
212
238
Continuous Sampling
486
229
227
238
50
50
50
50
140
50
50
50
50
50
100
50
400
50
120
50
80
80
50
50
50
50
50
80
Char coal -pCi Total pCi pCi/m3
170
50
1200
50
130
160
320
240
220
270
960
600
90
140
50
100
110
80
170
50
230
180
240
510
220
100
1250
100
270
210
370
290
270
320
1060
650
490
190
170
150
190
160
220
100
280
230
290
590
.97
.38
7. 14
.44
1. 15
1. 07
1.69
1. 28
.97
1.44
4.97
2.88
2.33
.42
.42
.73
.59
.69
.76
1.03
.42
. 57
. 57
1.00
1.27
2.47
88
-------
Table 20. l 3 l1 in Group II contaminated spread hay.
Date
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
10/8
... 10/9
~3 Total
Averag*
Cow
Sample
pCi/kg
6.6E5*
1.5E5
1.5E5
3.2E5
a.7E5
3.0E5
18. 5E5
e 3. IE5
12 Ingested
Total
kg pCi
6.3
7.0
8.7
8. 2
4.9
4.2
39.3
6.5
4.2E6
l.OE
1.3E6
2.6E6
1.3E6
1.3E6
11. 7E6
2. OE
Cow
Sample
pCi/kg
3. 5E5
3.9E5
2.9E5
4.9E
3. OE5
1.4E5
19. 6E5
3. 3E5
19 Ingested
Total
kg pCi
6.4
8.5
6.9
7.6
4.5
5.8
39.7
6.6
2.2E6
3.3E6
2.0E6
3.7E6
1.4E
0.8E6
13.4E6
2.2E6
Cow
Sample
pCi/kg
3.3E5
1.3E5
1.4E5
2.5E5
1.7E5
1.7E5
11. 9E5
2.0E5
21 Ingested
Total
kg pCi
4.7
7.4
7.9
6.6
5. 2
5.0
36.8
6. 1
1.5E6
l.OE6
LIE6
1.6E6
0.9E
0.9E
7.0E6
1.2E6
Cow 25 Ingested
Sample Total
pCi/kg kg pCi
2.8E5
5.2E5
2.2E5
1. 3E5
2.4E5
0.8E5
14. 7E5
2. 5E5
6.5
9.6
9.8
9.4 '
6.2
6:4
47.9
8.0
1.8E6
5.0E6
2. 1E°
1.2E6
1.5E6
0. 5E
12.1E°
2.0E6
Total for Group - 164 kg = 44. 2E pCi
5
Average for group - 2. 7E pCi/kg
*6.6E5= 6.6xl05= 660,000
-------
Z.OE5 to 3. 3E5 pCi/kg. The average of l 3 11 activity in hay consumed
by the four cows was 2i7E5 pCi/kg.
The amount of l 3 11 in spread green chop fed the cows in Group III
is shown in Table 21. The samples, which were taken just prior to
feeding, had an average values for each cow which ranged from 4.9E5
to 1.7E6 pCi/kg. Each cow consumed an average of 7.0 to 8.0 kg
daily for four days. The total intake by each cow varied from 1.7E7
to 4. 6E7 pCi. This range was greater than that in the spread hay
fed to Group II. The average of l 31I activity in spread green chop
consumed by the four cows was 9.7E5 pCi/kg.
Table 22 shows the results for Group IV cows which received the
contaminated fresh green chop. The samples taken from the individ-
ual feeding boxes showed averages of 1. 3 to 1. 6E6 pCi/kg. The
individual cows daily average consumption of green chop was 4. 8 to
9.2 kg. Therefore, the total average daily 131I intake by these cows
ranged from 7.4E6 to 1. 4E7 pCi. The average daily intake of 131I
activity was 1. 5E pCi/kg, which was greater than the average value for
Group III. In general, there was sufficient l 31I activity in the hay,
spread and fresh green chop fed to the cows to be easily detectable in
their milk.
3. Milk Results
The milk results for all cows were recorded individually for each
morning and evening milking. The data, as shown in tables 23 to 27,
were arranged to show gross and net l 31I activity in pCi/liter and
total pCi. All tables show the background milk values normalized
for each milking, based on the control milk (Group V), as well as
the production of milk in liters, and the average values for each milking.
As was mentioned earlier, the control group cows showed activity in
their milk (See Table 23 and Figure 22). The activity in the milk of
the control cows rose steadily from October 4 (D-Day) until it reached
a peak on October 11 (D + 7). The average milk production from the
90
-------
Table 21. 1 3 11 in Group III contaminated green chop.
Date
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
Total
Average
Cow ]
Sample
pCi/kg
1 . 8E
1.9E6
0.2E6
2.9E6
1.7E6
I 5 Ingested .
Total
kg pCi
8.0
7.3
7. 3
b. 5
28. 1
7.0
1.4E?
1.4E?
0. 2E?
1.6E7
4.6E?
1. 2E7
Cow
Sample
pCi/kg
1.
32.
1.
1.
37.
9.
5
9E
8E5
4E5
6E5
7E5
4E5
18 Ingested
Total
kg pCi
8.7
6.7
8.8
6.6
30.8
7. 7
1.
21.
1.
1.
25.
6.
6E6
3E6
OE6
8E6
5E6
Cow
Sample
pCi/kg
0. 5E
1. 3E
1.3E6
6
0.4E
3.5E6
8.8E6
27 Ingested
Total
kg pCi
9. 1
7.6
8.9
4.9
30. 5
7.6
4.3E6
9.9E6
11. 5E6
2. OE
27. 8E6
6.9E6
Cow
Sample
pCi/kg
4.
9.
2.
2.
19.
4.
7E5
9E5
IE5
9E5
9E5
29 Ingested
Total
kg pCi
8. 8
9.5
8. 1
5. 5
31.9
8. 0
4.
9.
1.
1.
16.
4.
IE6
3E6
8E6
6E6
8E6
2E6
Total for Group - 121 kg = 11. 7E .pCi
Average for Group - 9.7E pCi/kg
-------
Table 2.2. . I in Group IV contaminated green chop.
Cow 43 Ingested
Date
10/4
10/5
10/6
10/7
r^ 10/8
"~**
10/9
Sample
pCi/kg
6
2.2E
6
2. 5E
6
1.2E
6
0.8E
6
1. 2E
6
1. OE
kg
5. 5
6.0
4.4
7.6
7. 0
9.7
Total
pCi
6
11. 9E
6
14. 9E
6
5.4E
6
6. IE
6 -
8.3E°
6
9.8E
Cow 44 Ingested
Sample
pCi/kg
6
2. IE
6
2. 5E
6
1.6E
6
0.9E
6
0.9E
6
1. 3E
kg
8. 5
9.6
9. 5
8.7
9.0
9.7
Total
pCi
6
17. 6E
6
24. 2E
6
15. 2E
6
7.6E
6
7.8E
6
12. IE
Cow 45 Ingested
Sample
pCi/kg
6
1. 5E
6
3.0E
6
1.8E
6
0.9E
6
l.OE
6
1. OE
kg
4.
5.
4.
2.
3.
9.
5
3
2
3
0
5
Total
pCi
6
6. 5E
6
16. OE
6
7.4E
6
2.0E
6
2.8E
6
9.6E
Gow
Sample
pCi/kg
6
1.6E
6
2.9E
6
1. 2E
6
0..8E
6
0.7E
6
0.8E
48 Ingested
kg
5.4
8. 2
7. 2
2. 5
7.8
8.9
Total
pCi
6
8.8E
6
23. 8E
6
8.5E
6
?.. IE
6
5.7E
6
7.3E°
Total
8.9E
Average 1.5E
40.2 56.4E
6.7 9.4E
9.3E 55.0 84. 5E 9. 2E 28.8 44. 3E 8.0E
1.6E 9.2 1.4E 1.5E 4.8 7.4E 1.3E*
40.0 56. 2E
6.6 9.4E
Total for Group - 164 kg = 2.4E
Average for Group - 1.5E pCi/kg
-------
\o
-------
control cows was from 6. 6 to 15.6 liters for each milking. The high-
est value of 1 3 1 I activity recorded was 536 pCi/ 1.
One group of cows did not receive 1 31I activity by ingestion but only by
inhalation on D-Day. The milk results from these cows (Group I) are
recorded in Table 24 and the values are plotted in Figure 23. The
2
highest 1 31I value recorded was 1. 2E pCi/liter by cow 46 from the
first milking after the release. It can be seen that all of the first
milkings after inhalation gave the highest activity in milk. The average
milk production from the inhalation cows ranged from 5. 5 to 12.3 liters for
each milking. The curve, as shown in Figure 23, declines rapidly
from D-day to D+.4 days. The effective half-life in the milk after
inhalation was 0. 8 day.
Group II cows received the contaminated spread hay. The milk
results are shown in Table 25 and the values are plotted in Figure
4
24. The highest l 311 activity (2. 9E pCi/1) in milk was recorded
from cow 12 on D + 1. The average milk production for each milking
for all cows within the group ranged from 5. 1 to 12.8 liters. The
curve, as shown in Figure 24, indicates the time variation during
the six day feeding. Each point of the curve is an average value of
four daily analyses. The effective half-life during the feeding operation
was 2. 7 days. The curve dropped rapidly for five days after the
contaminated feeding was stopped so that the effective half-life during
this time was less than one day.
The contaminated spread green chop was fed to Group III cows for
four days. The milk results from this group are shown in Table 26
and the values are plotted in Figure 25. The points on the graph are
the daily average values. The highest value tabulated in milk was
2.9E4 pCi/liter from cow 15 on D + ?,. The average milk production in
this group ranged from 6.8 to 13. 2 liters for each milking. Figure 25
shows the time variation of milk activity during and after feeding of
94
-------
Table 23. Data for Group V control cows.
Date of
Milking Time
9/29 pm
10/4 a.m.
p m
10/5 a m
p m
10/6 a m
p m
Cow
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Gross 1311
pCi/liter
10
10
20
13
34
54
119
69
72
73
64
69
104
120
79
101
91
61
129
94
160
96
119
125
91
72
95
Production
Liters
12.5
14.4
11.8
12.9
11.9
12.3
11.0
11.7
9.7
8. 3
6.6
8. 2
13.2
9.2
7. 5
10.0
7.5
10. 5
6. 1
8. 0
11.0
13.6
9.7
11.4
7.0
8.3
4.4
Total
1.3E2
1.4E
2.4E
1.7E2
4.0E2
6.6E
1.3E
7.9E2
7. OE2
6. IE2
4. 2E
5.8E2
!:£*
5.9E
l.OE3
6.8E2
6'4E2
7.9E
7.0.E2
1:1*1
1.2E
1.4E3
6.4E2
6.0E
4. 2E
Average
86
6.6
5. 5E
(table 23 continued}
95
-------
Table 23. Data for Group V control cows. (Cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/7
10/8
10/9
10/10
Time Cow
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Gross131!
pCi/liter
105
108
117
110
272
220
252
248
165
102
221
163
174
95
177
149
125
94
105
108
126
89
99
105
126
108
93
Production
Liters
12.7
14.0
10. 5
12.4
7.9
8.8
6.6
7.8
11.4
12. 3
11.4
11.7
8.8
8.8
7.0
8.2
12.3
15.8
12. 3
13. 5
7.9
8.8
7. 5
8. 1
12.7
15.4
13.2
Total
1.3E3
1.5E3
1.2E3
3
1. 3E
2. IE3
1. 9E
1.7E
3
1.9E
3
1.3E^
3
2.5E
3
1.9E
3
1.5E
8.4E
1. 2E
3
1.2E
3
1'5E3
1. 5E
1. 3E0
3
1.4E
3
1
-------
Table Z3.~Da.ta. for Group V control cows. (Cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
Time Cow
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
. 24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Gross 131I
pCi/liter
246
141
475
287
309
191
382
298
479
289
536
434
263
155
223
212
169
97
157
141
98
95
127
107
93
72
113
Production
Liters
7.9
9.2
7. 5
8.2
12. 3
14.5
13.6
13.5
7.9
9.2
7.0
8.0
11.0
13.2
14. 0
12.7
8.8
12.7
9.2
10. 2
13.2
14.0
12. 3
13. 2
9.2
10. 5
8.8
Total
3.6E3
2.3E3
2O TT^
O f-j
5.2E3
3-9 E
3.8E3
2.7E
3.8E
3.4E3
2.0E3
3. IE
2.7E3
1.5E3
1.2E
1.4E
1.4E3
1.6E3
1.4E3
8'6E2
9.9E2
Average
93
9.5
8.7E
(table 23 cont.)
97
-------
Table 23. Data for Group V control cows, (cont.)
Date of
Milking
10/14
10/15
10/16
10/17
Time Cow
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
- 24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Gross 131I
pCi/liter
74
84
91
83
70
68
86
75
68
52
83
68
40
53
64
52
70
103
132
102
10
10
23
14
10
20
128
Production
Liters
12.7
16.7
13.6
14.3
7.9
8.8
7.9
8. 2
13.2
15.8
12.7
13.9
8.3
8.8
7.9
8.9
15.8
17. 1
14. 0
15.6
8.8
10. 1
8. 3
9. 1
12.3
14. 5
11.4
Total
2
9.4E
1.4E
1.2E3
1.2E3
2
5.5E
6.0E
6,8E
2
6. IE
2
9.0E2
8 2E
3
1. IE
2
9.4E
2
3.3E
4.7E
5. IE2
4.4E:
1. IE
1 8E3
3
1.8E
1.6E3
1
8.8E
l.OE
1.9E
2
1. 3E
2
l.ZE
2.9E
1.5E
Average
52
12.7
6.4E
2
(table 23 cont. )
98
-------
Table 23- Data for Group V control cows, (cont.)
Date of
Milking Time
10/17 p m
10/18 a m
p m
10/19 am
p m
10/20 a m
p m
(table 23 cont. )
Cow
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
13
24
28
Average
Gross 131I
pCi/liter
57
100
111
89
25
36
14
25
10
60
50
40
40
77
10
42
95
74
67
79
39
27
38
35
20
78
10
36
99
Production
Liters
7.9
9.7
6.6
8. 1
9.7
16.2
13.2
13.0
8.8
8.8
7.9
8.5
11.4
15.4
12. 3
13.0
7.9
11.4
7.0
8.8
14.0
18.9
13. 2
15.4
8.8
11.9
7.0
9.2
Total
4.5E2
9.7E
7. 3E
7. 2E2
2.4E2
5.8E
1.8E
Z.7E2
8>8E2
5.3E
4.0E
3.4E2
4.6E2
1.2E
1. 2E
5.9E2
8.4E2
4.7E
6.9E2
5. 5E
5. IE
5.0E
5.2E2
1.8E2
9.3E
7.0E
3.9E2
-------
Table 23. Data for Group V control cows. (cont.)
Date of
Milking
10/21
10/22
Time Cow
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Average
am 13
24
28
Average
p m 13
24
28
Gross 131I
pCi/liter
10
53
45
36
79
62
58
66
72
75
74
74
69
' 92
84
Production
Liters
12. 3
18.4
12.7
14.5
8.8
11.0
7. 5
9.1
12. 3
14. 5
11.9
12.9
7.5
10. 5
7.0
Total
131I
1>2E2
9.8E
5.7E
5.6E2
7.0E2
6'8E2
4.4E
6. IE2
8.9E2
1>1E2
8.8E
9.2E2
5.2 E2
9.7E
5.9E
Average
82
6.9E
100
-------
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows.
Date of
Milking Time Cow Gross 131I
9/29 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/4 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/5 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
10
10
10
20
13
109
91
68
72
85
473
517
1243
453
324
373
739
268
252
438
637
254
pCi/liter
Control
--
__
_ _
--
--
86
86
86
86
124
124
124
124
116
116
116
116
Net 1 31I
__
__
_ _
--
--
387
431
1157
367
585
200
249
615
144
302
136
322
521
138
Production
Liters
14.4
6.8
9.9
10. 6
4.0
3. 5
7.9
8.8
6.0
16.7
7. 5
8. 3
8.8
10. 3
15.4
5.7
9.7
11.4
10.6
7.9
3. 5
6. 1
7.0
Total
--
--
_ _
--
6. 5E3
3. 2E3
9.6E3
3. 2E3
5, 6E3
3.0E3
1.-4E3
6.0E3
1.6E3
3. OE3
1. IE3
1. IE3
3. 2E3
9.7E2
Average 279 6.1 1.6E3
101
-------
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking Time Cow Gross 131I
10/6 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/7 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/8 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
160
244
379
243
189
171
321
208
164
191
212
181
297
302
330
237
170
151
195
157
126
223
143
116
pCi/liter
Control
111
111
111
111
106
106
106
106
135
135
135
135
305
305
305
305
201
201
201
201
183
183
183
183
Net 131I
49
133
268
132
145
83
65
215
102
116
29
56
77
46
52
0
0
25
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
Production Total
Liters 131I
16.2
6.1
9.7
9.2
10.3
10. 5
3. 5
5.7
7.9
6.9
16.3
6.6
12.3
9.7
11.2
9.2
4.8
5.7
8.8
7. 1
16. 2
6.6
10. 1
10. 1
10.8
10. 1
4.0
6.1
7. 5
7.9E2
8. IE2
2.6E3
1.2E3
1.4E3
8.7E2
2. 3E2
1. 2E3
8. IE2
7.7E2
4.7E2
3.7E2
9.5E2
4.5E2
5.6E2
0
0
1.4E2
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
( table 24 cont. )
Average
102
10
6.9
20
-------
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows.(cont.)
Date of pCi/liter
Milking Time Cow Gross ?1I Control
10/9 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/10 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/11 a m 1
5
46
.47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
126
136
111
101
158
134
124
123
280
147
165
228
10
222
258
399
10
262
340
359
359
271
283
133
133
133
133
129
129
129
129
135
135
135
135
352
352
352
366
366
366
366
533
533
533
533
Net 131I
0
3
0
0
1
29
5
0
0
8
145
12
30
93
70
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
Production Total
Liters 131I
13.6
6.6
9.7
11.9
10. 5
11.0
4.4
6.6
6.6
7.2
14.0
5.7
9.2
11.0
10.0
7.9
4.8
5.7
7.0
6.4
17.6
6.6
9.7
10.5
11. 1
10. 5
4.0
6.6
7. 5
0
19
0
0
5
3.2E2
20
0
0
85
2.0E3
68
2.8E2
1. OE2
1.6E2
0
0
0
0
5.8E2
0
0
0
1. 5E2
0
0
0
0
Average 0 7.2 0(
(cont. )
103
-------
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows, (cont.)
Date of pCi/liter
Milking Time Cow Gross131! Control Net131!
10/12 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m ' 1
5
46
47
Average
10/13 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/14 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
172
169
110
141
161
140
85
140
114
120
85
66
103
112
78
101
81
75
67
75
80
71
75
79
264
264
264
264
172
172
172
172
132
132
132
132
114
114
114
114
102
102
102
102
92
92
92
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Production
Liters
14. 5
6.6
9.2
10.0
10. 1
11.0
4.4
7.0
8.3
7.7
14.9
5.7
8. 3
9.7
9.7
11.4
4.4
6.6
7.9
7.6
16.7
7. 0
9.7
15.8
12.3
11.0
3.0
6.6
6.6
Toted
131I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(table 24 cont.)
Average
104
6.8
-------
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows. (cont. )
Date of pCi/ liter
Milking Time Cow Gross 131I Control
10/15 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/16 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/17 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
76
69
72
65
71
58
54
56
85
71
58
54
10
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
43
24
81
44
84
84
84
84
64
64
64
64
126
126
126
126
172
172
172
172
64
64
64
64
110
110
110
110
Net * 31I
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ _
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Production Total
Liters 131I
15.5
7.0
10. 1
10. 1
10.7
10. 1
4.0
6.6
7.0
6.9
17.6
7. 0
10. 5
10. 5
11.4
10. 1
3. 5
6.1
7.0
6.7
13.6
5. 3
8.8
7.9
8.9
6.6
8.8
6.6
6. 1
0
0
0
0
0
71
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
7. 0
(table 24 cont. )
105
-------
Table 24. Data for Group I inhalation cows.(cont.)
Date of
Milking Time Cow Gross13
10/18 a m 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/19 am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
10/20 am 1
- . . .. 5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
63
43
70
32
50
20
40
10
20
20
20
10
79
68
83
76
69
76
66
66
30
10
10
10
pCi/liter
LI Control
31
31
31
31
49
49
49
49
54
54
54
54
117
117
117
117
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
Net 131I
32
12
39
1
21
1
0
0
0
>1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
36
23
23
27
0
0
0
0
Production
Liters
18.0
6.6
8.8
11.9
11. 3
10. 1
3. 5
7. 5
7.0
7.0
11.4
6. 1
8. 3
9.2
8.8
7. 5
3. 5
4.8
6.6
5.6
18.0
7.9
9.6
11.4
11.7
8.8
3. 5
4.8
4.8
Total
5.8E2
79.
3.4E2
12
2.5E2
10
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.7E2
2.8E2
2. 2E2
2.6E2
3.0E2
0
0
0
0
(table 24 cont, )
Average
106
5. 5
-------
Table 24 . Data for Group I inhalation cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/21
10/22
Time Cow
am 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Average
am. 1
5
46
47
Average
p m 1
5
46
47
Gross
30
10
20
10
72
63
62
109
69
88
70
85
70
84
118
114
pCi/liter
131 1 Control
44
44
44
44
82
82
82
82
91
91
91
91
101
101
101
101
Net 131I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1?
13
Production
Liters
15.8
6.6
9.2
7.9
9.9
9.2
3.5
5. 3
8.8
6.7
13.2
5.7
8.8
8.3
5.5
8.8
4.4
5. 3
7. 5
Total
131I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
98
Average
6. 5
29
107
-------
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows.
Date of
Milking
9/29
10/4
10/5
10/6
Time Cow
am 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
pCi/liter
Gross
131 1 Control
Net
Production
131 1 Liters
ND
ND
10
30
10
80
77
96
74
82
1.
3.
1.
1.
2.
6.
4.
3.
2.
9.
6.
6.
1.
6.
6.
5.
7E4
OE3
9E3
3E3
9E4
6E3
OE3
4E3
6E4
6E3
OE3
7E3
5E4
5E3
9E3
6E3
1
_ _ _
83
83
83
83
20
120
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
20
12
12
12
12
07
107
1
1
07
07
-
-
_
-
-
-
1
3
1
1
5
2
6
3
3
1
2
9
5
6
1
1
6
6
5
--
_ _
--
--
.7E4
.OE3
.9E3
.3E3
,8E3
.9E4
.5E3
.9E3
.3E3
.IE4
.6E4
.5E3
.9E3
.6E3
.2E4
.5E4
,4E3
,8E3
.5E3
8
6
9
16
6
6
8
16
9
4
4
7
14
7
7
7
8
16
10
4
4
6
10
6
7
5
9
18
.4
.8
. 1
.3
.6
.6
8
. 2
.6
.4
.8
. 0
.0
.6
.9
. 0
.8
. 7
. 1
.0
.4
. 1
. 1
. 2
.5
.7
.2
.4
Total
131I
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
7
1
1
1
3
2
4
3
5
9
1
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
10
--
_ _
--
--
--
.5E4
.4E4
. 3E4
.8E4
.OE4
.3E5
.6E4
.4E4
.5E4
.IE4
.OE5
.2E4
,6E4
.7E4
.3E4
. 3E5
.6E4
. 3E4
.IE4
Average
8.4E3
10. 2
8.2E4
(table 25 cont. )
108
-------
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows, (cont.)
Date of Gross pCi/liter
Milking Time Cow 131I Control
10/6 p m 12
19
21
25
Average
10/7 am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
10/8 am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
10/9 am 12
19
21
25
1.8E4
8.6E3
5.3E3
7.6E3
8.9E3
4.5E3
5.9E3
4. IE3
2.2E4
6.5E3
3.4E3
6.7E3
9.0E3
4.2E3
4.4E3
4.0E3
1.4E4
4.0E3
3.6E3
4.3E3
9.2E3
2.8E3
4.3E3
3.2E3
104
104
104
104
130
130
130
130
294
294
294
294
194
194
194
194
176
176
176
176
128
128
128
128
Net 131I
1.8E4
8.5E3
5.2E3
7.5E3
9.8E3
8.8E3
4.4E3
5.8E3
4.0E3
5.8E3
2. 2E4
6.2E3
3. IE3
6.4E3
9.4E3
8.8E3
4.0E3
4. 2E3
3.8E3
5.2E3
1.4E4
3.8E3
3.4E3
4. IE3
6.3E3
9. IE3
2.7E3
4.2E3
3. IE3
Production Total
Liters 131I
4.4
4.0
5.7
11.0
6.3
6.1
7.0
8. 3
17. 1
9.6
5. 3
4.8
5.7
11.9
6.9
7.9
7.9
7.5
19.8
10.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
11.4
6.5
6.6
7.5
7.9
19.3
7.9E4
3.4E4
3.0E4
8.3E4
5.7E4
5.4E4
3. IE4
4.8E4
6.8E4
5.0E4
1.2E5
3.0E4
1.8E4
7.6E4
6. IE4
7.0E4
3.2E4
3.2E4
7.5E4
5. 2E4
6.7E4
1.8E4
1.6E4
4.7E4
3. 7E4
I
6.0E4
2.0E4
3.3E4
6.0E4
Average 4.8E3 10.3 4. 3E4
(table 25 cont. )
109
-------
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows. (Cont.)
Date of
Milking Time Cow
10/9 P m 12
19
21
25
Average
10/10 am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
10/11 am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
10/12 am 12
19
21
25
Average
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
1.8E3
4.5E3
5.9E3
5. IE3
6.5E3
2.9E3
4. IE3
3. IE3
4. OJC3
1.7J-:3
1.6E3
2. IE3
2.6E3
1.4E3
2.0E3
1.2E3
1.9E3
1. IE3
1.7E3
1.3E3
8. 3E2
4.8E2
LIE3
4.9E2
.
125
125
125
125
130
130
130
130
341
341
341
341
353
353
353
353
515
515
515
515
254
254
254
254
Net 131I
1.7E3
4.4E3
5.8E3
5.0E3
4. 2E3
6.4E3
2.8E3
4.0E3
3.0E3
4. IE3
3.7E3
1.4E3
1. 3E3
1.8E3
2. IE3
2.2E3
l.OE3
1.6E3
8.5E2
1.4E3
1.4E3
5.9E2
1.2E3
7.9E2
9.9E2
5.8E2
2. 3E2
8.5E2
2.4E2
4.8E2
Production Total
Liters 131I
2.6
4.4
4.0
9.2
5. 1
10. 1
9.2
9.7
20. 2
12.3
4.4
4.0
4.8
14.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
8.8
18.0
10.2
4.0
4.0
4.8
10.5
5.8
7.0
6.6
8.3
17.6
9.9
4.4E3
1.9E4
2.3E4
4.6E3
1. 3E4
6.5E4
2.6E4
3.9E4
6. IE4
4. 8E4
1.6E4
5.6E3
6.2E3
2.5E4
1.3E4
1.5E4
7.0E3
1.4E4
1.5E4
1.3E3
5.6E3
2.4E3
5.8E3
8.3E3
5.5E3
4. IE3
1. 5E3
7. IE3
4.2E3
4.2E3
(table 25 cont.)
110
-------
Table 25- Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows. (Cont.)
Date of
Milking
10/12
10/13
10/14
10/15
Time Cow
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Gross
131j
5.3E2
2.9E2
7.5E2
3.4E2
2.8E2
1.7E2
3.9E2
1.8E2
2.8E2
1.8E2
2.4E2
1.8E2
2.2E2
1. IE2
2.4E2
1.7E2
1.8E2
1. 2E2
1.6E2
1.2E2
2. OE2
1. IE2
1.6E2
1.2E2
pCi/liter
Control Net 131I
166
166
166
166
127
127
127
127
110
110
110
110
98
98
98
98
89
89
89
89
81
81
81
81
3.6E2
1.2E2
5.8E2
1.7E2
3. IE2
153
43
263
53
128
170
70
130
70
110
122
12
142
72
87
91
31
71
31
56
119
29
79
39
Production
Liters
4.4
4.4
5.7
11.4
6.5
6.1
7.5
8.3
17. 6
9.8
5.7
4.0
6.6
12.7
7. 3
7.0
7.0
8.8
16.7
9.9
4.0
4.0
6. 1
11.0
6.3
7.5
7.0
9.7
17. 1
Total
131J-
1.6E3
5.3E2
3.3E3
1.9E3
1.8E3
9.2E2
3.2E2
2.2E3
9. 3E2
1. IE3
9.7E2
2. 8E2
8.6E2
8.9E2
7.5E2
8.5E2
8.4E2
1.2E3
1.2E3
l.OE3
3.6E2
1. 2E2
4. 3E2
3.4E2
3. IE2
8.9E2
2.0E2
7.7E2
6.7E2
(table 25 cont)
Average
111
67
10. 3
6. 3E'
-------
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows. (Cont.)
Date of
Milking
10/15
10/16
i
10/17
10/18
Time Cow
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Gross
177
72
111
101
177
73
107
86
140
50
162
100
.
40
70
50
136
51
76
74
118
72
92
70
pCi/liter
Control
62
62
62
62
121
121
121
121
16
16
16
16
_
62
62
62
106
106
106
106
30
30
30
30
Net 131I
115
10
49
39
53
56
0
0
0
14
124
34
146
84
97
. «
0
12
0
4
30
0
0
0
8
88
42
62
40
Production
Liters
4.8
4.4
6.6
12.3
7.0
8.8
7.9
9.7
17.6
11.0
4.4
4.0
6.1
11.9
6.6
6.6
6.6
9.7
15.8
9.7
4.4
4.4
6.6
11.0
6.6
7.0
6.6
9.7
17.6
Total
5.5E2
4.4E2
3.2E2
4.8E2
4.5E2
4.9E2
0
0
0
1.2E2
5.5E2
1.4E2
8.9E2
10. OE2
6.5E2
_ _ _
0
1,2E2
0
40
1.3E2
0
0
0
33
6.2E2
2.8E2
6.0E2
7.0E2
Average
58
10. 2
5.5E<
(table 25 cont. )
112
-------
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/18
10/19
10/20
10/21
Time Cow
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
100
70
87
85
100
40
89
74
109
87
81
92
94
60
66
83
90
60
83
59
80
20
78
82
48
48
48
48
50
50
50
50
93
93
93
93
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
Net 131I
52
22
39
37
38
50
0
39
24
28
16
0
0
0
4
52
18
24
41
34
47
17
40
16
30
37
0
35
39
Production Total
Liters 131I
4.8
4.8
6.1
12.3
7.0
7.5
6.1
10. 1
16.2
12.8
4.8
4.4
6.1
10. 1
6.4
7.5
7.5
9.7
17.6
10.6
4.4
4.4
7.0
11.0
6.7
7.0
7.0
10.4
17.6
2.5E2
1. IE2
2.4E2
4.6E2
2.7E2
3.8E2
0
3.9E2
3.9E2
2.9E2
7.7E2
0
0
0
1.9E2
3.9E2
1.4E2
2.3E2
7.2E2
3.7E2
2. IE2
7.5E2
2.8E2
1.8E2
3.6E2
2. 6E2
0
3.6E2
6.9E2
(table 25 cont.)
Average
28
10.5
3. 3E'
113
-------
Table 25. Data for Group II contaminated spread hay cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/21
10/22
Time Cow
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
am 12
19
21
25
Average
p m 12
19
21
25
Average
Gross
137
88
122
128
163
117
141
99
192
141
135
140
pCi/liter
Control
79
79
79
79
88
88
88
88
98
98
98
98
Net 131I
58
9
43
49
40
75
29
53
11
42
94
43
37
42
54
Production
Liters
4.4
4.4
5. 3
11.4
6.4
7.0
6.6
9.2
16.7
9.9
4.0
4.4
7.0
11.0
6.6
Total
2.6E2
4.0E2
2. 3E2
5.6E2
3.6E2
5.3E2
1.9E2
4.9E2
1.8E2
3.5E2
3.8E2
1.9E2
2. 6E2
4. 6E2
3.2E2
114
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green chop cows.
Date of
Milking Time Cow
9/29 am 15
18
27
29
Average
10/4 am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
10/5 am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
10/6 am 15
18
27
29
Average
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
20
ND
ND
20
81
67
78
125
88
1. 3E4
5.3.E3
3.7E3
1.9E3
1.5E3
6.3E3
4. IE3
2.9E3
2.8E*
1.3E4
9.5E3
4. 3E3
1.9E4
1. IE4
6.9E3
3.5E3
89
89
89
89
128
128
128
128
120
120
120
120
114
114
114
114
Production
Net131! Liters
1.3E4
5.2E3
3.6E3
1.8E3
5.gE3
1.4E3
6.2E3
4.0E3
2.8E3
3.6E3
2.8E4
1.3E4
9.4E3
4.2E3
1.5E4
1.9E4
1.1E4
6.8E3
3.4E3
l.OE4
9.1
7.2
14.4
16.0
11.7
8.8
6.6
15.8
15.8
11.7
6. 1
4.4
13.2
14.5
9.6
7.9
6.1
14.5
16.7
11. 3
4.8
3.5
10. 1
8.8
6.8
8.3
5.7
13.6
19.3
11.7
Total
131I
7.9E4
2. 3E4
4.8E4
2.6E4
4.4E4
LIE4
3.8E4
5.8E4
4.7E4
3.9E4
1.3E5
4. 6E4
9.5E4
3.7E4
7.7E4
1.6E5
6.3E4
9.2E4
6.6E4
9.5E4
(table 26 cont.)
115
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of Gross pCi/liter
Milking Time Cow 131I Control
10/6 p m 15
18
27
29
Average
10/7 am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
10/8 am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
10/9 am 15
18
27
29
2.9E4
1.3E4
1. IE4
4.6E3
1.7E4
7.0E3
8.8E3
3.4E3
2.3E4
8.6E3
8.9E3
5.0E3
1.4E4
6.6E3
8.9E3
2.2E3
l.OE4
3.8E3
5.4E3
1.9E3
5.8E3
2.4E3
3. IE3
1.3E3
110
110
110
110
140
140
140
140
316
316
316
316
208
208
208
208
189
189
189
189
137
137
137
137
Production
Net131 1 Liters
2. 9E4
1 . 3E4
1. IE4
4.5E3
1.4E4
1.7E4
6.9E3
8.7E3
3.3E3
9.0E3
2. 3E4
8.3E3
8.6E3
4. 7E3
1. IE4
1.4E4
6.4E3
8.7E3
2.0E3
7.8E3
9.9E3
3.6E3
5.2E3
1.7E3
5. IE3
5.7E3
2.3E3
3.0E3
1.2E3
5.7
4.4
11.4
11.4
8.2
7.0
5.3
13.2
13. 2
9.7
6.1
5.7
12.3
14.9
9.7
7.9
4.8
15.4
17. 1
11.3
6.6
4.8
14.9
11.4
9.4
8.8
4.8
16. 2
15.8
Total
131j
1.7E5
5.7E4.
1.3E5
5. IE4
l.OE5
1. 2E5
3.7E4
1. IE5
4.4E4
7.8E4
1.4E5
4.7E4
1. IE5
7.0E4
9. 2E4
1. IE5
3. IE4
1. 3E5
3.4E4
7.6E4
6.5E4
1.7E4
7. 7E4
1.9E4
4.5E4
5.QE4
1. IE4
4. 9E4
. 1.9E4
(table 26 cont. )
Average
116
3. IE3
11.4
3.2E4
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green chop cows. (cont.)
Date of
Milking
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Time Cow
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
4.8E3
2.6E3
2.4E3
9.9E2
2.4E3
9.2E2
1. IE3
5.9E2
1.8E3
6.4E2
8.2E2
4.8E2
1. IE3
4.8E2
5.4E2
3.4E2
7. 3E2
6.7E2
6.6E2
3.6E2
5.4E2
3. 3E2
2.7E2
1.5E2
134
134
134
134
140
140
140
140
366
366
366
366
. 379
379
379
379
553
553
553
553
273
273
273
273
Net 131I
4. 7E3
2.5E3
2.3E3
8.6E2
2.6E3
2. 3E3
7.8E2
9.6E2
4.5E2
1. IE3
1.4E3
2.7E2
4.5E2
1. IE2
5.5E2
7.2E2
1. OE2
1.6E2
0
2.4E2
1.8E2
1.2E2
1. IE2
0
l.OE2
2.7E2
57
0
0
Production Total
Liters 131I
6.1
4.4
10.5
15.4
9.1
9.7
7.5
16.2.
18.0
12.9
5.3
4.0
11.0
11.9
8. 1
10. 1
6. 1
16.7
16.7
12.4
6.1
5. 3
11. 0
13.2
8.9
9.7
6.1
18.0
17.6
2.9E4
1. IE4
2.4E4
1.3E4
1.9E4
2. 2E4
5.9E3
1.6E4
8. IE3
1.3E4
7.4E3
1. IE3
5. OE3
1. 3E3
3.7E3
7. 3E3
6. IE2 .
2.7E3
0
2.7E3
1. IE3
6.4E2
1. 2E3
0
7.4E2
2.6E3
3.5E2
0
0
Average
12.9
7.4E2
(table 26 cont. )
117
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/12
10/13
10/14
10/15
Time Cow
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Gross
131I
4.7E2
2.8E2
1.6E2
2.0E2
17
200
186
201
252
183
136
110
186
146
87
154
200
93 i
107
89
131
137
92
93
pCi/liter
Control
178
178
178
178
136
136
136
136
118
118
118
118
106
106
106
106
96
96
96
96
87
87
87
87
Net 131I
2.9E2
l.OE2
0
22
l.OE2
0
64
50
65
44
134
65
18
0
54
80
30
0
48
40
104
0
11
0
28
44
50
5
6
Production
Liters
5.3
4.4
9.7
11.9
7.8
8.8
5. 3
17. 1
15.8
11.8
6. 1
4.4
10. 1
12.7
8. 3
8. 3
5.7
16.2
15.8
11. 5
5.7
4.4
11.4
12.7
8.6
8.3
6.1
15.8
15.4
Total
131!
1.5E3
4.4E2
0
2.6E2
3.0E2
0
3.4E2
8.6E2
l.OE3
5.5E2
8. 2E2
2.9E2
1.8E2
0
3.2E2
6.6E2
1.7E2
0
7.6E2
4.0E2
5.9E2
0
1. 3E2
0
1.8E2
3.7E2
3. IE2
7.9E1
9.2E1
Average
26
11.4
2. IE2
(table 26 cont. )
118
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking Time
10/15 p m
10/16 am
p m
10/17 a m
p m
10/18 am
Cow
15
18
27
29
Average
15
18
27
29
Average
15
18
27
29
Average
15
18
27
29
Average
15
18
27
29
Average
15
18
27
29
Gross
131I
132
108
95
61
145
112
108
74
0
110
59
65
90
70
80
30
106
91
68
53
98
86
65
45
pCi/liter
Control
66
66
66
66
130
130
130
130
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
114
114
114
114
32
32
32
32
Net1 31I
66
42
29
0
34
15
0
0
0
4
0
92
41
47
42
24
4
14
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
66
54
33
13
Production
Liters
5.7
4.0
11.9
11.4
8.3
9.7
7.9
17.6
17.6
13.2
5.7
7.0
11.4
14.5
9.7
7.5
3.5
17. 1
16.7
11.2
5. 3
4.4
11.0
11.0
7.9
8.8
4.8
16.2
16.7
Total
131I
3.8E2
1.7E2
3.5E2
0
2. 3E2
1.5E2
0
0
0
3.8E1
0
6.4E2
4.7E2
6.8E2
4.5E2
1.8E2
1.4E1
2.4E2
0
1. IE2
1. IE2
0
0
0
0
5.8E2
2.6E2
5. 3E2
2. 2E2
Average
42
11.6
4.0E'
(table 26 cont.)
119
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated s'prea'ci green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
.10/18
10/19
10/20
10/21
Gross
Time Cow 131I
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
p m 15
18
27
29
Average
am 15
18
27
29
Average
100
50
84
74
60
50
108
119
99
97
75
70
79
84
57
63
70
60
83
124
50
50
82
54
pCi/liter
Control
51
51
51
51
54
54
54
54
100
100
100
100
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
Net 1311
49
0
33
23
26
6
0
54
65
31
0
0
0
0
0
34
39
12
18
26
24
14
37
78
. 38
4
4
36
8
13
Production Total
Liters 131I
5.7
3. 1
11.9
12.7
8.4
8.3
5.3
15.8
16.2
11.4
4.8
4.4
11.0
14.0
8.5
9.7
6.6
16.2
16.7
12.3
5. 3
3.5
12.3
13.6
8.7
7.5
5. 3
16.7
18.9
12. 1
2.8E2
0
3.9E2
2.9E2
2;4E2
5.0E1
0
8. 5E2
1. IE3
5.0E2
0
0
0
0
0
3. 3E2
2.6E2
1.9E2
3.0E2
2.7E2
1. 3E2
4.9E1
4.6E2
1. IE3
4. 3E2
3.0E1
2. IE1
6.0E2
1. 5E2
2.0E2
(table 26 cont)
120
-------
Table 26. Data for Group III contaminated spread green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of Gross pCi/liter Production Total
Milking Time Cow 131I Control Net131! Liters 131I
10/21 pm 15 14 84 0 6.6 0
18 90 84 6 4.4 2. 6E1
27 80 84 0 11.4 0
29 97 84 13 9.7 1. 3E2
Average 5 8.0 3.9E1
10/22 am 15 128 94 34 7.5 2. 6E2
18 124 94 30 5.3 1.6E2
27 113 94 19 16.2 3. IE2
29 136 94 42 18.0 7.6E2
Average 31 11.8 3. 7E2
pm 15 139 105 34 6.6 2. 2E2
18 " 154 105 49 4.4 2. 2E2
27 137 105 32 11.9 3. 8E2
29 142 105 37 11.9 4.4E2
Average 38 8.7 3. 2E2
121
-------
Table 27. Data for Group IV contaminated fresh green chop cows.
Date of Gross pCi/liter
Milking Time Cow il31I Control
9/29 am 43
44
45
48
Average
10/4 am 43
44
45
48
Average
p m 43
44
45
48
Average
10/5 am 43
44
45
48
Average
p m 43
44
45
48
Average
10/6 am 43
44
45
48
30
0
20
30
71
119
49
108
86
1.5E4
2. IE4
7.7E3
5.2E3
1.7E4
2. 3E4
8.8E3
8.8E3
2.7E4
2.3E4
2.3E4
1.4E4
2.4E4
3.3E4
1.7E4
1.3E4
87
87
87
87
126
126
126
126
117
117
117
117
112
112
112
112
Production Total
Net l 31I Liters 131I
1.5E4
2. IE4
7.6E3
5. IE3
1.2E4
1.7E4
2. 3E4
8.7E3
8.7E3
1.4E4
2.7E4
2.3E4
2. 3E4
1.4E4
2.2E4
2.4E4
3.3E4
1.7E4
1.3E4
9.9
6.5
6. 1
9.9
8. 1
10. 5
4.4
6.6
11.4
8.2
7.9
7.9
3. 1
11.9
7. 7
12. 3
7. 5
6.6
14.5
10. 2
4.8
2.6
4.0
8. 3
4.9
10. 1
7.9
6.6
12. 3
1.2E5
1.7E5
2.4E4
6. IE4
9. 3E4
2. IE5
1.7E5
5.7E4
1.3E5
1.4E5
1.3E5
6.0E4
9.2E4
1. 2E5
l.OE5
2.4E5
2.6E5
1. IE5
1.6E5
(table 27 cont. )
Average
2.2E4
9.2
1.9E!
122
-------
Table 27. Data for Group IV contaminated fresh green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/6
10/7
10/8
10/9
Time Cow
p m 43
44
45
48
Average
am 43
44
45
48
Average
p m 43
44
45
48
Average
am 43
44
45
48
Average
p m 43
44
45
48
Average
am 43
44
45
48
Average
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
2. OE4
3.5E4
1.6E4
1.4E4
l.OE4
1.9E4
9. OE3
8.9E3
7. IE3
1.9E4
8.5E3
1. IE4
6.0E3
1.4E4
4.8E3
8.6E3
9.5E3
1.8E4
7. 5E3
1. IE4
7.7E3
1. 3E4
5. IE3
7.7E3
108
108
108
108
137
137
137
137
309
309
309
309
203
203
203
203
185
185
185
185
134
134
134
134
Net 1 31I
2.0E4
3.5E4
1.6E4
1.4E4
2. IE4
9.9E3
1.9E4
8.9E3
8.8E3
1.2E4
6.8E3
1.9E4
8.2E3
1. IE4
1. IE4
5.8E3
1.4E4
4. 6E3
8.4E3
8. 2E3
9. 3E3
1.8E4
7. 3E3
1. IE4
1. IE4
7.6E3
1. 3E4
5.0E3
7.6E3
8. 3E3
Production Total
Liters 131I
4.8
4.4
3.5
9.2
5.5
9.2
4.4
5.7
13.2
8. 1
6.6
7.0
4.8
9.7
7.0
8.8
6.6
5. 3
13.2
8.5
7.9
5. 3
4.8
10. 1
7.0
9.7
6.6
4.8
12.7
8.5
9.6E5
1.5E5
5.6E4
1.3E5
1. IE5
9. IE4
8.4E4
5. IE4
1.2E5
8.7E4
4.5E4
1. 3E5
3.9E4
1. IE5
8. IE4
5. IE4
9.2E4
2.4E4
1. IE5
6.9E4
7.3E4
9.5E4
3.5E4
1. IE5
7.8E4
7.4E4
8.6E4
2.4E4
9.7E4
7.0E4
(table 27 cont.)
123
-------
Table 27. Data for Group IV contaminated fresh green chop cows. (cont.)
Date of
Milking
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
Time Cow
p m 43
44
45
48
Average
am 43
44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
8.9E3
1.4E4
l.OE4
9.7E3
1.5E4
l.OE4
7. IE3
7.2E3
8.0E3
6.3E3
6.6E3
4.4E3
3.0E3
4.6E3
3.4E3
2.3E3
3.7E3
1. 3E3
8.5E2
2.3E3
8. 3E2
7.5E2
1.6E3
131
131
131
131
137
137
137
137
383
383
383
397
397
397
578
578
578
285
285
285
186
186
186
Production Total
Net 131I Liters 131I
8.8E3
1.4E4
9.-9E3
9.6E3
1. IE4
1.5E4
9.9E3
7.0E3
7. IE3
9.8E3
7.6E3
5.9E3
6.2E3
6.6E3
4. OE3
2.6E3
4. 2E3
3.6E3
2.8E3
1.7E3
3. IE3
2.5E3
l.OE3
5. 7E2
2.0E3
1. 2E3
6.4E2
5.6E2
1.4E2
7.0
5. 3
5. 3
10. 1
6.9
2.2
7.9
4.8
15.8
7.7
4.4
4.4
7.9
5.6
6.1
6.6
14.0
8.9
5. 3
4.4
11.4
7. 0
7.0
4.0
15.8
8.9
3. 5
4.8
9.2
6. 2E4
7.4E4
5.2E4
9.7E4
7. IE4
3.3E4
7.8E4
3.4E4
1. IE5
6.4E4
3.3E4
2.6E4
4.9E4
3.6E4
2.4E4
1.7E4
5.9E4
3.3E4
1.5E4
7.5E3
3.5E4
1.9E4
7. OE3
2.3E3
3.2E4
1.4E4
2.2E3
2.7E3
1. 3E3
(table 27 cont. )
Average
124
4.5E2
5.8
2. IE3
-------
Table 27. Data lor Group IV contaminated fresh green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/13
10/14
10/15
10/16
Time Cow
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
5.4E2
4.7E2
l.OE3
4.4E2
3- 3E2
7. OE2
3.9E2
2.7E2
4.9E2
3. IE2
2.4E2
4.6E2
2.5E2
1.8E2
3.5E2
2.4E2
1.8E2
2.8E2
2.4E2
2.0E2
2.6E2
143
143
143
123
123
123
110
110
110
100
100
100
91
91
91
69
69
69
136
136
136
Production Total
Net l 31I Liters 131I
4.0E2
3.3E2
8.6E2
5.3E2
3.2E2
2. IE2
5.8E2
3.7E2
2.8E2
1.6E2
3.8E2
2.7E2
2. IE2
1.4E2
3.6E2
2.4E2
1.6E2
89
2.6E2
1.7E2
1.7E2
1. IE2
2. IE2
1.6E2
l.OE2
64
1. 2E2
7.0
7.0
14.9
9.6
7.9
4.0
10.5
7. 5
5. 3
5.7
13.2
8. 1
5.7
3.5
10. 1
6.4
6. 1
5. 3
13.6
8. 3
5. 3
4. 0
9.7
6.3
6.1
6. 1
14.9
2. 8E3
2. 3E3
1.3E4
6.0E3
2.5E3
8.4E2
6.0E3
3. IE3
1.5E3
9. IE2
. 5.0E3
2.5E3
1. 2.E3
4.9E2
3.6E3
1.8E3
9.8E2
4.7E2
3.5E3
1.7E3
9.0E2
4.4E2
2.0E3
1. IE3
6. IE2
3.9E2
1.8E3
Average
95
9.0
9.3E'
(table 27 cont. )
125
-------
Table 27. Data for Group IV contaminated fresh green chop cows. (cont. )
Date of
Milking
10/16
10/17
10/18
10/19
Time Cow
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
a m 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Gross
1.7E2
l.OE2
2.0E2
160
90
174
212
127
185
119
81
169
140
120
140
120
70
156
133
64
136
pCi/liter
Control
18
18
18
69
69
69
119
119
119
33
33
33
53
53
53
56
56
56
105
105
105
Net 131I
1.5E2
82
1.8E2
1.4E2
91
21
105
72
93
8
66
56
86
48
136
90
87
67
87
80
64
14
100
59
28
0
31
Production
Liters
5.3
3. 1
10.5
6.3
6.6
4.4
12.7
7.9
2.6
4.0
9.2
5. 3
7.9
4.8
13.2
8.6
4.8
4.0
9.7
6.2
6.1
4.4
12. 3
7.6
5.7
3.5
9.7
Total
8. OE2
2. 5E2
1.9E3
9.8E2
6.0E2
9.2E1
1. 3E3
6.6E2
2.4E2
3.2E1
6. 1E2
2. 9E2
6.8E2
2. 3E2
1.8E3
9.0E2
4. 2E2
2.7E2
8.4E2
5. IE2
3.9E2
6.2E1
1. 2E3
5. 5E2
1.6E2
0
3.0E2
Average
20
6.3
1. 5E2
126
-------
Table 27. Data for Group IV contaminated fresh green chop cows. (Cont. )
Date of
Milking Time Cow
10/20 a m 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Average
10/21 am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
. 48
Average
10/22 am 44
45
48
Average
p m 44
45
48
Gross pCi/liter
131 1 Control
112
71
140
90
30
147
80
70
103
123
119
"144
117
141
155
138 :
148
139
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
88
88
88
98
98
98
109
109
109
Net 131I
65
24
93
61
42
0
99
47
32
22
55
36
35
31
56
41
19
43
57
40
29
39
30
Production Total
Liters 131I
6. 1
5.3
14.0
8.5
4.0
3. 1
8.8
5.3
4.8
5. 3
13.6
7.9
5.7
3.5
9.7
6.3
6.6
2.6
12.3
7.2
4.8
4.4
9.7
4.0E2
1.3E2
1.3E3
6. IE2
1.7E2
0
8.7E2
3. 5E2
1.5E2
1.2E2
7. 5E2
3.4E2
2.0E2
1. IE2
5.4E2
2. 8E2
1.3E2
1. IE2
7. OE2
3. IE2
1.4E2
1.7E2
2.9E2
Average
33
6.3
2.0E'
127
-------
10
in
Jf:r
-------
, ' /-;'' ; .',: ' ! I . i '
!.;
'
k
"'X
'. . , : /
i f1
i; .
>
'i;.-*''
-------
-------
\c
r
I
1
:
H : ;
' 1 ' :
1
.... . _
.
.
'
'
.
'.
. i
"
'
'
',
' .
'' \
:. I
I
'
, i ; '
:T- "
t i
i '
' !" '
-i . . ,
. . .
(
; i '.'.
. .
\
i
.
'
. , . .
! .
| .
i
j ;
, , i
i
!
! :
i . i
t '
s.
'^' ''I*,
1 '.' i i '
_
.- '
<
, .1 ..
; . -
. i :
' ,
: 1 !
I 1 :
i I
i ' !
V >-~i
.i.
' .
' ,
. '' .
: .
' T
I |
|
jT. /
//f'jSy
* * / !? *
, (
* t .
1
f
^--
.
: ;
i
. -
i
,- i
'~tc7 1
, ,
" '*'/
i
; ;
'
' *
-
i
'...
i
r
'
i
'
,
1
;. . -
1 ' :
r -
i ;
1
"*- i
%'
h
i
i
/ .
">'', , '
.
* ',
', X ' ,
-IV ; - - t i
.'-V.i , ' l : :
: ' ; : *; i . - ; ;
: ; v. . . . . ' . . ,
' ; : \ : . ' i
! ' : N .-!--..
: ' , ' X ' i i
': ' J j H . . i .
> : i . A
: :.. ''- ;
i> .
' . . V '
V i i ,. : i
. . t\ '
i t '3 ["" ~~
' '<
v ;
.
; ' ; -t ; !' : - 1
, . '. ; : 1 :
! " i
: \~ ~ '[
! *"V i - !
vi |
: : ' i = 1 : H| '' ^
: ! < | 1 c >v ' }
.: i ( : ! -.. l 'h.
; ; ' . :
i i . i
i ' ' ' ' i .
-r -t- 1 ; - rr
1 .1 .
i . : . » .. . ; . . ,
( i
; . , . . i . , (
1 .. JM . .
t j. ] i -1 . ; ! i I :*
1 i i : : >^/ ' .;..: :
, ~~x |
' . ' : : . ; i
>-
>
-------
contaminated spread green chop. The effective half-life was estimated
to be 2. 3 days. The curve, after the feeding of contaminated forage
was stopped, declined rapidly from D + 4 to D + 9. During this
period effective half-life was less than one day.
Group IV cows were fed the contaminated fresh green chop for six
days. The results of the milk data are tabulated in Table 27 and the
values are plotted in Figure 26. The highest pCi/1 in milk was
recorded as 3. 5E4 from cow 44 on D + 2. The average milk production
for the four cows for each milking ranged from 4.9 to 10. 2 liters.
Cow 43's milk production was stopped on D + 7 due to an acute attack
of mastitis. The curve as shown in Figure 26 shows the time variation
of activity during and aft er feeding of contaminated feed. The effective
half-life during feeding was 3. 0 days. Immediately after the removal
of contaminated feed, the curve declined rapidly for seven days, and
the half-life during this time was less than one day.
TV Discussion
In all experimental groups, the effective half-life, after the removal
of contaminated feed or after inhalation, was less than one day.
The contaminated forage fed to cows was continued for four to six
days and the effective half-life during the feeding period was 2. 3
to 3.0 days. This finding implies that, for cows on the same diet
(green chop, hay and grain), there is no significant difference in
the kinetics of secretion of l 3 11 in milk for the three different types
of ingested contaminated feed used in this study.
In order to determine the relative values of the milk secretion of
1 31I from different types of contaminated forage, the ratios of the
average daily peak activity in milk to the average daily peak in
each type of forage -were calculated. The results of these calculations
are shown in Table 28. Group II cows, receiving the contaminated
132
-------
spread hay, gave a ratio of 0. 27, the contaminated spread green chop
Group III cows gave 0. 0086 and the fresh contaminated green chop
group was calculated to have a 0. 0081 ratio. The spread and fresh
green chop ratios were similar; whereas, the spread hay ratio was
considerable higher.
It is apparent that radioactive iodine from the spread and fresh green
chop was not as available to the cow. A possible explanation is that
the grass was binding the 1 3 * I within or on the plant itself or perhaps
some unknown factor was operating.
The percent of iodine secretion in milk from the total intake of
contaminated feed was calculated for all cows and the results are
shown in Table 29. The group II cows, receiving the contaminated
spread hay, secreted 6. 3% in the milk; -while 2. 0% was recorded for
the Group III cows which received the spread green chop. The fresh
green chop fed to Group IV cows resulted in a 2. 1% secretion in milk.
The low secretion of the two latter groups indicates that radioactive
iodine was not taken up as readily as in the first group (Group II).
This evidence substantiates the milk to grass ratios as recorded in
Table 28.
Table 30 presents, for specified milkings, the maximum and minimum
values of 1 31I measured in the milk of different cows -within each group
together with the milk production and PBI values for the cows exhibiting
the extremes. The largest ratio between the maximum and minimum values
occurred at the a. m. milking on October 4 in Group II, and was 13. 1.
At the 5% confidence level there is no difference in the average maximum/
minumum ratios for Groups I and II. Groups I and II are significantly
larger than Group IV. Group III is significantly larger than Groups I,
II and IV. A possible implication of the large value for Group III is
that the J 31I activity on the forage fed Group III cows , spread green
133
-------
Table 28. Ratios of average daily peak pCi/liter in milk and average
daily peak pCi/kg in feed.
Average Daily Peak
Group pCi/liter in Milk
II 1.1E4
III 1 . 2E4
IV 2. 2E4
Average Daily Peak
pCi/kg Feed Ratio
4. IE5 0.027
1.4E6* 0.0086
2.7E6 0.0081
* This peak value represents a combination of the first two days
measured values. Since the spread green chop was not subject
to any possible recontamination of the order observed, it is in-
conceivable that the levels actually increased from D to D + 1
by the amount observed. It follows that sampling errors must
have been the cause of this anomaly. Therefore, to obtain a
"best" average peak daily level, the second day's value was
extrapolated back to D day and then the two results were averaged
to give the value recorded in the table, (see Figure 30.)
134
-------
Table 29. Percent of iodine secreted in milk.
Group Cow
II 1Z
19
21
25
III 15
18
27
29
IV 43*
44
45
48
Milk Secretion Feed
Total pCi Total pCi
1. IE6
3.4E5
4.8E5
7.8E5
Average
1. 2E6
4. IE5
9.5E5
4.4E5
Average
1. 2E6
1.6E6
6.8E5
1.6E6
Average
11. 7E6
13.4E6
7. OE6
12. IE6
4.6E7
2.6E7
7.5E7
1. 7E7
5.6E7
8.5E7
4.4E7
5.6E7
in Milk
9.4
2.5
6.9
6.4
6. 3%
2.6
1.6
1. 3
2.6
2.0%
2.1
1.9
1.5
2.9
2.1%
* This cow had an acute attack of mastitis after D + 7
135
-------
Table 30.
Range of ! 3 l
lvalues for individual cows within groups (October, 1965).
OJ
Date
Am or
PM
Group
4 PM
5 AM
5 PM
6 AM
6 PM
7 AM
Averaj
Group
4 PM
5 AM
5 PM
6 AM
6 PM
7 AM
7 PM
8 AM
8 PM
9 AM
9 PM
10 AM
10 PM
11 AM
11 PM
12 AM
12 PM
Maximum
(pCi/1)
I Cows
1, 157
615
521
268
215
77
?e
II Cows
17, 000
29, 000
26,000
15,000
18, 000
8,800
22, 000
8,800
14,000
9,100
5,800
6,400
3,700
2, 200
1,400
850
580
Cow
46
46
46
46
46
46
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
21
12
12
12
12
21
21
Milk
Produced
(liters)
8. 3
9.7
6. 1
9.7
5. 7
12. 3
8. 6 + 2.6
4.4
7.9
4.0
7.5
4.4
6. 1
5. 3
7.9
4.8
6.6
4.0
10. 1
4.4
7.0
4.0
8. 3
5.7
PBI
3.05
3. 05
3.05
3. 05
3.05
3.05
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.25
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.25
2.25
Minimum
(pCi/1)
366
144
136
49
65
29
1, 300
3, 300
5,900
5, 500
5, 200
4, 000
3, 100
3,800
3,400
2,700
1,700
2,800
1,300
850
590
230
120
Cow
47
47
1
1
5
1
25
25
21
25
21
25
21
25
21
19
12
19
21
25
19
19
19
Milk
Produced
(liters)
8.8
11.4
7.9
16.2
3. 5
16. 3
10.7 + 5. 3
14.0
16.7
6.1
18.4
5.7
17. 1
5.7
19.8
4.8
7. 5
2.6
9.2
4.8
18. 0
4.0
6.6
4.4
PBI
2.97
2.97
2. 70
2.70
3. 15
2. 70
2.00
2. 00
2. 25
2.00
2.25
2. 00
2.25
2.00
2. 25
2.75
2.80
2.75
2.25
2. 00
2.75
2.75
2.75
Max/Min
3.2
4. 3
3.8
5. 5
3. 3
2.7
.3.8 + ]. 0
13. 1
8.9
4.4
2.7
3. 5
2. 2
7. 1
2. 3
4. 1
3.4
3.4
2.3
2.8
2.6
2.4
3. 7
4.8
Average
(table 30 cont.)
6.0 + 1.0
9. 7 + 3. 1
4. 3
1.
-------
e 30. Range of 131I values for individual cows
(October, 1965).
"hin groups
(cont. )
Date
AM or
PM
Group III
4 PM
5 AM
5 PM
6 AM
6 PM
7 AM
7 PM
8 AM
8 PM
9 AM
9 PM
10 AM
10 PM
Average
Group IV
4 PM
5 AM
5 PM
6 AM
6 PM
7 AM
7 PM
8 AM
8 PM
9 AM
9 PM
Maximum
(pCi/1)
Cows
13,000
14, 000
28,000
19, 000
29, 000
17,000
23,000
14, 000
9,900
5, 700
4,700
2,300
1,400
Cows
21,000
23, ooo
27, 000
33,000
35,000
19, 000
19, 000
14, 000
18, 000
13, 000
14,000
Cow
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
44
44
43
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
Milk
Produced
(liters)
6. 1
7.9
4.8
8. 3
5. 7
7. 0
6. 1
7.9
6.6
8.8
6.1
9.7
5. 3
6.9 + 0.9
7.9
7. 5
4.8
7.9
4.4
4.4
7.0
6.6
5. 3
6.6
5. 3
P 131
2.25
2.25
2.25
2. 25
2. 25
2.25
2. 25
2.25
2. 25
2. 25
2. 25
2. 25
2.25
3.42
3.42
2.75
3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42
3.42
Minimum
(pCi/1)
1,800
2,800
4,200
3,400
4, 500
3, 300
4,700
2,000
1,700
1, 200
860
450
110
5, 100
8,700
14,000
13,000
14,000
8,800
6,800
4,600
7,300
5,000
8,800
Cow
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
48
45
48
48
48
48
48
43
45
45
45
43
Milk
Produced
(liters)
14. 5
16.7
8.8
19.3
11.4
13. 2
14.9
17. 1
11.4
15.8
15.4
18. 0
11.9
14. 5+1.8
11.9
6.6*
14. 5*
8. 3
12.3
9.2
13.2
6.6
5. 3
4.8
4.8
7.0
PBI
2. 00
2. 00
2.00
2.00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2.00
2. 52
4.00
2. 52
2. 52
2. 52
2. 52
2.52
2.75
4. 00
4.00
4. 00
2.75
Max/Min
7. 2
5. 0
6.7
5.6
6.4
5.2
4.9
7. 0
5.8
4.8
5. 5
5. 1
12.7
6. 3 + 1.3
4. 1
2.6
1.9
2. 5
2. 5
2. 2
2.8
3.0
2.5
2.6
1.6
(table 30 cont. )
-------
oo
Table 30. Range of 31I values for individual cows within groups
(October, 1965).
(cont.)
Date
Am or
PM
Group IV
10 AM
10 PM
11 AM
11 PM
12 AM
12 PM
13 AM
13 PM
14 AM
14 PM
15 AM
15 PM
Average
Maximum
(pCi/1)
Cows (cont. )
15,000
7,600
4, 200
3, 100
2,000
640
860
580
380
360
260
210
Cow
43
44
48
48
48
44
48
48
48
48
48
48
Grand Average
Milk
Produced
(liters)
2. 2
4.4
14. 0
11.4
15.8
3. 5
14.9
10. 5
13.2
10. 1
13.6
9.7
8. 3 + 1.7
7.4
PBI
2.75
3.42
2. 52
2.52
2. 52
3.42
2. 52
2. 52
2. 52
2. 52
2.52
2. 52
Minimum
(pCi/1)
7, 000
5,900
2,600
1,700
570
140
330
210
160
140
89
110
Cow
45
45
45
45
45
48
45
45
45
45
45
45
Milk
Produced
(liters)
4.8
4.4
6.6
4.4
4. 0
9.2
7. 0
4. 0
5.7
3. 5
5. 3
4.0
6.8 + 1.3
9.7
PBI
4.00
4. 00
4. 00
4. 00
4. 00
2. 52
4.00
4.00
4. 00
4. 00
4. 00
4.00
Max /Min
2. 1
1. 3
1.6
1.8
3. 5
4.6
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.9
1.9
2. 5 + 0.4
4. 0
The 95% confidence interval of the mean is given for all averages except the grand average.
* These two values -were averaged and treated as a datum.
-------
chop, was not as uniformly distributed as it -was in the other cases.
If one compares the amount of milk produced by the cow having the
maximum 1 31I concentration in its milk to the amount of milk produced
by the cow having the minimum 1 31I concentration for each milking an
interesting qualitative finding emerges. For Groups I, II and III
combined, in 29 cases out of 36 the cow exhibiting the minimum l 31I
in the milk had the larger milk production. However, for Group IV
cows, in 14 out of 24 comparisons the cow exhibiting the minimum
1 31I in the milk had the smaller milk production. These apparently
contradictory observations imply that there might be some basic
difference in the -way Group IV cows metabolized l 31I compared to
the other groups.
Figure 30 presents a plot of average daily concentrations of 1 31I
in the different forages used in this study. A least squares fit
indicates an Effective half-life for hay of 5.4 days and for fresh green
chop of 3. 6 days. Due to the limited number of points and the great
scatter, it was not possible to determine a reliable effective half-life
for spread green chop.
For the inhalation cows, Group I, it is possible to estimate the percent
retention of the 1 31I if one makes certain assumptions.
Assume:
4
(1) The average inhalation cow breathed 106 liters/min.
(2) The average of the two air samplers operating on each
side of the inhalation cows gives a representative integrated
air dose for the average inhalation cow exposure.
(3) An average of 6. 3 percent of the total 1 31I uptake in the
inhalation cows was secreted in the milk. (This is the
average of Group II cows. )
The calculation goes as follows:
139
-------
Or- O (is/V!if If
.4
-fl
-y5i
JJA -^
-------
106 liters/min = 1.8E-3m3/sec by a simple conversion.
The average inhalation exposure, using assumption (2), is
(72. 35 + 4.71) E7 = 38. 5E7 pCi-sec. It follows that the
2 j-,-,3
exposure for an average cow was (38. 5E7 pCi-sec)
(1.8E-3m3/sec) = 6.7E5 pCi.
rrr
From data in Table 26 the total 1 31I output of all cows of Group I
is calculated to be 5. 5E4 pCi. Thus, the average total J 31I single cow
out-put was 5. 5E4 = 1.4E4 pCi. Using assumption (3), the total 131I
4 i 4"F4
retained in a average cow of Group I was ^~* = 2. 2E pCi. Finally,
. 063
the percent uptake is calculated to be 2. 2E5 pCi ,, nr^ ^
6.7E5 pCi(1°0) - 33/°
The peak value of l 31I in the inhalation cows, Group I, was 1. 2E3 pCi/1;
whereas, in the fresh green chop cows, Group IV, the peak was 3. 5E4 .
Thus the ratio is 3. 5E4 = 29. Since this study was conducted under
meterological conditions which probably maximized deposition and
minimized inhalation uptake (the most dense visible cloud of aerosol did
not reach as high as the muzzles of the inhalation cows), this ratio of
29 to 1 for peak 1 31I concentrations in the milk of cows fed fresh green
chop comparedto that of inhalation cows is probably a maximum. In
future studies we plan to raise our aerosol generation nozzles to a
higher level and we speculate that, when this is done the 29 to 1 ratio
will decrease; i. e. , the inhalation uptake maximum * 31I concentration
in milk will constitute a greater fraction of the maximum 1 311
concentration in milk of cows obtaining their l 31I from fresh contam-
inated green chop.
V. Summary
To summarize the experiment Table 31 was prepared to record the
values of intrest in one table.
1. The peak values of 1 31I activity in milk of inhalation cows were
found in the first milking 10 hours after inhalation and these values
declined rapidly with an effective half-life of 0. 8 day. The ratio of
141
-------
Table 31. Summary of averages for feed and milk results.
Highest
Time of Average
Peak Daily
Value Value
in Milk in Milk
T f for Milk
eff
Ratio of
Average pCi/kg in Feed T
Gil
for
After Average
Uncont. Cont.
. Feeding Daily Peaks %
Green Forage ur*ng stopped Milk pCi/1 131I
Group
Green
Description Hours pCi/1 Hay Chop Hay Chop days days""5 day Feed pCi/kg In Milk
Inhalation
cows
10 5.9E2 291 359
0.8
II Fed Contami-
nated Spread
Hay
24 LIE4 231 749 2. 7E5
5.4 2.7
< 1
0. 027
6.3
III Fed Contami-
nated Spread
Green Chop
48 1.2E4 276 259
2.3
< 1
0.0086
2. 0
Fed Contami-
nated Fresh
Green Chop
Control Cows
48 2. 2E4
3.7E
2 ..,
226 259
483 528
1.5E6 3.6 3.0
< 1
0.0081
2. 1
* This value was observed on D + 7 due to a possible I excursion at Well 3, NTS.
-------
the peak value in milk of inhalation cows to that of fresh green chop
ingestion cows was 1/29.
2. The contaminated spread and fresh green chop fed to cows led to
similar 1 31I secretion in milk as indicated by the milk to grass
activity ratios of 0.0086 and 0.0081 and an effective half-life during
feeding of 3. 0 and 2. 3 days respectively.
3. The cows did not metabolize the 1 31I in spread and fresh contaminated
green chop in the same manner or to the same extent as that in spread
hay as indicated by differences of the milk to grass ratios. There was
no apparent difference, however, in Effective half-lives during
feeding for the three cases.
4. The percent secretion in milk resulting from feeding spread and
fresh grass was different from the spread hay as indicated by the
2. 0 and 2. 1% figures for the former groups compared to 6. 3%
for the latter group. This evidence substantiates the different
milk to grass ratios indicated above.
5. In view of the observed levels in the control forage samples, it
is apparent that a small * 31I excursion of unknown description took
place at Well 3, NTS, during the experiment.
143
-------
SPREAD HAY AND GREEN CHOP DEPTH STUDY
Ken Brown
I. Objective
To compare levels and depth of penetration of 131I at selected
layers in hay and green chop stacks.
II. Procedure
The hay used for the depth study was grown at Milford, Utah,
procurred from a local source, and stored at the dairy barn at
Well 3 until used. Nine bales of hay were used with a com-
bined estimated net weight of 900 pounds. The green chop used
was Sorghum sudanense grown at Area 15 Experimental Farm.
The estimated net weight of the fresh cut green chop was 2000
pounds. A chemical analysis was run on a sample of this hay.
Results are shown in Table 32.
The hay was unbaled and spread on a plastic sheet as was the
green chop. The dimensions of the two stacks were identical;
both measured 6 meters in length, 4 meters in -width and 30 cen-
timeters in depth. The areas chosen for the hay and green chop
stacks are shown in Figure 3.
The hay stack was prepared for study by using, as depth spacers,
two-inch mesh chicken wire pre-cut into one meter square
sections. Three wire spacers were placed at each corner and
three in the center of the stack to provide unmixed samples
from each position. They were placed to divide the 30 cm depth
of the stack into three equal portions. A lettered wooden stake
placed at each corner and in the center served as a means of
144
-------
identifying the location within the stack.
Table 32. Chemical analysis of hay used for Project Hayseed.
Protein 16.80%
Fat 2.46%
Crude fiber 22. 71%
Crude Ash 6. 73%
Moisture 8. 64%
Digestible protein 15.80%
Total digestible protein 54.60%
Carotene
Mg/pound 55. 0
Parts per million 122. 0
International units 91685. 0
Analysis by Morse Laboratories, California
Green chop was freshly cut and stacked identically to the hay
stack. A large piece of plastic sheet was spread over both stacks
to protect the vegetation from irrigation water. (Normal irri-
gation was carried out for the duration of this project. )
III. Sampling
One background sample was taken from the hay stack. This
sample, taken at random, included representative portions from
each layer. One background sample was also taken from the
green chop stack. This sample was taken in the same way the
hay background sample was taken.
Fifteen samples from each stack were collected following the
aerosol release. Three samples were taken from each corner
and three from the center. One sample was taken at each depth.
145
-------
The person collecting at one depth continued to collect all sam-
ples at that same depth using the same hand. This procedure
was duplicated for each different depth using a different hand or
clean glove so that cross-contamination between layers was kept
at a minimum. The wire spacers served as a means of quick
identification and collection of samples at the selected sampling
depths.
IV. Results
The results shown on the following diagrams are for iodine
activity expressed as pCi/kg. The percentages shown repre-
sent the amount of l 3 * I found at that particular sampling
location. The uppermost figure represents the top layer,
the middle figure represents the second layer, and the bottom
figure, the third layer.
V. Discussion
A comparison of the results from the two stacks shows a greater
deposition of 1 3 1 I on the top layer of the green chop stack. This
could be due to the much greater density of the green chop since
the hay stack had more deposition on the bottom two layers than
did the green chop.
It is suspected that cross-contamination between layers in the
hay was much greater than that in the green chop. Radioactive
particles on the dry, and somewhat brittle, surface of the hay
would have more of a tendency to drop off and contaminate
lower layers during sample collection.
Improvements of techniques for the future will include weighing
exactly the amount of hay and green chop used. A smaller mesh
chicken wire for separating the different layers will be used in
the future to impede the falling through of radioactive pieces of
hay and green chop during sample collection.
146
-------
131
FIGURE 28
RESULTS of HAI DEPTH STUDY
LOCATION
TOTAL ACTIVITY
TOP LAYER
MIDDLE LAYER
BOTTOM LAYER
Stake N
Stake 0
Stake P
Stake Q
Stake R
1.02 x 106
1.55 x 106
2.35 x 106
1.89 x 106
1.35 x 106
77. C$ r 7.85xl05
77.1$ = I.l9xl06
93.3$ = 2.19xl06
90.8$ - 1.72xl06
83.8$ = 1.13xl06
19.136 = 1.95xl05
15.9$ = 2.48x105
3.9$ r 9.1^x10^
3.3$ = 6.16x10^
8.4$ = 1.12xl05
3.9$ = 3.95x10^
7.0$ = 1.07xl05
2.8$ = 6.51x10^
5.9$ = 1.12xl05
7.8$ = 1.05xl05
Top layer average - 86.0$
Second layer average = 8.7$
Third layer average = 5.3$
All above data in pCi/kg
l.U x
8.60 x
10b pCi/kg
105 pCi/kg
104 pCi/kg
-------
131
FIGURE 29
RESULTS of GREEN CHOP DKPTH STUDY
LOCATION
TOTAL ACTIVITY
TOP LAYER
MIDDLE LAYER
Top layer average = 98.0Q&
Second layer average * 1.4-4$
Third layer average = 0.90
-------
SOIL AND NATURAL VEGETATION STUDY
E. M. Daley
I, Objective
To determine the direction and extent of contamination beyond
the boundaries of the farm caused by the release of the l 31I
aerosol. Soil and natural vegetation samples were used as an
indication.
II. Procedure
Undisturbed soil samples were taken from the top layer of
soil with a surface soil sampler having an area of 22. 50 cm
by 15. 20 cm and a depth of 1. 27 cm. The samples were placed
in cottage cheese containers, sealed and labeled for counting.
Natural vegetation samples of 200 grams, of which at least
75 percent were leaves of the plant, were taken at distances
of 100m, 150m and 200m from the line of generators. Samples
were taken by breaking the vegetation off by hand. Samples
were then placed in plastic bags, sealed and labeled for
counting.
Each type of sample was taken from five sampling areas located
outside the boundaries of the farm, downwind from the aerosol
generators.
!
HI. Results
All of the samples yielded negative results, when compared to
similar samples collected two days prior to the release, except
for those collected in an area 100m south of the aerosol gener-
ators, as shown in the following tabulation:
149
-------
Results of Soil and Vegetation Sampling
Type of sample Location I pCi/kg
100m south of the , 3
Soil , 3.8x10
line of generators.
100m south of the ,
Vegetation ,. 8. 9 x 104
line of generators
IV. Discussion
The vegetation sample showing the increase was Russian thistle
(Salsola Kali) which was growing 100 meters south of the line
of generators. Russian thistle is an annual. The other species
collected were Rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus Viscidiflorus) and
four-winged salt bush (Atriplex Canescens) which are perennials.
The soil sample showing an increased activity was taken from
the same area as the Russian thistle samples.
V. Summary and conclusions.
Samples of soil and natural vegetation were taken outside of the
boundaries of the farm in Area 15 to determine the direction and
extent of contamination beyond the farm proper.
From data obtained it can be assumed that the release was almost
completely contained on the farm and no significant contamination
extended as far as 150m from the line of generators.
150
-------
PASTURE CONTAMINATION
V. W. Randecker
I. Introduction
Once a day for six days after the release of the aerosol, the
Sudan grass in the experimental plot was cut by a forage chopper
and thrown into a self-unloading forage box which trailed the
forage chopper. At the end of the six day period, the supply of
Sudan grass in the plot was exhausted (See Figure 30).
II. Objectives
1. To determine the change caused by irrigation in * 31I
activity on the growing Sudan grass.
2. To determine the change caused by the mechanical
cutting and transportation processes in J 3ll activity
on the growing Sudan grass.
III. Procedure
To accomplish the first objective, Sudan grass samples were
obtained in the contaminated plot within a one meter radius of
sixteen stakes (2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29
and 31). Samples were taken at three different times: D + 1 hour,
D + 32 hours and D + 80 hours. These times correspond to
sampling just after the release of the aerosol and just after the
first and second post-aerosol release irrigations. After the
third set of samples was acquired, sampling ceased because
of the limited number of stations at which uncut grass was still
within a one meter radius.
151
-------
Figure 3G- Daily Cutting of the Contaminated Sudan Grass
D+5
D+3
D+2
D day
Scale: 1" = 5 meters
-------
To accomplish the second objective, every day just prior to the
green chopping of the contaminated Sudan grass, three or more
randomly spaced samples were obtained in the area to be cut.
All samples contained a volume of grass in an area of 40 x 40 cm
and cut to approximately 10 centimeters above the soil level
(the cutting level of the forage chopper). Each sample was pro-
cured by one person encircling a group of stems with his hand
and bringing the stems together at the middle. Another person
cut the plants approximately 10 cm above the soil level with a
pair of shears and the first person placed the grass in his hand
into a plastic bag. This continued until a 40 x 40 cm area had
been cut. The person holding the stems together decontaminated
his hand before obtaining the next sample. This method of
sampling was selected because it minimized dislodging the dia-
tomaceous earth from the plants when sampling. Also, it was
a quick and practical method of sampling.
The l 31 I activity in the samples was calculated by subtracting
the average activity of the background Sudan grass samples from
the gross activity of the samples under a given range of gamma
energie.s. The J 3l I activity in the samples was computed on
both an activity per area and activity per weight basis. In meeting
the first objective, the activity per area basis was used because
of the non-uniformity of density of the Sudan grass in the plot. In
meeting the second objective, the activity per weight basis was
used because the sampling of grass, just before being fed to the
cow, could only be done on a weight basis.
IV. Results and Discussion
The results of this study are tabulated in Tables 33 and 34. The
average of all the stations indicated that the activity on the grass
153
-------
just after the first irrigation (D + 32 hrs. ) was only 16. 5% of
the activity just after the aerosol release (D + 2 hrs. ). For
the row of stakes nearest the aerosol generators there was
an average 90% decrease with the next rows in order away
from the aerosol generators having decreases of 80%, 79%
and 79% or an average 83. 5% decrese. During the irrigation
0. 65 cm of water was sprayed on the area at a rate of 0. 80 cm
per hour. The large variation in percent decreases across the
plot is not surprising since there was a large variation in the
initial deposition of I. The majority of the decrease in
activity was probably caused by the irrigation process.
The average of all the stations indicated that the activity on
the grass just after the second irrigation (D + 80 hrs. ) was 69%
of the activity just after the first irrigation (or a 31% decrease
in activity) with a range in the four rows of stakes between 51%
and 93%. 1. 30 cm of water was applied to the area during this
irrigation at a rate of 0. 8 cm per hour. During the period
between the two sets of samples (two days), the radionuclide
decay of ! 3 l I alone would account for a 16% decrease. It can
be seen that the reduction of activity caused by the second
irrigation after D day was much less than after the first irrigation.
There was an average 151% increase in activity from the time
the grass was cut to the time it was fed to the cattle. The range
of increase was from 101 to 264%. The most probable explana-
tion for this occurrance is that the forage chopper's blades
acted as a large air mover and sucked the l 31I from the surface
of the soil and deposited it on the Sudan grass while the grass
was in the process of being cut. This hypothesis can be
neither supported nor refuted by existing soil and vegetation
data. Further field studies may furnish a basis for interpre-
tation of the data.
154
-------
Table 33. Iodine-131 activity on growing Sudan grass.
Stake
2
4
5
7
10
12
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
Ave rage
D+2 hours
(iCi/m2
10. 01
3. 60
21. 68
4. 39
7. 94
4. 17
18. 00
6.68
5.41
3. 94
3. 38
8. 74
3. 18
5. 54
8. 62
1. 78
7. 31
Activity
H-Ci/kg
6. 50
1. 72
9. 59
2. 88
3. 93
2. 38
8. 55
2.43
3. 21
1.41
1.82
5. 53
1.45
2. 03
3. 74
0. 69
3.61
Ratios between daily
D+32 hours
(j.Ci/m2
2. 00
0. 61
2. 22
1. 07
2. 02
0. 96
1.61
1. 03
1. 18
0.42
0. 89
2. 13
0. 99
1. 12
0.64
0.47
1. 21
activities on
Activity
M-Ci/kg
1. 35
0. 31
1. 53
0. 84
1. 06
0.45
0. 79
0. 74
0. 92
0. 31
0. 53
1. 30
0. 38
0. 65
0.45
0. 32
0. 75
D+80 hours Activity
(j,Ci/m2 (a,Ci/kg
1. 02
0.46
1. 78
1.49
1. 39
0. 50
1.68
0.88
0. 53
0.43
0.45
0. 82
0. 24.
1. 04
0. 65
0. 12
0. 84
growing Sudan gras
0. 70
0. 20
1.45
0. 81
0.87
0. 25
1. 19
0. 52
0.47
0. 15
0. 37
0. 59
0. 20
0. 58
0.49
0. 08
0. 55
s.
Ratio
Row
1
2
3
4
Average
D+2 hours
u.Ci/m2
19.84
8. 14
5. 00
3. 33
7. 31
D+32 hours D+80 hours D+2
|JLCi/m2 (JtCi/m2
1.93
1. 59
1. 03
0. 69
1. 21
1. 73
0. 88
0. 96
0. 35
0. 84
D+32
10
5
4
4
6
hours
hours
. 28
. 11
.85
.82
.04
D+32 hours
D+80 hours
1. 11
1. 80
1. 07
1. 97
1.44
155
-------
Table 34. Iodine-131 activity on fresh cut Sudan grass at time of feeding.
J.31I activity in uCi/kg
Date Cow 43 Cow 44 Cow 45 Cow 48 Average
D+3 hours
D+26 hours
D+50 hours
D+74 hours
D+98 hours
D+122 hours
2. 17
2.48
1. 23
0. 80
1. 18
1. 01
2. 07
2. 52
1. 60
0.88
0. 86
1. 25
1.45
2.98
1. 77
0. 86
0. 95
1.01
1. 62
2. 90
1. 18
0.84
0. 73
0.83
1.83
2.72
1.45
0.85
0.93
1.03
Activity of Sudan grass before being cut for feeding.
1 3l
I activity in
Date
D+2 hours
D+25 hours
D+49 hours
D+73 hours
D+97 hours
Sample
A
0. 69
2. 09
0. 68
0.45
1. 00
Sample
B
1.45
1. 07
0. 31
0. 65
0.44
Sample
C
1.41
2. 03
0. 68
1. 07
1. 32
Sample
D
2. 38
Sample
E
1. 72
Average
1. 53
1. 73
0. 55
0. 72
0. 92
Ratios of activities on Sudan grass (before being cut and being fed).
1 3l I activity in [j.Ci/kg
Date
Average activity
before being cut
Average activity
before being fed
Ratios of activities
before being fed
before being cut
D Day
D + 1
D H
D -:
D H
D H
f- 2
H 3
h 4
h 5
1. 53
1. 73
0. 55
0. 72
0. 92
1. 83
2. 72
1.45
0.85
0. 93
1. 03
1. 20
1.57
2. 64
1.18
1. 01
156
-------
The results of this study could have been more definitive if
more samples had been taken and at closer time intervals.
Although the Sudan grass was a. good collector of the aerosol
compared with other devices, there was a large variation of
activity between samples. Only a large number of samples will
enable the determination of more precise averages. If diato-
maceous earth is used again as a vehicle for radionuclide(s),
spraying the area from which the sample is to be collected with
a very fine mist of water will probably prevent dislodging par-
ticles from the stems and leaves, especially when sampling just
after the release of the aerosol.
V . Summary and Conclusions.
An experiment was conducted to determine any change in I
activity of growing Sudan grass caused by the irrigation, cutting
and transportation processes. The first irrigation was the
major cause of l 31I activity decrease (83. 5%) in a 30 hour period.
The second irrigation caused only 15% decrease even though
twice as much water was used. This suggests that a portion of
the aerosol is more firmly bound to the vegetation. The true
change in activity caused by the cutting and transportation
process, is undeterminable at this time due to a lack of sup-
porting soil and vegetation data. The data indicate that green
chopping added activity to the samples. Further field studies
may furnish a basis for interpretation of the data obtained.
157
-------
THYROID UPTAKE IN CALVES
J. G. Veater
I. Objectives
An examination of results obtained from recent experimental
work performed by the BRP staff indicated that the following
information would be useful:
1. To measure in vivo the uptake of 31I in calves thyroids
as a function of time.
2. To determine if a difference of uptake exists in the
thyroids because the milk consumed came from cows
eating different types of contaminated feed.
3. To compare the use of the detecting device with and
without a collimator to determine the best method for
measuring thyroid activity.
II. Procedure
A. Calf History
Six calves were used for this study. The physical data
on each are shown in Table 35. The calves were arbi-
trarily divided into three units of two, each unit to drink
milk from one of the cow groups (See Table 37). The
calves were housed in separate pens. They -were fed
eight pounds (3. 64 liters) .of milk from individual milk
pails, at 0800 and 1600 hours with each calf receiving
milk from only one cow*. Thus each calf received a
total of sixteen pounds of contaminated milk each day
*One calf, 54, received milk from more than one cow
because of mastitis problems, which led to low milk
production in the assigned cow, 43. For the feeding
schedule for this calf see Table 37.
158
-------
with the exception of the first day, October 4, on which
all calves received only eight pounts. In addition to the
milk, supplemental amounts of hay and grain were pro-
vided. Water was piped into each pen. All calves re-
mained in good health as indicated by physical examina-
tions and body temeratures taken at each day of count.
Table 35. Data on calves.
I. D.
42
49
51
53
54
55
Birth
date
1965
7/18
8/4
8/24 .
9/1
8/30
9/8
Sex
M
F
F
F
M
F
Heart
girth
in.
53
44. 5
41
43
43
43
Weight
Ibs.
428
242
195
215
230
210
Breed
(D
Holstein
Hoi
Her-Hol
Her-Hol
Her-Hol
Hoi
Thyroid
weight
gm (2)
24. 3
13.8
11. 1
12. 2
13. 1
11.9
FBI
H%
5.6
7. 0
6.0
6.7
12. 0
6.8
(1) Hoi = Holstein, Her-Hol = Hereford-Holstein cross
(2) Thyroid wt. (gm) = 0. 125 body wt. (kg.), relationship
established by PHS personnel.
B. Equipment
The analytical equipment consisted of a TMC 400 channel
pulse height analyzer coupled with a 3" Nal crystal. The
crystal was enclosed in a stainless steel, lead lined
assembly with a detachable wide mouth focusing colli-
mator forward from the crystal.. The collimator is
five inches in length and five inches across at the mouth.
All data were recorded on IBM printout sheets and tally
406 punch tape (see Plate 5). The crystal assembly was
attached to a platform mounted yoke welded to a jack.
159
-------
-------
The platform was on wheels. The whole assembly was
designed so that positioning could be accomplished with
a minimum of effort (see Plate 6).
For restraining the animals, a specially designed head
holder was adapted to a modified holding stanchion
(see Plates 7 and 8).
C. Counting
During practice and training sessions we found that the
calves could be effectively restrained for approximately
forty-five minutes. After this length of time they became
restless and were hard to control. Because of this, it
was decided that one four minute and two ten minute counts
would be taken on each animal during each day of count.
The one exception to this was two calves which were
measured twice; once with the collimator on, and once
without. They were still counted for two ten minute
and one four minute counts for each measurement, but
were released between measurements.
The data obtained from the three counts on each calf were
averaged to determine the total pCi in the thyroid.
The thyroid location was established by manual palpation
using the crest of the cricoid cartilage and the first few
tracheal rings as reference points. The crystal was then
positioned so that the thyroid mass was centered six
inches from the face of the crystal with the collimator on.
With the collimator off, the thyroid was centered one inch
from the crystal face. At these distances, the efficien-
cies were calculated to be 1.2% and 10.8% respectively.
161
-------
-------
W... L.'
V
-------
-------
Backgrounds on the calves and equipment were taken on
D-5 and D day. The first feeding of contaminated milk
was on the afternoon of D day. Counting of calves com-
menced on the morning of D + 1 following the morning
feeding. Daily counts continued from D + 1 toD+ 11.
Additional measurements were collected D + 14, D + 16
and D + 18. Background levels were recorded before
the first count and at 1200 hours each day.
III. Results
The results of the calf thyroid measurements are set forth in
Table 36 along with the daily amounts of radioiodine ingested.
A summary of the data is shown in Table 37 and the average
values for five of the calves are shown as curves of activity
versus time in Figure 31. The thyroid measurements of each
calf are plotted as a function of time in Figure 32.
The measurements with and -without collimator indicated that
either method was suitable for determining thyroid activity.
IV. Discussion
The general shape of the thyroid activity versus time curves
was similar for all calves, indicating similar iodine metabolism.
There are differences in detail in these curves, though, which
should be pointed out. The most striking difference is in the
effective half-life which is represented by the portion of the
curves after the peak value is reached. Two distinct slopes are
apparent here. One slope, termed "interim T " in Table 37,
occurred during continued ingestion of activity. An average
value of 12 days can be calculated for this half-life if the two
extreme values of 5 1 days for calf No. 53 and 5.4 days for
calf No. 55 are ignored. The second slope, which occurs at the
165
-------
Table 36. Iodine-131 activity data for calf thyroid study.
Date
Oct. 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Average
Daily In-
ge stion
pCi
4, 760
60, 700
162, 000
63, 700
56,600
60, 500
906
1, 750
920
608
554
382
375
437
349
549
382
419
608
Calf 54
Thyroid
Content
pCi
250
824
2,980
4, 610
8, 580
10, 700
10, 500
10, 200
8, 530
7, 500
6, 150
5, 070
4, 130
3, 160
%
Daily
dose
5. 3
1. 2
1. 3
1. 7
2.8
3. 2
3.4
3.6
3. 2
3. 0
2. 7
2.8
2. 7
2. 5
2.8
Daily In-
gestion
pCi
5, 230
36,400
44, 500
33, 800
24, 100
15, 500
18, 500
11, 200
4, 370
2, 320
1,030
983
783
594
612
471
542
561
1, 000
Calf 42
Thyroid
Content
pCi
1,460
4, 360
8, 050
11, 700
15, 500
12, 000
14, 300
11, 700
13, 100
11, 700
12, 000
8, 070
6, 370
4, 660
%
Daily
dose
27. 9
10. 5
9.8
10. 7
12.4
9.2
10. 3
8.4
9.9
9.5
10.4
8. 8
8. 1
6.9
10. 9
Daily In-
gestion
pCi
4, 760
36,400
45, 100
35, 500
30, 200
30, 100
26, 000
9, 180
3, 000
1, 300
1, 000
794
491
568
564
604
517
765
870
Calf 49
Thyroid
Content
pCi
665
3,960
8,660
16, 000
19, 100
21, 500
21, 900
23, 300
19, 900
19, 000
17, 300
13, 000
9,600
7, 580
%
Daily
dose
14. 0
9. 7
10. 1
13. 5
13. 7
13.6
12.8
14. 0
12. 7
13. 2
13. 0
12. 3
10. 6
9. 7
12.4
(continued)
166
-------
Table 36. Iodine-131 activity data for calf thyroid study, (cont1)
Calf 51
Date
Oct. 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Average
Daily In-
gestion
pCi
6,910
26, 200
29,400
30, 600
15, 100
8, 000
3, 880
2, 550
1, 280
797
885
561
506
360
433
688
680
550
1, 000
Thyroid
Content
pCi
1,
3,
5,
8,
12,
12,
11,
11,
10,
9,
8,
6,
5,
3,
200
170
360
960
100
000
700
100
100
730
210
020
020
890
%
Daily
dose
17. 3
9. 7
9. 0
9.9
13. 0
12. 8
13. 0
12.9
12. 9
13. 1
11.8
10. 9
10. 5
9. 3
11.9
Daily In-
gestion
pCi
13,600
39,400
63, 700
64,400
51, 900
19,800
6, 900
4, 360
1, 500
1, 170
1, 020
681
954
535
542
666
510
590
910
Calf 55
Thyroid
Content
pCi
4,
15,
24,
38,
39,
41,
35,
33,
28,
26,
17,
12,
9,
636
880
300
300
100
200
000
900
500
800
300
400
100
800
%
Daily
dose
4. 7
9.4
13.4
14. 6
18. 5
20. 5
22. 5
20. 9
19. 7
19. 5
19.2
16. 0
13. 0
12. 2
16. 0
Daily In-
gestion
pCi
19, 000
82,800
98,400
71,400
71,400
63, 500
50, 200
30, 100
14, 100
6, 350
3,470
2, 320
1,690
1, 310
1, 130
1, 060
1, 040
899
1, 070
Calf 53
Thyroid
Content
pCi
1, 540
6,600
16,600
29, 500
41, 900
47, 900
53, 100
51, 100
52, 500
50,400
51, 300
39, 700
29, 000
24, 000
%
Daily
dose
8. 1
6.6
8. 7
12. 0
14. 0
14. 2
14. 7
14. 1
15. 1
15. 5
16.9
16.5
14. 1
13.6
13. 2
167
-------
Table 37. Summary of calf data.
Milk
Calf from Cow fed Calf PBI Peak thyroid
No. cow 1^8% Peak in milk
No.
42 21 Hay 5.6 0.62
49 25 Hay 7.0 0.84
51 29 Spread green ^ Q ^ ?3
chop
55 27 Spread green ^ g ^Q6
chop
53 48 Fresh green ^ ? ^ Q5
chop
54 43* Fresh green ^ Q Q^2
chop
*The feeding schedule for Calf 54 is given below:
Date Pounds fed
Oct. 4p.m. 8
5 a. m. 6
5 p. m. 5
3
6 a. m. 8
6 p. m. 5
3
7-9 a.m. and p.m. 16
10-22 a.m. and p.m. 16
Interim
Average ^ T
% uptake
Days Days
10.9 11 5.2
12.4 15 5.8
11.9 11 6.2
16.0 5.4 5.2
13.2 51 6.4
2.8 12 6.1
Milk from cow No.
25
45
24
43
43
24
43
43
24
Total
dose
thyroid
rads
0. 10
0. 21
0. 16
0.47
0. 92
0. 11
168
-------
t
o: u
a
TL-
-------
.__L_ii
-2^-n^h
... i-p-H-p
_J_i_i_i :^4_vl4i.
^HH^HH-HH-'-K-H^F^
_J_Lu_a_U-H -4-^-.^.-^
7t+H=
Etrirr-a
pr-±i;
4z
s "sj pm
[£ \ffi33
m
-T-^-I!!
!+
a j B
H w *
j. w !/:
*fc4±
4=t:
'ttztfct
hCFH
S
._> -I ^ ^.j-l-,j-4-. ^..U^p-j" ;
- ' '- .:~L^.|L--J1-ti 4~--j-
mpurmj
T-i~tt
-J--
im,^
Mfc-H
13TK
U4_
^^
EJiat
l'4-i--
II [-. -H
jj:ij_L_|j_i_l_
^-U-JIUL
/Ml miL_.
Elilli=
3:
£S
4..
4rt :rt
W.L~ H-
r.mr
riEiH'E
S-rt?/
-i,..-.,. , I...I -J. J
.Uf,.tlH,-^i^-~-^
4:
-4-:-4-
V(~
^]
£m+=
HEfEjE^EEtl
±g±
-^^-Ttfi~4==S4^K-rt«'-jii=4=4s^.Tir
.](--.u,,,*- i S-TT^::.:;. _ .|^J .. . y^
, L -r^ i n^ i i - , ; :
*r
rjJrtt;
^1^3
ir: =j::j^.-pt_
t^Uii^*?^t:
T---5T4
ffHNri
i-!--^-i- .1- ._
HMfeiij^^- ! -N-j ^:^fe]iHf%l|i^ t&j^i H:irii|iS^
-t- -i i 1 ! f--,,.- -i '. \-\ -- Z- 4..".»=N^,.-, _.'-._:.:..,..(.. - - ..t - - - t I r- ; - - ' - -f - i -- i- -- j - {--. - | . j- - i-_ .- ' _ '.. -.-1 -_...} . i - -i -;. -'. «- . - i : . I l i-.-i. _ j. ._.;.. ..,..-,.-. * , ! i _,. ._ i. /- - --- - .--,.- j- . _ - '. . ;
1 -- - . - --| '- : -'- ' -' .. j- i . ;- _ i L . '=&.*,__:- _ '. -. ..(,., .1. - : - - . ) - 1 - - ; j i t i 1 ' .. ' .. - \ .. .; ..._!_;-'------- j . - (. - * - - - i -- ' t - j - '-- r -,--.- J - ~ - - -- i -,- - ~~ - ' - 1 - - \ ' ' "- -- -
T~->-...'... ~l -- i --;--. "^iv'K : __ _"_; ' ".. .:_ . j. ! ...;.*. ~ . . ..... .. i "Ti _.;.>_]. , ..*! "^i? 3;_. H " T-Jt :.. ~.T! T ". . ["r"!"""" !T.7~T^" ! " - . J_. . *~ \. ., . . - -.- I ;.....-_ 4---.- I ".__~7. .; ._, . 1 . : -'....^1.
8
! '7
' \ ^t^__ ___ ^ I. . _ _ ' _^ _ HS?%ft^1|f:if^
...i .rT7:0-,
1T^"._X i--
E}r:
EtjEEf?
.-^_rz3_^iit- -
E§^P
"^"
s
:::^;S--.-:.: Lrt.j. ' "" ' ' " " """ ~ ~ ---..-...
^i.
_ .; _ j , _J_-
.sajr-i: i T«~..-: .--i-.-, .- .--- --| - .:- _-- ;... ; .-:-t....-4, - 1-
fii.-EFi^^r:-^ 34^3^f--£^qT-
+i.
:IL
,.t,..L
':t[itt:
~&l=r:
---3.2-
- r-. , ----j--' : -":-f .---i--t--7-i-r-i.-- -T r-J--.-. -i-; | ~;-r --,--J- --.- < .--j- - ---L-:..f j..^-4-.^-| , -i-j-,-
»cjr ! ,-i-.._...T-i-|_i_; r.^..i (.-|_H._;__,. ,.. t_* ,.-.[._, i 1!!- T--! -| ii-^I j 1 {
;"bi^.-::J'
-4-'
-v";Kt;-:- J--;
^-H^±-P*-". :-Lt±^-- --'"N^-iii; ^'~
_J-4-
S3
"|"T jthl Jl4"7l~'T±r "T"+"f"" T'1"
3S
_) _ t_
:ti:r
i.
^^
//^
^
-:rb::.pr-
44^4.
._.LHJ
**~3>.
~t3±ff-
.-:-.:_-:-;- i I
-r-1:-- ; 9
- r~-H B
-' ! 7
i i I i : i ' i
-i-j-p- p -j ; r
MT
;±
u ";:'13~1 ~i :U'"4-'
_'j_:..rr]. t-'t" -i -1
.TFH^ji^f
-1-*-: j j-l-t-1
:-:h::r;-p:rir:
-I-; : !
,"--L:r r:"i-::T-I5 V.'r
v/<$.
vvy
11. L
rvi-j- |-.|-i--r--t
-i:-r+rFferi
..,._.._
:pp
-r-r-l-t-t-r
_i_L
3T
'! h
-------
end of the curve, probably represents the true effective half-
life as. the activity added through ingestion here is minimal.
The average value here is 5. 8 days.
The data for calf No. 54 are difficult to interpret. One reason
for this is that the source of milk for this calf was varied
because of mastitis in the cow and insufficient milk production.
The high PBI, indicative of a possible hyperthyroid condition,
combined with the low thyroid uptake of a 2. 8%, generally con-
strued to be indicative of a hypothyroid condition, seem to be
contradictory. We have no explanation for this apparent
anomaly. The consistent data obtained for the other five calves
tend to eliminate measurement error from consideration as a
significant contributory factor to this observation.
The percent thyroid uptake by the calves was calculated by
dividing the thyroid content of any given day by the decay cor-
rected amount of 131I ingested up to 24 hours previous to the
thyroid measurement. This type of calculation assumes that
most of the uptake occurs by 24 hours after ingestion and treats
all previously ingested radioiodine as if it were given as a single
dose 24 hours before the thyroid measurement. The relatively
constant percent uptake (% Daily Dose in Table 36) suggests that
there is no serious error in this method of calculation. Whether
the average percent uptake is correct or not for these calves
would have to be determined by single dose studies in them.
The infinite beta and gamma dose to the thyroid was calculated
for each calf based on the thyroid measurements. The equations
used were:
171
-------
(1) R = 51. 2 EC + R =1.1 (51. 2EC) rads/day(5)
(2) R = 119C rads(6)
(3+Y
Where E is the average energy of the beta particles in Mev
(0. 19 Mev) and C is the iodine concentration in |j.Ci/g. the
daily gamma dose, Equation (1), is assumed to be 10% of the
beta dose. Equation (2) gives the infinite dose for a concen-
tration of C (aCi/g.
Using the activity measured in the thyroid each day (Table 36)
and the estimated thyroid weight, the daily dose to the thyroid
was calculated with Equation (1). The final thyroid measure-
ment on D + 18 was used in Equation (2) to calculate the in-
finite dose from that point onward. The sum of these doses
then gives the total dose estimate shown in Table 37.
Doses for all calves except calf 54 were predicted by the methods
of FRC Report 5 for comparison with our dose estimates. In
particular, the peak value of daily ingested dose in pCi for each
calf was used in conjunction with the estimated thyroid weight
for the same calf to perform each calculation. A sample cal-
culation is given below for Calf 42. From FRC Report 5, 8.4E
pCi131Ipeak ingested daily amount leads to a predicted infinite
dose to a 2g human thyroid of 1 rad. Assuming that the same
relationship holds for calves and noting from Table 37 that the
peak ingested daily amount for calf 42, whose thyroid weighs
4
24. 3 g, was 4. 45E pCi : 31I leads to the following dose estimate:
The doses for the other calves were calculated in similar fashion.
Results obtained are presented in Table 38. It can be seen that,
on the average, the FRC estimate is 3.4 times our calculated
172
-------
estimate. Thus, for the experimental conditions of this study,
the FRC estimates are quite conservative. Part of the dis-
crepancy between our dose estimates and FRC dose estimates
is accounted for by noting that the effective half-life in the
<
milk of our study cows was = 3 days whereas the FRC model
assumes an effective half-life in milk of approximately 5 days.
Table 38. Comparison of dosage calculations from this study
with those predicted by Federal Radiation Council
Report 5 (8).
Calf No.
42
49
51
55
53
Our calculated
dose (rads)
0. 10
0.21
0. 16
0.47
0. 92
FRC predicted FRC dose
dose (rads
0.44
0. 78
0.66
1.29
1. 92
) our dose
4.4
3. 7
4. 1
2. 7
2. 1
Average 3.4
V. Summary
A group of six calves was fed milk containing 31I. The milk
was produced by cows fed either hay, spread green chop, or
fresh pasture which had been contaminated by a dry aerosol
tagged with radioiodine. A method was devised for measuring
the thyroid activity of the calves, on a daily basis, which
yielded reasonably consistent data. The data so obtained indi-
cated the following:
1. The iodine metabolism in the calves was independent
of the type of contaminated forage ingested by the cow.
2. The ratio of peak activity in thyroid to peak activity in
milk consumed averaged 0. 86.
173
-------
3. The peak thyroid activity occurred seven days after
the start of ingestion.
4. The effective half-life of the radioiodine in calf thyroids
averaged 5. 8 days.
5. The total doses to the calf thyroids were a factor of
3.4 lower on the average than would have been pre-
dicted on the basis of FRC Report 5.
174
-------
REMOTE MONITORING SYSTEM
R. B. Evans
Introduction
In an effort to formulate models for doses to human populations
from fission-product releases, the Bioenvironmental Research Program
is investigating the transmission of radioiodine through the Biosphere
with particular emphasis on the milk chain portion of the human food
chain. Defining correlations between doses and iodine uptake depends
heavily upon knowing with accuracy not only what activity was present
in the vicinity of experimental animals and forage during a release
but also what deposition conditions existed during tenure of air-borne
activity and the length of this tenure.
The Remote Monitoring System has been developed to measure
activity and deposition parameters as strict functions of time.
The parameters measured are gross gamma levels, concentrations
of air-borne activity, wind velocity and direction and air temperature
as a function of time. The weather parameters are measured at two
levels in an effort to detect and quantitate air turbulance and ambient
temperature, two important and relatively easily-measured factors
influencing deposition. To aid in processing the massive amounts of
data expected, the system "reads out" on computer-compatible
paper tape.
Figure 33 is a block diagram of information flow in the system. The
machine operates in two modes, manual and automatic. The manual
mode is useful for trouble-shooting and servicing; normally the
system operates automatically and periodically gathers data from
all of its sensors. An electronic clock controls and initiates all
175
-------
i
/?/
33 - .i'
V. V /'-
-------
functions of the system through what is labelled the "Master
Programmer". The analog-to-digital (A-D) converter changes all
analog inputs (position of the wind vanes, angular velocity of the
anemometers, resistance of the thermometers, and current of
the ion chambers) into digital representations -which are processed
by the ''Readout Control" and punched out on paper tape.
Before each periodic "interrogation" of the sensors, the Master
Programmer "gates open" the sealers, which count pulses from the
scintillators and G-M tubes for one minute and feed their totals
through the Readout Control onto tape as the Programmer demands.
The system records twelve numbers at each interrogation: wind
direction and -wind velocity at altitudes of one meter and ten
meters, ambient temperature at one meter, the temperature differen-
tial between one meter and ten meters, gross gamma levels as indicated
by two ion chambers, and the count rates from two scintillators and
two G-M tubes.
The two G-M tubes and one of the scintillators are incorporated into
the box labelled "Air Sampler" in Figure 33. Figure 34 breaks this
box down into two sections called "Particulate Sampler" and "Gaseous
Sampler".
Figure 35 is a diagram of the Particulate Sampler. A specially
constructed lead shield contains two G-M tubes which scan a strip
of filter tape fed through the shield by a tape puller mechanism;
the sampled air flows through the tape perpendicular to its face.
An Amperex No. 18550 G-M tube (referred to as the "peanut tube")
is positioned above the section of filter tape in the incident air stream
to watch the buildup of particulate activity.
177
-------
-------
r
f=
C-i* £ c. ,
-------
f
c
.^-*
1
Oui
-------
After a preset number of hours, the section of tape in the air
flow is moved through the shield and positioned under an Amperex
No. 18546 G-M tube (generally referred to as the "pancake tube").
The pancake tube sees the changes in count rate caused by the
build-up of daughter products and the decay of activity on the filter
tape. This gives a measure of the half-life of the particulate activity.
Figure 36 is a diagram of the Gaseous Sampler. After having passed
through the particulate sampler, the sampled air is then filtered
through a cartridge of activated charcoal centered in a shielded
sodium iodide scintillator. The pulses from the scintillator are
fed into a single-channel analyzer which in turn feeds into the
system's sealers.
Time plots of count rates from the "peanut tube" and the scintillator
then provide time profiles of particulate and gaseous air-borne
activity.
The system is housed in a small house trailer which contains a
. propane-powered five kilowatt generator. The weather instruments
are mounted on two masts, one meter and ten meters high.
I. Objectives
To operate the Remote Meteorological and Radiological Monitoring
System in conditions similar to but somewhat more controlled
than those which existed at Station 3, during the Palanquin Event;
I
to run preliminary field tests on the system's particulate sampler;
to measure the effects of low-level cloud "shine" on the through-side-
hole crystal-charcoal cartridge air sampler; to compare the system's
data with other simultaneous measurements by the ESSA (formerly
USWB).
181
-------
II. Procedure
During the week preceding the release, the system was moved into
place, south of the area to be contaminated, and calibrated. The
wind vanes were oriented with the aid of the ESSA personnel and
their theodolite. Ion chambers, G-M tubes, and scintillation counters
were field calibrated.
The particulate air sampler and the scintillation counters were
located externally to the equipment trailer. Two crystals were
used; one through-side-hole -was placed in a shield with 2 inches
of lead shielding to monitor a charcoal cartridge. This shield
was drilled with two 1" holes to allow air passage through the
charcoal cartridge. Another crystal, also a through-side-hole
type, was placed in another shield similar to the first except for
the absence of air passage holes. The second crystal was used as a
"shine" monitor.
The particulate sampler used here was a specially-prepared lead
shield which holds two G-M tubes, one Amperex 18550 and one
Amperex 18546. Hollingsworth and Voss HV-70 tape was used as
a paper prefilter.
One control air sampler was run side-by-side with the system's
air sampler; it used HV-70 as pre-filter and a charcoal cartridge
identical to that monitored by the system.
During the release the system recorded data from all inputs-at
two-minute intervals.
Samples were removed from the system immediately after the run
and placed in plastic bags. Filters were changed and the collected
filters transported to Las Vegas for counting.
182
-------
III. Results
A. General
The system operated satisfactorily from 1300 hours on October 2,
\
to 2300 hours, on October 4. At 2300 hours, the system's clock
malfunctioned, causing the system to advance its indicated time
two hours at each change of the hour until 0900 hours, October 5.
The system then continued without further malfunction for several
days.
During the release the data were transmitted by wire-teletype to
the Hayseed control point in the USPHS barn, enabling administrative
personnel to monitor gross gamma levels directly down wind from
the grid as the release progressed. Data collected by the system
was processed by computer to provide plots of the weather and
ion chamber data and tables of selected variables printed in a
readily understandable format.
Plots of the weather, G-M, and scintillator count-rates during
the release are included at the end of this section.
B. Wind Data
Wind direction and speed were monitored at altitudes of 1. 6
meters and 10 meters by the USPHS, and 1 meter, 3.7 meters and
10 meters by the ESSA.
Figure 37 is a plot of wind direction and wind speed versus time
for the morning of the release.
Figure 38 and Figure 39 are plots comparing the various wind
sensors used. The sensor numbers referred to are the designations
used by the ESSA in its report of meteorological data for the
release. The 1 meter ESSA sensor No. 1 is part of a digital data
183
-------
acquisition system similar to the USPHS system. The other
ESSA wind sensors are analog devices (see Table 39, list of
instrumentation).
The average wind directions and speeds over the period 0532 to
0600 hours, October 4, as indicated by the various sensors in
the field, are given below:
Wind Direction
355
o
358^
346
336C
o
Wind Speed
1. 4 mph
2. 7 mph
3. 2 mph
2. 8 mph
3.1 mph
Sensor No.
1
2=:=
3
4
5*
Sensor No.
1
2*
3
4
5*
Level No. of Points Averaged
1 m
1.6m
3.7 m
10. m
10. m
15
15
29
29
15
Level No. of Points Averaged
1 m
1.6m
3. 7 m
10.
10.
15
15
29
29
15
Indicates USPHS Sensors
There is the expected shear in velocity from ground level to 10
meters, and there also seems to be a shear in direction.
Table 39. List of Instrumentation.
Wind Sensors
No. 1 Berkeley No. V-101 (ESSA)
No. ?., No. 5 Berkeley No. V-101 (USPHS)
No. 3 Beckman and Whitley System No. 170-11 (ESSA)
No. 4 Climet System Cl-3, 540 degree (ESSA)
Temperature
No. 6 Cambridge Model 110 (ESSA)
No. 7 Cambridge Model 110 (ESSA)
No. 8 Cambridge Model 110 (USPHS)
No. 9 Bendix No. 594 (ESSA)
Temperature Difference
No. 10 Cambridge Model 110
(ESSA)
No. 11 Cambridge Model 110
(USPHS)
184
-------
The averages of the three low;-level wind directions fall within
five degrees of one another and the 10 meter sensors average
within 10 degrees. The sensor No. 1 wind speed curve is"smoother"
than the other wind speed plots, probably because the points plotted
are two-minute averages, and because sensor No. 1 is capable of
resolving wind speed to 0. 1 mph, compared with 1 mph resolution
for the other sensors.
C. Temperature Sensors
Figure 40 shows a strong inversion present during the entire
morning with some turbulence present during the actual release.
From the wind data and the inversion plot, it appears that a
better time for release would have been between 0400 and 0500
hours, since both the winds and the inversion were more stable then.
For the period 0530 to 0600 inversion data from both ESSA and
USPHS are plotted; the curves show the same basic "shape" but
differ in magnitude and time correspondence. The two sets of
sensors were separated by more than 200 ft. , which, at the wind
velocities recorded, could explain the lag between curves. The
ESSA low-level transducer was 1 meter from the surface, while the
USPHS lower level was 1. 6 meters, which would explain the smaller
magnitudes observed for the USPHS system.
Figure 41 compares ambient temperature data recorded by sensors
6,7, 8 and 9. Sensors 6, 7 and 8 agree very well in shape, while
the analog Bendix No. 594 ignored most fluctuations. The four
average temperatures for the period 0530 to 0600 are below:
Sensor
6
7
8
9
Level
1 m
1 m
1.6m
1 m
185
Average
o
50.6 F.
o
50.9 F.
o
51.7 F.
o
51.4 F.
-------
D. Radiation Sensors
Figure 42 graphs scintillator and G -M indications. From these
curves the cloud tenure appears to be approximately 20 minutes.
The points plotted are simply the cpm recorded, without efficiencies
taken into account.
Leakage is apparent from the "pancake" (Amperex 18546) G-M curve;
only the "peanut" tube should have indicated a step increase of activity.
Evidently activity migrated from the peanut tube to the pancake cavity.
Also, since the aerosol was designed to contain only particle-bound
activity, little or no activity should have been found in the charcoal
cartridge. At 0745, just before the cartridge was removed, the
scintillator indicated approximately 2200 pCi in the cartridge, pointing
to gross leakage in the prefilter.
The shielded crystal indicated little or no shine. The average count
rate for the period 0400 to 0428, was 115 cpm; for the period 0430
to 0458, 120 cpm; for the period 0500 to 0528, 121 cpm; for the period
0530 to 0628, 119 cpm. Atthe 95% confidence level, these averages
are not significantly different.
The following activities (referred to time of collection) were
found in the system and control samplers and in conventional
samplers near the system:
Ratio of Prefilter
Sampler
System
System
Control
Control
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
Lo-Vol
Lo-Vol
(No.
(No.
(No.
(No.
6)
6)
5)
5)
Filter Type
Prefilter
Cartridge
Prefilter
Cartridge
Prefilter
Cartridge
Prefilter
Cartridge
Activity to Charcoal Cartridge
1.
2.
6.
3.
15.
3.
2.
0.
40
22
20
12
60
52
90
71
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o3
O3
O3
O3
O4
O4
O4
O4
pCi
pCi
pCi
pCi
pCi
pCi
pCi
pCi
0.
1.
4.
4.
630
99
43
08
Evidently there was leakage in both system and control prefilters.
186
-------
The following efficiencies were measured for the detectors for
their respective sample configurations:
Detector Efficiency
Through-side crystal 46%
18546 tube 29%
18550 tube 9.7%
Gross gamma levels during the release were not significantly
different from background, as indicated by both the system ion
chambers and an Eberline RM-11 located near the system.
IV. Conclusions
"Shine" through the shield is not an important contribution to
the count-rate of the scintillator-charcoal-cartridge sampler
for I in this experiment. The present meterological tower
height of 10 meters is sufficient for measurement of strong
inversions over green crops with the existing system. Modifica-
tion of the particulate sampler shield will be necessary to
prevent leakage and migration of activity between G-M tubes.
The system clock proved to be unsatisfactory and was modified.
System weather data compares favorabley with that from existing
analog devices used by the Environmental Science Services
Administration (Weather Bureau).
187
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
:;p
:±l±ti±
i i : l i- -
~r-T-r-t- -rTTT-ir -i-
-HH±-
4444-
ffi
f-Hrt
ttft
-------
V
-------
RESERVOIR WATER SAMPLING
K. W. Brown
I.. Objective
To determine if the growing Sudan grass was being recontaminated
during normal crop irrigation.
II. Procedure
One gallon water samples from the surface of the reservoir, the
source of the irrigation water, were collected as follows:
D-3 One background sample
D-Day One sample collected
D+ 1 One sample collected
D+ 3 One sample collected
III. Results
i 3 i
1. D-3 Background sample = 40 pCi/liter
2. D-Day Sample = 580 pCi/liter
3. D+ 1 Sample = 230 pCi/liter
4. D+ 3 Sample = 30 pCi/liter
IV. Discussion
As noted in the preceding results, the water was slightly contaminated
before the use of the aerosolized l 31I. A sharp increase in contamination
occurred on D-Day, perhaps caused by changing meteorological conditions,
followed by a decrease on D+ 1 and D+ 3.
Suggestions for improvement would be to collect water samples
directly from the lateral instead of the surface of the reservoir.
The reason for this is that the water being pumped onto the field is
not coming from the surface, but is being pumped from a depth of
twelve feet.
194
-------
Irrigations were recorded as follows:
D+ 1 D+ 3 D+ 4 D+ 5
58, 000 gallons 29, 000 gallons 94, 000 gallons 39, 000 gallons
If one assumes that on D+ 1 the l 31I contamination was homogeneously
distributed throughout the reservoir, it can be calculated that 3. OE3
pCi/m2 was placed on the growing forage on D+ 1 with the irrigation
water. Table 34 shows that the average contamination on the field
was measured to be 1. 21 E6 pCi/m2 . Thus, under the assumed
conditions, the contamination added in the irrigation water on D+ 1
was ( ' ) (100) or 0. 25% of the total.
1 L* 1 SLt
V. Conclusions
Results indicate that some recontamination of the field took place
during each irrigation. The maximum amount of 1 31I that could
have been added by this mechanism was on D+ 1 and amounted to only
0. 25% of the total. Such an additional small amount of 1 31I would
not make any significant change in the observed results.
195
-------
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE TOTAL STUDY
For more detailed results and discussion of each separate experiment
conducted the reader is referred to the pertinent section. The results
and discussion given in this section will only include the highlights of
selected portions of the total study.
Methods and procedures for disseminating a dry aerosol of diato-
maceous earth tagged with 1311 were developed. A total amount of
22 mCi of 3 I was attached to 1500 g of diatomaceous earth and this
material was disseminated by using a line source of ten separate
equally-spaced generators. The experimental plot of 40 x 15 meters
was contaminated, as measured by fallout collectors, to levels
ranging from 0. 26 to 8.40 fiCi/m . Measurements of the total
combined depositions on growing Sudan grass, spread hay and spread
Sudan green chop accounted for 20. 8% of the total 22 mCi of l 3 l I
disseminated. Measured concentrations of contaminated forage
sampled in situ immediately folio-wing the release averaged 3. 54E
pCi/kg on growing Sudan grass, 1.34E pCi/kg on spread Sudan
green chop and 0. 54E pCi/kg on spread hay.
Geometric mean diameters for the aerosol particle size distributions
were calculated to be 28 |J. at 5 meters from the generators, 21 (a. at
12. 5 meters and 20 JJL at 20 meters. With a measured density of 0. 26
for diatomaceous earth the observed geometric mean diameters cor-
respond approximately to aerodynamic sizes of 7. 3fi, 5. 5(J. and 5. 2|a
respectively. The calculation of true aerodynamic particle sizes
would require a knowledge of shape factors.
196
-------
Air sampler data for the integrated 131I air dose at different lo-
y 0 C i s e c
cations over the experimental plot ranged from 2.66 to 12. 35E 5
0 m3
Measurements with portable survey instruments should be considered
as relative values only. The dose rate on the backs of the inhalation
cows averaged two times that on their legs indicating a low lying
aerosol cloud which was approximately Z to 3 feet high as it entered
the measured area. Dose rates in the field decreased by approxi-
mately 50% daily. This decrease was probably due to a combination
of removal of activity by green chopping operations, wind action and
irrigation.
Measurements of contaminated forage sampled just prior to feeding
to dairy cows gave peak daily average values for fresh green chop
of 2. 7E pCi/kg, for spread green chop of 1.4E pCi/kg and for
spread hay of 4. IE pCi/kg. These values are seen to be in the
ratios 6.6:3.4:1. Comparing these values to those of the samples
taken earlier rn situ shows that in the case of fresh green chop,
1 31I activity was lost in handling, whereas for the cases of both
spread green chop and hay, the peak daily average observed for the
fed forage was higher than the stack averages of the in_ situ - samples.
This is not too surprising since the J 31I activity was definitely not
uniformly distributed throughout the total volume of the spread
forage as was assumed for the in situ results. The relative values
as measured just prior to feeding are certainly the most significant
with regard to subsequent131 1 levels in milk.
The peak daily average values of 1 3 ll activity in milk were
4 4
2. 2E pCi/1 for the cows fed fresh green chop, 1. 2E pCi/1 for the
4
cows fed spread green chop, and 1. IE pCi/1 for the cows fed spread
hay. The ratios of the peak average daily milk values in pCi/1 to
the peak average daily forage values in pCi/kg give some measure of
the relative biological availabilities of131 I on different types of forage.
197
-------
The ratios are seen to be 0. 0081, 0. 0086 and 0. 027 respectively for
fresh green chop, spread green chop and spread hay. It would appear
that the I is less biologically available to dairy cows when it is
on spread and fresh green chop than when on hay. This is confirmed
by the relative percents of the total 3 I ingested doses which were
secreted in milk for the different cases. The values here were
Z. 1% for fresh green chop fed cows, Z. 0% for spread green chop fed
cows and 6. 3% for hay fed cows.
The effect referred to in the last paragraph, I being less avail-
able for secretion into milk when it is deposited on green grass,
has not been observed in previous studies where the contamination
has been from real field sources. Thus it is assumed that this
effect is related to the characteristics of our synthetic aerosol and
release conditions and possibly to the type of pasture grass. In
order to hope to apply our data from this study to the prediction of
milk levels which might result from true field releases, an ap-
propriate correction must be made. If one assumes that the milk
to forage ratio of 0. OZ7 for the hay cows is the most reasonable,
it is possible to make estimated adjustments in the fresh green chop
and spread green chop peak daily average milk levels. The adjusted
peak milk level for fresh green chop cows thus becomes ( ' )
. u. 0 08 1
4 4
(Z. 2E ) = 7. 3E pCi/1 and for spread green chop cows the adjusted
0.OZ7 4 4
value is ( ' n _.0 , ) (1. 2E ) = 3. 8E pCi/1. In summary then it may
U. 0Oofa
be said that, with our actual contaminating conditions and assumed
equal biological availabilities for 1 3 1I from all types of forage, the
predicted maximum daily peak averages in the milk would have
4 4
been 7. 3E pCi/1 for fresh green chop fed cows, 3. 8E pCi/1 for
4
spread green chop fed cows and 1. IE pCi/1 for hay fed cows. One
observation which can be made is that the spread green chop would
have more closely approximated the fresh green chop results had
the surface area of the green chop stack been increased by
198
-------
approximately a factor of two while keeping the total weight constant.
This would have resulted in the peak average contamination also in-
creasing by approximately a factor of two with the peak average milk
levels being correspondingly increased.
By noting that the average peak milk value for cows exposed to the
4
field aerosol (inhalation) was 585 pCi/1 or-~0. IE pCi/1, several
interesting comments may be made.
If dairy cows had been exposed from eating combinations of contam-
inated fresh green chop and contaminated hay as -well as from inha-
lation, the total peak average milk level would be predicted to have
been approximately 7. 3E +1.1E + 0. IE = 8. 5E pCi/1. Again
this statement has assumed equal biological availability for the 131I
on fresh green chop and on hay. Of the total, the level due to fresh
green chop is 85. 9%, that due to hay is 1Z. 9% and that due to
inhalation is 1. 2%. It is believed that these adjusted relative per-
centages calculated from this study may have applicability to ac-
tual field releases. Note that the relative contributions predicted
7. 3
from fresh green chop to that for hay are -- = 6. 6. In our study
following the Pike Event we measured this ratio to be approximately
6 for an actual field release.
The comparison of the relative predicted inhalation value must await
evaluation of additional field measurements from actual releases. For
reasons stated previously we feel that the predicted relative inhalation
value of 1. 2% of the total is probably somewhat low for a true field
release at a location close to the release point.
The apparent effective decay half-lives for the 3 I levels in the
milk of the different groups of study cows were remarkably similar
for the fresh green chop, spread green chop and hay fed cows.
During feeding the effective half-life for fresh green chop cows was
199
-------
3. 0 days, for spread green chop 'cows it was Z. 3 days and for hay
cows it was Z. 7 days. Since each value is estimated to be only
accurate to +_ 1 day, there is no apparent difference in half-lives
during feeding for the three different groups of cows. After cessa-
tion of contaminated forage feeding all groups exhibited a half-life
of less than one day. This was in agreement with the effective
half-life of 0.8 day observed in inhalation cows.
The effective half-life in hay during the feeding period was cal-
culated to be 5.4 days whereas the effective half-life in fresh green
chop over the feeding period was 3.6 days. The shorter effective
half-life for fresh green chop may be due to the loss of particulate
activity during green chopping plus the "wash-off" caused by spray
irrigation as stated earlier in this report (84% decrease in activity).
In the face of these findings one would expect the effective half-life
in the milk of the hay cows to be longer than the effective half-life in
the milk of the fresh green chop cows. As mentioned previously
this was not the case. We presently have no explanation for these
apparently contradictory findings. In future studies we plan to in-
vestigate these matters further. For this study all cows were on a
diet of green chop, hay and grain. On our next test study cows
receiving contaminated hay will not receive uncontaminated fresh
green chop as they did in this study. We suspect that the addition
of fresh green chop to a cow's diet alters the kinetics of l 31 I
secretion in the milk, even if the 1 31 I is present on hay.
It is clearly recognized that absolute values for forage contamination
and milk levels of 131I, as well as kinetics, obtained from a study
such as this can never be directly applied to actual field situations,
since we used a synthetic dry aerosol contaminant which may or
may not have any relation to a true field source of I. However,
we feel that relative values found for our different groups of study
ZOO
-------
cows may have more significance. We will be able to test this hy-
pothesis in the future by comparing relative results obtained with
similar experimental configurations during actual nuclear cratering
experiments. Pertinent data have already been obtained following
Palanquin and these results will be published as soon as feasible.
Activities of 3 I measured in vivo in the calves drinking contami-
nated milk exhibited approximately the same time variation for all
calves. In general, thyroid activity levels increased until a max-
imum was reached seven days after the beginning of the ingestion.
o
This agrees with the findings of Lengemann and Swanson in cows.
After the maximum was reached the levels decreased with an effec-
tive half-life of about 12 days during the duration of the feeding of
contaminated milk. After the feeding of contaminated milk stopped,
the effective half-life changed to approximately 6 days. We are
currently working on a mathematical model to describe this
behavior.
Our calculations of doses to the calves thyroids were lower by an
average factor of 3.4 than doses calculated by the use of FRC
Report 5. Even if allowance is made for the difference in
effective half-lives in the milk, 2. 7 days average in our case
versus 5. 0 days for the FRC model, the FRC predicted dose is
still a factor of 1.8 larger than ours. Thus, it appears that the FRC
predicted dose is a conservative one. Our findings in this regard
9
are in agreement with the findings of other investigators.
201
-------
CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOTAL STUDY
All primary objectives of the study were accomplished.
As determined just prior to feeding to dairy cows, peak average
values and effective half-lives of 1 3 l 1 in the different forages used
were as follows:
Table 40. Peak average values and effective half-lives in the
different forages used.
Spread Hay Spread Green Chop Fresh Green Chop
Peak 5 66
Average 4. IE pCi/kg 1. 4E pCi/kg 2. 7E pCi/kg
Values
T
eff 5. 4 days --* 3. 6 days
*The values here had too much variability to allow the determina-
tion of a reliable T 'r
eff.
Table ^1. Average milk values obtained for the controlled 131I
ingestion studies.
Type of
Forage
Spread Hay
Spread Green
Chop
Fresh Green
Chop
Time to
Maximum
(hours)
24
48
48
Maximum
Value
(pCi/1)
4
1. IE
1.2E4
2. 2E4
Teff during
feeding
(days)
2. 7
2. 3
3. 0
1 Teff after
feeding
(days)
< 1
< 1
<1
Average
Peak
pCi/1 +
pCi/kg
0. 027
0. 0086
0. 0081
% of
Ingested
131 I in
milk
6. 3
2. 0
2. 1
From the above it may be concluded that, for the conditions of this study,
there was no apparent difference in effective half-lives in the milk for the
202
-------
different types of forage. Also, it may be concluded that I was
handled differently when deposited on the spread and fresh green
chop compared to the hay in the sense that it was not as biologi-
cally available for secretion into the milk in the former cases.
The average * 31 I milk values obtained for the inhalation cows were
as follows:
Time to Maximum T
Maximum Value .
,, v / <- /i\ (days)
(hours) (pCi/1) __
10 585 0.8
An important finding of this study was the large decrease in pasture
contamination caused by spray irrigation which suggests that this may
be a useful countermeasure for contaminated pastures. Of course,
this may be true only for our particular type of aerosol and pasture.
In any event this matter will be further explored in subsequent
experimentation.
The conclusions reached from our ancillary studies will be found
in pertinent previous sections of this report.
* Rather than inhalation cows a more correct descriptive term here
would be "air uptake" cows since all 131I activity entering these cows
came to them via their air environment. How much uptake was
actually via inhalation and how much via licking of their contaminated
muzzles, is unknown. Every effort was made to minimize the licking
uptake by decontaminating the cows' muzzles as soon as possible
after the experiment.
203
-------
REFERENCES
1. Earth, D. S. & J. G. Veater, TID-21764, Nov. 1964.
2. Radioiodine Studies Following TNT. - in press.
3. Hawley, C. A. et al, IDO-12035, June 1964.
4. Handbook of Respiration, National Academy of Sciences, W. B.
Saunders Company, 1958.
5. Hine & Brownell, Radiation Dosimetry, Academic Press,
N. Y. , 1958.
6. Quimby, Feitelberg, & Silver, Radioactive Isotopes in Clinical
Practice, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1958.
7. FRC Report #5, Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1964.
8. Lengemann, F. W. fc E. W. Swanson, J. Dairy Sci. 40,
216-24 (1957).
9. Bernard, S. R. et al, Health Phys. 9, 1307-23 (1963).
204
-------
APPENDIX
Table 1. Meteorological Data 205
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows. 213
Table 3. FBI values for Hayseed cows. 219
Table 4. Serum protein values for Hayseed cows. 220
Table 5. CBC values for Hayseed cows. 221
Table 6. Average CBC values for Hayseed cows. 226
Figure 1. Comparison of PBI, Serum Protein and Hct. 227
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data.
Event: Project Hayseed, October 4, 1965
Locations: See Figure 4
Instrumentation:
Wind Sensors
(1) Berkeley No. V-101
(2) and (5) Berkeley No. V-101
(3) Beckman and Whitley System No. 170-11
(4) Climet System Cl-3, 540 Degree
Temperature
(6), (7), (8) Cambridge Model 110
(9) Bendix 594
Temperature Difference
(10) and (11) Cambridge Model 110
Relative Humidity
(1Z) Bendix 594
Notes:
A. 1 meter (1) air transport data available at 5 minute intervals
until 1000 PDT 10/7/65 and at 15 minute intervals until
0945 PDT 10/8/65.
B. 1.6 meter (2) and 10 meter (5) instantaneous wind data available
at 5 minute intervals until 0945 PDT 10/8/65. Data on tape.
C. Ambient temperature (6), (7) and temperature difference (10)
data available at 5 minute intervals until 0945 PDT 10/8/65.
D. Ambient temperature (8) and temperature difference (11)
available at 5 minute intervals until 0945 PDT 10/8/65. Data
on tape.
E. All times are Pacific Daylight time.
L e g e nd:
ddd direction from which -wind in blowing (degrees azimuth-true)
ff wind speed (miles per hour)
TT temperature (degrees F)
RH relative humidity (%)
205
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data, wind data.
Time
PDT
JO/ 4
0532
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
5i
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
(corit. )
#1 (1m)
Components
E
-002
+ 000
+ 001
-oos
-002
+ 009
+ 001
-008
+ 002
+ 000
-002
+ 000
-003
+ 002
-000
Notetfl
N
+ 022
+ 022
+ 008
+ 012
+ 008
+ 015
+ 018
+ 016
+ 021
+ Oil
+ 023
+ 009
+ 003
+ 002
+ 004
#2 (]
ddd
344
330
355
339
348
016
358
341
345
353
007
028
004
050
031
Note
. . 6m)
ff
03
03
03
02
02
02
04
04
04
04
04
02
01
02
01
#2
//3 (3.
ddd
345
335
340
350
350
335
340
010
025
020
005
355
355
355
355
345
335
340
355
005
005
010
330
320
340
040
050
040
030
350
040
100
135
190
180
185
180
175
7m)
ff
04
03
03
03
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
04
04
05
06
05
05
05
04
04
03
03
02
02
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
05
04
08
10
10
11
11
#4 (1
ddd
350
340
350
355
355
340
360
005
010
025
020
360
360
355
345
345
340
330
330
330
325
010
005
005
010
025
360
020
010
350
045
090
170
160
180
190
190
190
Om)
ff
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
05
04
02
07
05
07
06
06
05
06
04
02
01
01
01
04
05
05
03
08
12
13
14
13
#5 (10m)
ddd ff
006
357
344
013
017
035
Oil
004
358
350
343
349
335
023
010
Note #2
03
03
02
02
02
01
04
05
04
06
06
03
03
01
01
206
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data, wind data. (cont.)
Time
PDT
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0000
10/5
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0000
10/6
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
#1 (1m) #2 (1.6m) #3
Components ddd ff ddd
180
170
175
290
320
315
325
325
330
325
325
350
335
355
330
320
320
140
255
135
165
190
200
235
315
280
290
260
315
260
360
360
090
325
015
010
360
030
(3.7m)
ff
11
11
09
04
05
06
05
06
06
06
06
05
05
04
04
04
03
04
03
05
04
06
05
06
12
08
07
03
06
08
05
06
05
07
13
14
12
08
#4
ddd
190
190
185
225
315
325
345
360
360
360
005
360
350
350
010
350
350
090
180
170
135
190
190
195
315
285
300
270
345
315
040
360
360
315
025
035
020
035
(10m) #5 (10m)
ff ddd ff
13
12
11
03
03
05
06
05
06
06
08
08
05
05
05
05
02
03
02
M
(cont. )
207
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data, wind data. (cont. )
Time #1 (1m)
PDT Components
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1ZOO
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0000
10/7
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
(cont. )
#2 (1.6m) #3 (3.
ddd ff ddd
020
360
045
015
030
035
035
045
060
035
035
060
035
345
335
325
335
360
325
360
360
030
050
100
125
125
170
060
010
020
020
030
015
015
020
025
025
350
,7m)
ff
10
09
08
12
14
14
12
10
10
11
11
09
08
07
08
08
05
04
03
07
08
06
07
06
05
04
05
08
12
13
09
09
10
10
10
11
10
07
#4 (10m) #5 (10m)
ddd ff ddd ff
045
010
045
030
040
045
040
050
060
040
045
070
045
010
010
350
340
360
340
360
360
030
050
125
100
100
120
045
020
030
045
045
045
040
040
040
040
020
M
12
13
12
10
08
12
11
08
07
03
10
12
08
11
09
07
05
06
08
13
15
12
10
11
12
10
12
12
09
208
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data, wind data. (cont. )
Time #1 (1m) #2 (1.6m) #3 (3. 7m) #4 (10m) #5 (10m)
PDT Components ddd ff ddd ff ddd ff ddd ff
2000
2100
2200
2300
0000
325
330
325
300
315
06
05
08
04
05
360
360
320
270
315
08
09
11
04
05
10/8
0100 350 04 020 05
0200 330 08 360 10
0300 360 09 045 10
0400 315 03 360 04
0500 090 07 080 09
0600 350 07 360 09
0700 010 10 025 12
0800 270 04 190 04
0900 190 05 190 05
209
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data, temperature and relative humidity.
Time
PDT
10/4
0532
0534
0536
0538
0540
0542
0544
0546
0548
0550
0552
0554
0556
0558
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
10/5
0000
0100
0200
0300
(cont. )
a 6
(1m)
(pole)
TT
52
53
54
56
55
53
50
48
47
47
48
48
50
49
49
47
60
67
73
76
78
77
78
80
80
79
74
64
58
54
53
52
51
52
52
56
Ambient
ill
(1m) (1
(port)
TT
53
55
56
56
56
52
49
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
50
47
62
68
74
77
80
80
82
82
81
80
74
63
58
54
54
52
52
53
53
56
Temp.
#8
. 6m)
TT
53
52
54
55
57
58
52
49
48
47
48
50
50
51
51
(1m)
TT
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
50
49
60
70
76
79
80
82
83
83
82
80
76
65
60
55
54
53
52
53
53
54
Delta T
#10 #11
TT TT
7.1 7.4
5.5 7.4
3.9 5.6
2.2 4.7
2.5 3.7
4.6 3.0
8.6 6.8
10.5 10.6
11.3 11. 5
12.9 12.3
13.0 9.6
11. 5 7.0
8.9 6.0
8.6 4.7
5.7 4.9
12.7
M
0.0
-0.8
-1. 5
-1.3
-1.7
-1.6
-1. 1
-0.4
0. 2
2.7
8. 1
12.3
16. 5
15. 5
14. 5
14. 1
13.3
11.7
7. 5
Rel. Hum.
#12
RH
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
38
32
24
22
20
18
18
16
15
14
14
14
24
29
32
32
33
34
34
34
30
210
-------
Ta.ble 1. Meteorological data, temperature and relative humidity, (cont. )
Time
PDT
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
10/6
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
OSOO
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
(cont. )
#6
(1m)
(pole)
TT
52
52
48
52
56
52
66
75
77
75
82
8.3
M
M
77
72
71
67
61
57
58
68
66
66
62
59
60
58
58
63
74
72
74
78
71
61
79
80
76
Ambient Temp.
//7 #8-
(1m) (1.6m)
(port)
TT
52
53
48
54
59
61
68
75
79
81
83
M
M
M
77
73
72
67
61
59
59
69
69
69
67
60
61
58
64
70
76
73
76
79
77
73
81
81
78
#9 '
(1m)
TT
53
52
50
50
55
64
67
76
80
82
85
86
84
84
79
71
71
68
60
65
60
68
68
68
67
60
60
59
64
71
74
73
74
80
81
72
79
81
79
Delta T
#10 #11
TT
9.8
5.4
9.7
3.8
5. 3
14.0
5.4
-0. 1
-1.0
-1.4
-1.2
M
M
M
4. 3
3.7
4.7
5. 1
5.2
8.8
4. 1
4. 0
1.7
1.9
2.2
1. 3
3. 1
2.1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-1.4
-0. 1
-0. 3
-0.8
1.3
16.6
0.9
1.7
4.0
Rel. Hum.
#12
RH
31
30
33
30
40
36
43
20
17
16
15
18
18
17
18
20
20
19
24
23
25
23
24
25
26
32
33
34
32
30
28
28
26
24
24
32
25
22
22
211
-------
Table 1. Meteorological data, temperature and relative humidity, (cont. )
Time
PDT
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
10/7
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
10/8
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0300
0900
i
#6
(1m)
(pole)
TT
67
65
62
58
62
55
63
66
64
58
58
58
57
60
55
74
74
50
70
71
83
82
82
78
68
69
63
50
57
54
57
63
66
61
59
62
60
64
70
\mbient Temj
#7 #8
(1m) (1.6:
(port)
TT
67
65
62
59
61
56
63
69
67
59
58
59
58
63
70
77
78
73
77
83
85
84
83
79
68
69 .
63
63
57
53
56
64
67
61
60
64
63
65
71
3.
#9
m) (1m)
TT
67
66
62
60
60
62
63
67
63
61
58
57
58
61
74
76
78
74
76
82
84
85
84
82
70
67
65
65
62
56
55
63
64
60
60
60
64
63
72
Delta T
#10 #
TT
6.9
7.5
9.2
12.4
7.2
13.7
5. 5
4.9
5.8
2.0
2.0
3.9
2.8
0.7
-0.7
-0. 1
-0.7
13.3
7.3
-0. 1
0.0
0.8
1. 5
3.9
9.3
3. 1
11.5
3. 3
10.7
12.7
8.3
6.7
1.9
1.5
5.7
3. 1
3. 1
1. 5
-0. 3 (j
Rel. Hum.
^11 #12
RH
30
30
32
31
32
30
30
29
30
31
33
35
35
34
28
28
25
35
34
25
22
22
20
19
24
26
28
28
26
33
34
28
26
26
26
28
26
27
oao_y: 2 12] 24
-------
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows.
Group
I
II
in
IV
V
Cow
Number
1
5
46
47
12
19
21
25
15
18
27
29
43
44
45
48
13
24
28
Butter fat %
D(-63)
to
D(-33)
2.7
3. 5
3.4
2.3
3.4
3.7
3. 5
2.4
2.8
3. 1
2.5
2.0
3.5
3.2
2.7
dry
2.8
dry
3.8
D(-33)
to
D(-3)
2.1
3.0
2.3
2C6
3.5
2.8
3. 1
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
4.6
3. 1
2 . 1
2.9
2.3
2.3
3. 0
D(-3)
to
D(+ 27)
2.0
3.6
3.2
3.4
3.9
3.2
3.7
3.8
3.2
3.7
2.6
2.4
4.6
2.8
2.6
3.2
3.3
2.4
3.2
DHIA Rating
D(-63)
to
D(-33)
85
91
106
119
96
110
99
90
100
95
105
53
N.V.
N.V.
114
dry
107
dry
129
D(-33)
to
D(-3)
73
97
110
123
99
112
100
104
104
96
107
76
N.V.
N.V.
112
93
103
54
135
D(-3)
to
D(+ 27)
66
97
107
119
96
114
102
109
108
91
104
79
N.V.
N.V.
109
97
102
67
133
213
-------
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows.
GROUP I
Cow No
Dav
D Day
D(+ 1)
D(+ 2)
D(+ 3)
D( + 4)
D(+ 5)
D(+ 6)
D(+ 7)
D(+ 8)
D(+ 9)
D(+ 10)
D(+ 11)
D(+ 12)
D(+ 13)
D(+ 14)
D(+ 15)
D(+ 16)
D(+ 17)
D(+ 18)
.
1
5
L/ Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day Day
21
23
27
25
26
25
22
28
25
26
27
25
28
20
28
19
27
26
22
420
460
540
500
520
500
440
560
500
520
540
500
560
400
560
380
540
520
440
11
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
11
11
14
10
10
11
10
10
46
Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day
396
324
360
396
396
396
396
396
396
360
360
396
396
504
360
360
396
360
360
16
16
15
18
16
16
15
16
10
15
16
17
17
15
16
13
14
14
14
Gm Fat/
Day
512
512
480
576
512
512
480
512
320
480
512
544
544
480
512
416
448
448
448
47
L/
Day
18
18
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
22
17
18
14
19
16
16
17
16
GmFat/
Day
612
612
578
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
748
578
612
476
646
544
544
578
544
Average
L/ Gm Fat/
Day Day
16.
16.
17.
18.
17.
17.
16.
18.
16.
17.
18.
17.
18.
15.
18.
14.
17.
16.
15.
5
5
3
0
8
5
5
3
0
3
8
5
5
8
3
5
0
8
5
485
477
490
521
510
505
482
520
457
493
540
505
528
465
520
425
482
477
448
214
-------
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows.
GROUP II
Cow No.
Day
D Day
D(+ 1)
D(+ 2)
D|+ 3)
D(+ 4)
D(+ 5)
D(+ 6)
D(+ 7)
D(+ 8)
D(+9)
D{+ 10)
D{+ 11)
D{+ 12)
D(+ 13)
D(+ 14)
D(+ 15)
D(+ 16)
D(+ 17)
D(+ 18)
12
L/ Cm Fat/
Day Day
11
12
12
11
13
9
14
11
11
12
11
12
13
11
11
12
12
11
11
341
372
372
341
403
279
434
341
341
372
341
372
403
341
341
372
372
341
341
W
Day
11
11
10
12
13
12
13
11
11
11
11
11
12
1.1
11
11
12
11
11
19
21
Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day
352
352
320
384
416
384
416
352
352
352
352
352
384
352
352
352
384
352
352
16
15
15
14
12
12
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
17
16
16
Gm Fat/
Day
592
555
555
518
444
444
518
518
518
555
555
592
592
592
592
592
629
592
592
W
Day
30
27
29
29
20
29
34
29
29
30
28
29
29
27
30
26
29
29
28
25
Average
Gm Fat/ L/ Gm Fat/
Day Day Day
1140
1026
1102
1102
760
1102
1292
1102
1102
1140
1064
1102
1102
1026
1140
988
1102
1102
1064
17.0
16. 3
16. 5
16.5
14. 5
15. 5
18.8
16. 3
16. 3
17.0
16. 3
17. 0
17. 5
16. 3
17.0
16. 3
17. 5
16.8
16.5
606. 3
576. 3
587. 3
586.3
505.8
552. 3
665.0
578. 3
578. 3
604.8
578. 0
604. 5
620.3
577.8
606. 3
576. 0
621.8
596.8
587. 3
215
-------
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows,
GROUP III
Cow No.
Day
D Day
D(+ 1)
D(+ 2)
D(+ 3)
D(+4)
D(+ 5)
D(+ 6)
D(+7 )
D(+ 8)
D(+ 9)
D(+ 10)
D(+ 11)
D(+ 12)
D(+ 13)
D(+ 14)
D(+ 15)
D(+ 16)
D(+ 17)
D(+ 18)
L/
Day
15
13
14
13
14
15
15
16
15
15
14
14
15
13
15
13
15
14
14
15
Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day
480
416
448
416
448
480
480
512
480
480
448
448
480
416
480
416
480
448
448
11
10
10
11
10
9
11
11
11
10
10
10
15
8
8
10
10
10
10
18
27
Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day
418
380
380
418
380
342
418
418
418
380
380
380
570
304
304
380
380
380
380
29
25
25
25
30
27
27
28
28
27
28
28
29
28
28
27
29
28
28
Gm Fat/
Day
754
650
650
650
780
702
702
728
728
702
728
728
754
728
728
702
754
728
728
L/
Day
30
25
31
28
29
31
30
30
29
29
29
27
32
28
29
30
30
29
30
29
Average
Gm Fat/ L/ Gm Fat/
Day Day Day
720
600
744
672
696
744
720
720
696
696
696
648
768
672
696
720
720
696
720
21.3
18. 3
20. 0
19. 3
20.8
20. 5
20.8
21.3
20.8
20.3
20. 3
19.8
22.8
19.3
20. 0
20.0
21. 0
20. 3
20. 5
593.0
511. 5
555. 5
539. 0
576. 0
567. 0
580.0
594. 5
580.5
564. 5
563. 0
551. 0
643.0
530. 0
552.0 ,
554. 5;
583. 5
563.0
569. 0
216
-------
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows.
GROUP IV
Cow No. 43
L/ Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day Day Day
D Day 18 828
D(+ 1) 17 782
D(+ 2) 15 690
D(+ 3) 16 736
D(+ 4) 17 782
D(+ 5) 17 782
D(+ 6) 2 92
D(+ 7)
D{+ 8)
D(+ 9)
D(+ 10)
D(+ 11)
D(+ 12)
D(+ 13)
D(+ 14)
D(+ 15)
D(+ 16)
D(+ 17)
D(+ 18)
12
10
12
11
12
12
12
11
11
15
11
11
11
9
13
12
10
11
11
44
45
Gm Fat/ L/
Day Day
336
280
336
308
336
336
336
308
308
420
308
308
308
252
364
336
280
308
308
10
11
10
11
10
10
9
11
9
11
9
9
9
8
9
8
8
9
7
Gm Fat/
Day
260
286
260
286
260
260
234
286
234
286
234
234
234
208
234
208
208
234
182
L/
Day
23
23
22
23
23
23
24
25
25
25
23
23
25
22
23
22
23
23
22
48
Average
Gm Fat/ L/ Gm Fat/
Day Day Day
736
736
704
736
736
736
768
800
800
800
736
736
800
704
736
704
736
736
704
15.8
15. 3
14.8
15.3
15. 5
15.5
11.8
15.7
15.0
17.0
14. 3
14. 3
15.0
13. 0
15. 0
14. 0
13.7
14.3
13. 3
540.0
521. 0
497. 5
516. 5
528. 5
528.5
357.5
464.7
447. 3
502. 0
426.0
426. 0
447. 3
388.0
444. 7 ,
416. Oj
408.0
426. 0
398. 0
217
-------
Table 2. Additional control data for each of the study cows.
GROUP V
Cow No.
Day
D Day
D(+ 1)
D(+ 2)
D(+ 3)
D(+ 4)
D(+ 5)
D(+6)
D(+ 7)
D(+8)
D(+ 9)
D(+ 10)
D(+ 11)
D(+ 12)
D(+ 13)
D(+ 14)
D(+ 15)
D(+ 16)
D(+ 17)
D(+ 18)
1
W
Day
22
21
18
21
20
20
21
20
20
22
21
22
25
20
14
19
23
21
20
3
Gm Fat/
Day
726
693
594
693
660
660
693
660
660
726
693
726
825
660
594
627
759
693
660
L/
Day
21
20
22
23
21
25
25
24
26
25
25
25
27
24
25
27
31
29
25
24
Gm Fat
Day
504
480
528
552
504
600
600
576
624
600
600
600
648
576
600
648
744
696
600
W
Day
18
14
14
17
18
20
21
21
23
21
22
21
22
18
21
19
20
20
19
28
Gm Fat/
Day
576
448
448
544
576
640
672
672
736
672
704
672
704
576
672
608
640
640
608
Average
L/ Gm Fat/
Day Day
20.3
18. 3
18. 0
20.3
19.7
21.7
22.3
21.7
23.0
22.7
22.7
22.7
24.7
20.7
21.3
21.7
24.7
23. 3
21. 3
602.0
540. 3
523. 3
596.3
580.0
633. 3
655.0
636.0
673. 3
666.0
665.7
666. 0
725.7
604.0
622.0
627.7
714. 3
676.3
622.7
218
-------
Table 3. FBI values for Hayseed cows.
tSJ
Gi *~\ i i r~»
J. *_* -U. £.S
I
Average
II
Average
III
Average
IV
Average
V
Average
C ow
1
5
47
46
12
19
21
25
15
18
27
29
43
44
45
48
13
24
28
D-
5
2
-
-
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
_
-
-
-
-
5
3
2
4
111
. 30
.62
.96
. 70
.65
. 70
. 75
. 95
. 20
. 50
. 50
. 50
. 68
. 74
.87
. 75
. 12
D-
3.
3.
--
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
5.
3.
3.
--
2.
3.
3.
2.
83
62
31
--
46
75
00
67
16
15
03
30
00
75
77
--
--
33
30
00
88
D-
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
4.
3.
2.
3.
3.
2.
55
25
13
63
37
35
90
10
80
20
25
53
12
87
25
19
87
42
75
50
63
13
07
00
73
D
2.
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
"l
d .
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
-20
70
15
97
05
97
80
75
25
00
45
25
00
50
00
44
75
42
00
52
17
25
15
37
59
D+9
4.
3.
3.
5.
3.
4.
3.
2.
2.
2.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
10
05
00
58
93
10
01
58
00
92
35
42
27
25
57
00
15
25
60
00
00
50
60
03
D+44
2.
6.
3.
3.
4.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
12.
3.
5.
3.
3.
3.
3.
85
45
87
10
07
15
12
85
55
92
45
80
45
75
61
80
77
60
25
60
15
25
50
30
D+73
3.
3.
4.
5 .
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
12.
10.
2.
7.
3.
7.
6.
2.
4.
3.
2.
2.
2.
20
02
10
18
88
20
30
75
90
79
75
80
50
90
49
20
95
00
60
94
10
60
85
85
Average
3.
3.
3.
4.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
3.
3.
2.
4.
5.
3.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
57
53
51
06
67
37
13
80
94
06
22
70
44
20
84
92
34
92
09
07
10
00
01
05
-------
CS)
ro
o
Group
I
Average
II
Average
III
Average
IV
Average
V
Cow
1
5
47
46
12
19
21
25
15
18
27
29
43
44
45
48
13
24
28
D-
7
7
-
-
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
7
7
7
_
-
-
-
-
6
7
7
111
. 10
.80
.40
.40
.60
.60
. 20
.45
. 00
. 10
. 00
.80
. 70
_ _ _
.40
. 20
. 90
D-83
7
8
-
-
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
_
-
-
-
-
7
7
7
. 10 .
. 00
. 55
. 30
. 70
. 50
. 00
. 38
. 90
. 70
.60
. 10
. 60
. 50
. 10
. 90
D-
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
6.
7.
55
30
60
30
00
05
90
60
10
40
25
60
60
10
30
20
10
40
70
80
25
40
60
70
D-20
7. 10
7. 90
7. 40
7. 20
7.40
6. 80
7. 50
7. 30
7. 60
7. 30
7.40
7. 70
6. 80
7. 50
7. 40
7. 50
7. 60
7. 50
6.40
7. 25
7. 60
7. 00
7. 90
D+9
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
8.
30
50
70
40
60
40
90
58
60
20
40
00
80
60
20
70
90
35
90
60
20
D+44
7. 50
8. 30
7. 20
7. 30
7. 60
7. 20
7. 70
7.45
7. 70
8. 20
6. 90
7. 20
7. 50
8. 00
7. 30
7. 70
6. 60
7.40
7. 40
7. 70
7. 70
D+73
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
10
70
30
30
50
60
80
60
60
80
45
60
40
70
/i. V G I" cl L; G
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
07
83
38
20
59
49
50
42
60
70
31
40
23
86
Average 7.17 7.50 7.23 7.50 7.90 7.60 7.57 7.50
-------
Append^^Table 5. CBC values for Hayseed cows.
'J-roup Cow Date
I 1 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
I 5 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
1.0-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
T 47 A 1 A A1^
S. *± 1 U ID O 3
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
gms.
Hgb
11
10
10
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
09
11
11
10
10
11
11
11
12
HCT
39
35
33
33
36
34
38
35
34
35
34
32
30
37
37
34
33
35
39
36
41
1x1 O6
Rbc
052
043
045
043
043
045
047
045
043
043
047
042
045
047
046
045
046
046
048
046
050
W. B.C.
009300
008200
009300
009400
006900
008600
009400
008729
010200
009700
008350
007950
009400
009700
007600
008986
008700
008800
008350
008800
009700
EOS.
01
01
02
02
01
02
02
01
00
03
01
03
. 02
01
01
01
00
02
02
00
01
BASO.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
JUV.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
STAB
00
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
00
01
01
00
00
01
01
00
00
01
00
SEGS
43
20
20
19
20
20
21
23
48
21
12
16
21
19
23
23
23
24
22
19
21
LYMPH
56
77
78
77
78
75
75
74
48
72
87
79
76
79
75
74
75
74
76
78
78
MONO
00
01
00
01
00
01
01
01
02
02
00
01
00
01
01
01
01
00
00
02
00
Average
11
37
047
008870
01
00
00
00
22
76
01
46
7 -1 4-AS
i * j. ^t \j _j
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
11
10
11
10
12
37
34
37
33
39
045
045
047
043
.047
010700
009000
008900
009000
009400
00
00
00
02
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
02
02
01
02
02
20
20
26
16
19
78
78
73
80
79
00
00
00
00
00
(Cont.) Average
11
36
045
009400
00
00
00
02
20
78
00
-------
Appendix Table 5. CBC values for Hayseed cows.
(cont. )
Group Cow Date
II 12 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
II 19 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
_ 11-17-65
N 12-16-65
ro
Average
II 21 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
II 25 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
gms.
Hgb
11
11
11
12
12
12
11
11
10
10
10
12
11
12
11
11
11
10
11
11
10
11
11
11
10
10
08
10
10
10
10
%
HCT
37
37
37
40
40
39
41
39
35
35
33
36
39
41
33
36
35
34
35
35
37
37
35
35
33
30
26
33
31
33
33
Ixl0b
Rbc
046
047
048
051
049
047
050
048
046
045
045
047
047
049
045
046
048
043
047
044
046
046
046
046
047
041
040
047
043
042
046
W. B. C.
009100
008100
009750
009600
006850
008350
007150
008414
010800
007400
009400
009000
009000
009800
010000
009342
009300
006500
008850
008350
009600
009300
006100
008286
008700
010700
008350
009200
009400
008600
009250
%
EOS.
04
02
03
02
01
01
02
02
01
00
00
02
00
03
02
01
02
01
04
01
01
03
00
02
01
00
01
01
00
00
01
%
BASO.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
. 00
%
JUV.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
%
STAB
01
01
00
01
00
00
00
01
01
02
01
02
00
03
02
02
01
00
00
01
00
00
00
00
02
01
01
01
00
01
01
%
SEGS
40
29
20
21
20
20
26
25
22
29
26
29
20
29
24
26
20
32
12
20
25
26
22
22
37
30
20
17
22
26
27
%
LYMPH
53
67
76
76
79
79
70
71
76
66
73
66
80
64
72
71
76
67
83
78
74
71
78
76
60
69
77
81
78
72
71
%
MONO
02
01
01
00
00
00
02
01
00
02
00
01
00
01
00
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
00
00
01
00
(Cont. ) Average
10
31
044
009171
00
00
00
01
26
73
00
-------
Appendj^^Table 5. CBC values for Hayseed cows. (cont.
Group
III
III
III
III
Cow Date
15 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
18 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
27 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
29 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
gms.
Hgb
12
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
11
10
11
10
10
10
10
11
10
10
11
11
11
10
10
11
%
HCT
37
39
38
36
39
38
37
38
34
34
34
34
36
35
39
35
34
34
33
31
34
33
36
34
34
36
36
34
34
32
37
Ixl0fa
Rbc
047
044
048
048
048
047
048
047
045
043
046
046
048
047
048
046
047
048
047
043
046
040
045
045
047
048
048
047
046
041
048
W. B. C
010100
008700
008000
008800
007300
008950
009400
008750
008800
008300
009850
009850
009250
009250
007200
008929
008150
007700
009050
008950
007600
007850
009000
008329
011800
009350
008600
009250
007750
006800
009750
%
EOS.
01
01
00
02
00
02
00
01
02
02
02
01
02
00
00
01
02
02
00
01
00
03
02
01
01
01
00
00
00
01
00
%
BASO.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
%
JUV.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
%
STAB
01
02
01
02
02
00
00
01
01
01
00
00
01
00
00
00
01
01
02
02
00
02
00
01
02
02
00
02
02
02
00
%
SEGS
19
19
20
22
22
26
18
21
30
22
19
23
21
20
21
22
20
25
21
17
23
25
23
22
30
30
19
23
22
24
21
%
LYMPH
78
77
77
73
76
71
82
76
67
75
79
76
75
80
78
77
76
71
77
79
77
69
74
75
67
67
80
75
76
73
77
%
MONO
01
01
02
01
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
00
01
00
01
00
01
01
00
01
00
01
01
01
00
00
01
00
00
00
02
(cont. ) Average
11
35
046
009043
00
00
00
01
24
75
00
-------
Appenda^Table 5. CBC values for Hayseed cows. (cont. 1
DO
Gr ou p
TV
JL V
TV
J. V
TV
X V
TV
J. V
Co\v Date
4-2 A 1 A -AS
^rj U JL u u _J
7 14 AS
f 1 T: O D
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17165
12-16-65
Average
44 A 1 A -A 5
^TT U 1 U U -J
7 1 4 AS
/ I ^± O O
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
4S A -1 A -A5
*± J tj "* J- U >J _J
7 14 -A ^
1 X rt -* U _/
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
48 A 1 A -AS
rro u J. u u -/
7 1 4 A S
( 1 rt O 3
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
gms.
Hgb
12
11
11
10
12
11
11
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
12
11
-_
12
11
10
10
11
HCT
37
34
36
34
38
36
38
37
36
37
40
38
~,
37
36
39
38
40
38
.
40
37
36
33
36
1x1 O6
Rbc
048
046
048
043
049
047
048
048
049
045
048
048
046
047
051
046
046
047
_ _
047
046
047
043
047
W. B. C.
007200
009650
008400
008350
008400
008390
007850
009700
--9200
009050
008850
008930
009000
009850
009450
009350
008300
009190
010100
009150
008750
006600
009300
EOS.
03
01
01
02
00
01
00
02
00
00
01
00
02
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
00
02
02
BASO.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
_
00
00
00
00
00
JUV.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
STAB
01
00
00
01
00
00
02
01
01
00
01
01
00
00
00
03
00
01
00
01
00
00
01
SEGS
20
23
21
24
23
23
21
21
24
23
20
22
22
21
25
20
18
21
22
27
20
23
22
LYMPH
75
74
77
72
76
75
77
75
75
75
78
76
76
78
72
76
80
76 .
77
70
80
75
75
MONO
01
02
01
01
01
01
00
01
00
02
00
01
00
00
01
00
00
00
00
01
00
00
00
Average
(cont. )
11
36 046
008780
01
00
00
00
23
76
00
-------
Append^BTable 5. CBC values for Hayseed cows. (cont.
Group
V
V
y
Cow .Date
13 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
24 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
Average
28 6-16-65
7-14-65
8-11-65
9-15-65
10-13-65
11-17-65
12-16-65
gms.
Hgb
11
10
10
10
10
11
11
10
10
10
10
09
08
10
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
10
10
HCT
36
32
32
32
34
36
39
34
33
34
32
29
26
30
27
30
30
33
32
32
33
30
32
IxlO6
Rbc
047
042
046
047
046
046
049
046
045
046
046
042
040
040
040
043
044
046
047
045
047
038
044
W. B. C.
007700
007950
007650
009150
007050
008850
008950
008186
014400
008250
008900
009900
010300
009200
008850
009971
007000
009500
009800
009200
006550
009700
009600
EOS.
03
00
00
00
01
00
02
01
00
01
00
01
01
05
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
BASO.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
JUV
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
STAB
01
00
02
02
00
02
01
01
00
02
01
01
02
00
00
01
01
01
01
01
00
00
01
SEGS
46
30
24
20
17
14
20
24
20
32
23
18
48
22
25
28
18
31
24
21
21
20
19
LYMPH
50
70
74
78
81
86
76
74
80
65
76
80
49
70
73
70
80
66
74
77
77
78
79
MONO
00
00
00
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
00
00
00
03
01
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Average
10
32
044
008764
01
00
00
01
22
76
00
-------
Table 6. Average CBC values for Hayseed
ro
Group
I
II
III
IV
V
Date
D-lll
D-83
D-55
D-20
D+9
D+44
D+73
D-lll
D-83
D-55
D-20
D+9
D+44
D+73
D-lll
D-83
D-55
D-20
D+9
D+44
D+73
Dill
- 1 1 1
DO 0
O J
D-55
D-20
D+9
D+44
D+73
D-lll
D-83
D-55
D-20
D+9
D+44
D+73
gms.
Hgta
11
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
11
~" ~~
~ "~
11
11
11
10
12
10
10
10
10
09
10
10
%
HCT
37
35
36
34
35
35
39
35
34
33
36
37
38
36
35
36
35
34
36
35
37
~ ~
~" ""
38
36
37
36
39
33
33
32
31
31
32
33
IxlO6
Rbc
048
043
045
044
046
045
048
046
044
045
047
046
046
047
046
046
047
046
047
044
047
_ _ _
047
047
049
044
048
059
044
046
045
045
041
044
W. B. C.
009750
008950
009263
008788
008388 .
009025
009025
009475
008175
009088
009038
008713
009013
008125
009712
008513
008875
009213
007975
008213
008838
008515
009588
008950
008338
008713
009700
008567
008783
009417
007966
009250
009133--
%
EOS.
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
00
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
00
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
00
01
01
02
01
%
BASO.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
_
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
%
JUV.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
~" ~"
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
%-
STAB
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
00
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
00
*~
01
01
00
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
00
01
%
SEGS
45
21
29
19
22
19
21
30
30
19
22
22
25
25
25
24
19
21
22
24
21
"~ ""
21
23
22
22
21
28
31
24
20
29
19
21
%
LYMPH
52
75
79
77
76
78
76
66
67
77
75
78
72
73
72
73
78
76
76
73
78
76
74
76
75
77
70
67
75
78
69
78
76
%
MONO
01
01
00
01
00
01
01
01
01
01
00
00
00
00
01
01
01
01
00
01
01
_
_ _
00
01
01
01
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
01
-------
! I
**. 3
a
c,
.'--I
J&c
------- |