View Full Text - OSTI

h
0
t
P W
a
c. c.
MdC rLs.425
his document consist b f 2 pages
and no figures.
EJdber of U copies, Series AO
/
% L W
Col. Stafford L, Jarren
Box E:
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
-
March 15, 1945
MANHATTAN I-)ICT: 1
Dear Colonel Yiarren:
. A8
On September I, 19& you wrote a memorandum to Col. k.D. Nichols on the ,b3q1
subject of Radiation Hazards connectcd uith Product, On September 21st,
1 mote to you steting that I disagreed with certain parts of that merandum,
Later in the year this saae merriirandum i'JBS discussed at 14mEe'Jo
h connection xith tolerances to be used there,
1 again disagreed with
parts of your memorandum and feel that you should know of the stand I have
taken" At H.E,I?, the matter was discussed uith Parker who reafflrmd
his previous calculations and attitude,
In Paragraph 2, you stated that 5.11gms of product is considered as a
tolerance dose for the amount that might be deposited in the body, and
then stated that lire Parker had calculated it to be 0.6/-grns, but that
by certai.n computations this could be changed to b/i+gms, kt, Parker's
figure of 0.6 g m of product referred only to the amount deposited
the lungs and retained there. The calculation used to reach it was based
on sn assumed tolerance dose of 0.01 rep ( roentgen ecuhdent physical)
Der 24 hour day.
It is not possible to modify this t o 0.1 roftthe standard
tolerance dose", as you did because irradiation by alpha particles is
certainly more damaging per eaual ionization than gamma irradiation, to
which the 3.lr value applies, Tne factor of 10 cannot be numericdly
substarttinted, but it is a reazcnakle extrapolation frornthe accepted
factor of 4, between .gama irradiation and proton irrzdiation due to
neutron bombardment e
The calculation by which We Parker arrived at the tolerance concentra-
tion of product, in air of 5 x lW-lopqgns/cc was a conservative one snZ
VU be affected by revised figures on retention of product in the lungc
He assumed a 50% removal of product froffithe air, a d a permnent retcn-
Special Rerevlew
jnal Determlnatlon
unclassified tion of this 50% on the lun~ surfaces. It now seem that somewhere in
3y:
Jate
patiofithe neigh-orhood of a 10% retention of the product in the lungs will be
P Fa %raw of five,
Iv
0
0
W
9
-c=
J
33
istjrnojre likely, and therefore his figure is probably conservztive by a factor
The vzluc of 5pgms as a tolerable amount in the body is based on the
auomt deposited in the skeleton and is derived, as you state, from the
generally accep'ced proposition that gram for grain product should be only
1/50 as toxic x radium, and the tcleralice L v ~ fa;. l L-z~di~: deposiLdc in the body
largely in the bones, is O.l,/igm.
It should be pointed out that the
tolerable amounts in the skeleton and in the lung uZll be entirely separate
quantities. In those CBSCS i.1hez-e the abuorptLon in the lwg is so iiQh
that significant amounts can enter the skeleton before direct lung dawe is poduced, the amount in the skeleton ~Vill be of hyortttnce, Dut men
;ijl;OixAt iekained in the ~*LB,~s fzy e:

. I
.L . -- P
Robley Bans has stated that in some cases the retention of 1 t o 2/lfgms
of radium in the body is a lcthsl dose, and in some instances 1 might add,
the retention of lbp of radium in the body while not lethal nas caused
severe crippling bone injuries. Hence the figure i$iich you took of 10 -
100,qps of radium as EL lethsl dose is somewhat arbitrary md does not Ln
my opinion justify the statement that several thousand microErars stored
in the body of the individual is the ranze of lethal effects for Product,
In spite of these disagreements on detail, 3r. Parker and I felt that your
statement that %uperpoisonous" as applied to product,is unduly dcrmhg,
YKS i! most tiitiely stalernent. He a d I both believe that as far as the
processes at the Hanford ji;nil,in;er dorks =e concerned, it v i U not be too
difficult to regulate exposures so es to be sithin the present stringent
limits. I might add that ths experience at Clinton justifies this 3elief,
cc SLVl
XDN
R ,'i
mc
Y?OS
STC
€ET
Beading File (2)
File
Tours sincerely,
Robert S, Stone, KeDa
A