ML19326B186
| ML19326B186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1970 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326B184 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003060980 | |
| Download: ML19326B186 (16) | |
Text
_
~
a Sunnary of Criticue of
" Infant Mor ality and ::uclear Power Generation" -- Dr. Irnest 3:ernglass bY.
Staff of the Atomic Energy Com=ission In developias his hypotheses, Dr. Sternglass first calculated yearly radiation doses to persons around the Dresden p measurenents by the U.S. Public Health Service {gjt based on short-tine He then purported to denonstrate that infant nortality rates for the State of Illinois did
. rise and fall parallel with quantities of radioactive effluent from the Dresden plant (1960-1963) uhile the infant cortality rates for New York State continued to dec14-= ""-ing the sane tiL.e period. Finally, Dr. Sternslass con;ared (a) infant corta* 1ty rates in Grundy County 1
(in which the Dresden plant is located) and adjacent counties versus
" control" counties and (b) variances in infant cortality rates acong counties "upvind" versus " downwind" from the Dresden plant.
As the attached Critique docunents -- all of Dr. Sternglass' hypotheses are invalid. Ihe calculated a-ual radiation doses are in error; there is no consistent parallelisa between the quantities of radioactive effluents frcm the Dresden plant and the infant =ortality rates in the state as s
a whole or in individual counties of Illinois; there was a failure to analyze the data sufficiently in depth to realize that the rise to a
,- significant level of infant cortality rates fren 1963 to 1963 in the State of Illinois as a whole vns due entirely to a rise in rates for the
(
"non-white"~ population in Chicago only, which was unrelated to radiation exposure; use of incorrect key nateorological data and inadequate statistical analyzes of the data on infant nortality rates for selected counties in Illinois led to invalid conclusions as to radiation doses, changes in infant tortality rates and possible relationships between the two.
A similar critique prepared by the U.S. Public Health Service (PES)(2) re, ached the sane general conclusions as stated here.
"In sunnary, this analysis a
shows that radiation exposure has been grossly overestinated.
In addition, the changes in infant mortality do not correlate with the radioactive enissicas from the reactor site."
e a
w 8003 060 fd Ob E
s.,.,,,.. :
Critique of " Infant Mort $lity and Nuclear Power Generation" --
Dr. Ernest Sternglass a
UE Staff of the Atomic Energy Commission In developing his hypotheses, Dr. Sternglass first calculated yearly radiation doses to persons around the Dresden plant measurements by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)pgged on short-time He then Purported to demonstrate that infant mortality rates for the State of Illinois did rise and fall parallel with the quantities of radioactive effluent from the Dresden plant (1960-1968) while the infant =ortality rates for New York State continued to decline during the same time period.
Finally, Dr. Sternglass compared (a) infant mortality rates in Grundy County (in which the Dresden plant is located) and adjacent counties versus " control" counties and (b) variances in infant mortality rates among countie's "upvind" versus "dovovind" from the Dresden plant.
Each of these three major areas will be discussed.
Radiation Exposures The highest annual radiation doses (114-350 mr per year) estimated by Dr. Sternglass were based on measurements taken within 10 45 minute periods and made at, or extrapolated to, the area of greatest potential exposure beneath the center line of the plume.
Dr. Sternglass then multiplied the dose rates (13 to 40 microrcentgens per hour) by 8760 (the number of hours per year) to obtain his 114 to 350 millircentgens per year. To make such a calculation a valid one vould require that a person remain continuously out of doors, that he move around the perimeter of the site in complete synchroni ation with the shifting meteorology (so as to always be at the spot of highest concentration of radioactive nuclides in the air) and that the annual average concentration under the center line be the same as during the 10 45 minutes during which the measurements were taken.
In fact, despite the difficulties as pointed out in reference (1) of estimating annual doses from such limited ceasure-ments taken at such lov dose rates, the FHS report estimated that the annual (1968 -- the same year used in Dr. Sternglass' calculations) out-of-doors exposure vould be about 6 mr per year.
The second highest annual radiation doses (17 to 26 mr per year) estimated by Dr. Sternglass were based on measurements taken with thermoluminescant dosimeters (TLD's) exposed for about 14 days. As the PHS report points out the differences between the readings of the TLD's intended to measure natural background only and those to measure background plus exposure from the effluents from the Dresden plant "are inconclusive." Of the TLD's placed at ten stations, three of these difference measurements were larger than their standard deviations (the ones used by Dr. Sternglass),
four were smaller and three negative.
Perhaps these results are not surprising considering the following facts. The gross readings of the TLD's were about 21 milliroentgens.
From this it was necessary to subtract a
1
~ ', ~ _.,
- }
a. _. '.
- -~._
, e an estimated 17 milliroentgens for " internal background." The necessity of " correcting" an observed low measurement by such a large factor, percentage vise, leaves in doubt the validity of the scall difference value (4 millircentgens).
Further, the TLD's were transported by air to a laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada.
It was estimated that this and storage could account for 1 cil11 roentgen. An error in this estimate could increase the difference value (4 milliroentgens) by only 1 mil 11 roentgen but could decrease the difference value to an insignificant amount.
The final annual radiation dose (22 mr per year) estimated by Dr. Stern-glass is based on 10 minute measurements in the plume made in one day by N I (TI) survey =eters. As indicated previously, to extrapolate such a
short-term readings in the plu=e to annual doses exceed the limits of credibility.
Ehrther co=plications in these ceasure=ents were the necessity of calibrating the instrument respense to the energies of the radiations from the plu=e (which do not in themselves remain constant) and distinguishing these radiations from natural background.
The Atomic Energy Co==ission has developed a computer program to calculate external man-rem exposures due to gaseous effluent releases from nuclear power plants. Attachment A presents the data for the Dresden plant for the years 1964, 1963, and 1966. These calculated out-of-doors annual exposures are considerably lower than those esti=ated by Dr. Sternslass and are in genera {11qsreecent with the exposures given in the Public Health Service report Attachment A indicates out-of-doors annual exposures resulting from the effluents from the Dresden plant ranged from a few millire= in nearby areas to about 0.04 tillirem in Chicago.
In contrast, the nat -al radiation background in Illinois varies from 46 to 110 millirem per year. 2)
Attachment A also shows that some key meteorological factors used by Dr. Stern 61 ass in his third series of arguments are in error. This will be discussed later.
Infant bbrtality Rate -- State of Illinois Dr. Sternglass contendsthat infant mortality ' rates in the State of Illinois rise and fall in parallel with the quantity of radioactive effluents fro =
the Dresden plant. The '; asis for his contention is su=marized in his
~
Figure 1 and reproduced here, except that data for the year 1969 have been added by us.
Figure 1 also indicates the steady decline in the l
infant mortality rates for the State of New York from 1959-1968, which Dr. Sternglass. compares with the rates for the State of Illinois.
If excess infant mortality rates result pricarily from irradiation in utero, as implied by Dr. Sternglass, then the increase would be expected to be found in. recorded data the year following birth. Thus, excess death data should lag the effluent data by about a year. Figure 1 does 1
s '
not show any consistent trend between the two variables of infant =ortality rates and effluent data, i.e., some time periods indicate a parallelism while other periods do not.
The first year that substantial quantities of radioactive effluents occurred was in 1962 yet the infant mortality death rate in that year (as well as 1963) was lover in H11nois than New York State.
Dr. Sternglass implies that fallout from nuclear weapons tests caused higher than expected rate in New gkgagin 1962 but that hypothesis hes been completely discredited.
A statistical analyses (using the Chi-square test) of the infant mortality rates for the State of Hlinois as a whole in 1963 and 1965 did indeed show a significant increase. The analyses showed, however, that the rise observed statewide was related to a significant increase in Chicago only while the non-cetropolitan counties of Hlinois including Grundy County in which the Dresden plant is located and Will County that lies between the Dresden plant and Chica5o did not show any significant increase between 1963 and 1965 (Infant mortality rates did rise significantly in Grundy County between 1964 and 1966. This vill be discussed in the next section.) Further, the analyses revealed that for the years 1963 and 1965 there was no significsnt increase in infant mortality rates in Chicago for the " white" population while the rate for the "non-white" population did rise significantly.
In short, the significant rise to a significant level in infant tortality rates for the State of Hlinois from 1963 to 1965 was related entirely to the increase in the "non-white" population of Chicago. Further, it is to be recalled that the annual out-of-doors radiation dose for the ChicaSo area as a result of the effluents from the Dresden plant is only about 0.04 millirem per year. Thus, one must look for other causes than radiation for increases in infant mortality, i.e., differences in social, economic, medical, nutritional, etc., factors.
These analyses also indicate the unreliability of comparing infant mortality rates between two states, on a state-v g basis, as Dr. Sternglass did in his paper. Other analyses indicate that the j
infant mortality rates for rural H11nois and' rural New York did not j
show a significant difference for the period of 1960-1967 The rates fcr New York City did fall below those of Chicago in the 1964-1967 period but the rates for St. Iouis, for exa=ple, and Chicago for the same period of time showed no consistent relative trend. Again, one must look for other factors to explain any possible differences in infant mortality rates.
9
4 Infant Fortality Rates - " Adjacent" Counties of Illinois Dr. Sternglass' last contention is to claim a " clear positive association between radiation dose and effect on infant mortality." He proceeds in his arguments by comparing changes in the rates of infant =ortality during 1964-1966 for " adjacent" counties to the Dresden plant sites and " control" counties.
His data are su==arized in his Table I reproduced here.
TABLE I Infant Mortality Changes 1964-1966 in Illinois Counties near Dresden*
Percent Change 1964 Rate 1966 Rate in Rates Deaths Births 1000 Deaths Births 1000 1964-66 Grundy (Reactor) 7 442 15 8 16 474 38.o
+1419 Livingston (S) 6 728 8.2 12 608 19 7
+140%
Kankakee (SE) 41 1976 20 7 54 1830 29 5
+ 43%
80 Will (NE) 109 4920 22.2 100 4294 23 3
+ 5%
4 !i laSalle (W) 49 2176-22 5 39 1858 21.0
- 7%
%0 Kendall (N) 11 460 23 9 7
422 16.6
- 31%
ogle (IN) 16 854 18 7 20 808 24.8
+335 Winnebago (WN) 122 5002 24.4 122 4788 25 5
+ 5%
m
'o S.
Henry (W) 17 930 18 3 16 862 18.6
+ 2%
y j Stephens (tN) 25 978 25.6 20 808 24.8
- 3%
00 Knox (SW) 22 1130 19 5 17 946 18.0
- 85 Ice (W) 17 658 25 8 9
594 15 2 41%
4
- Source:
U.S. Vital Statistics Dr. Sternslass' second basis of comparison c=png the counties of Illinois is premised on his belief "it appears that significant increases in infant i
mortality might be detected in the areas downwind from the prevailing westerly winds that should not be observed in the upwind direction."
These'two h potheses will be considered by examining the relative radiation doses among the pertinent counties and relating these to changes in infant mortality rates and by a statistical analysis of the relative infant mortality rates in 1964 and 1966 within each county.
a
k.
[
~"
p
, e
~
Even a cursory comparison of Attachment A and Dr. Sternglass' Table I will
- reveal a lack of correlation between radiation doses and changes in infant mortality rates. For example, the adjacent county of Livingston d
showed the highest rate of increase (+140g) in infant mortality rate from 1963 to 1965, yet the wind frequency in that direction was only about 7-9); the vind frequency into adjacent Will County was about 17p yet the d
increase infant mortality rate was only 5p.
More specifically, statistical analyses were made (using the Chi squared test) of infant mortality rates within each county named in Dr. Sternslass' Table I comparing their rates in 1964 with those in 1966. only one county (GrucCy) showed a statistically significant increase. Two other nearby.
counties (Bureau and DeKalb) not named in Table I showed negative statisticWy significant values and the changes in infant =ortality rates for all the other counties in Table I were not significant either positive or negative.
i The Dresden plant is located in Grundy County where there was a statistical increase in infant mortality between 1964 and 1966. Without further considerations one might erroneously conclude from this that there is a l
positive correlation between radiation dose and infant mortality rates
-(although all the other evidence does not support this conclusion).
A reexamination of the cap in Attachment A vill show,.however, that Dresden 5
is located in the northeastern part of Grundy County and that the average potential radiation dose to the inhabitants of Grundy County is no more, and probably less than, Kendall and Will Counties which are adjacent to Grundy County. - Tne possible causes of infant mortality are so nu=erous that
-there is no obvious explanation for the significant rise in infant mortality rates in Grundy County from 1964 to 1966.
Variations in infant mortality from year to year -- both in absolute numbers and rates --
are the coc=on throughout the U.S.
The population of Grundy County is small and both birth and infant death rates are s=all.
A high variability is characteristic of such data.
In 1969 (the latest data available) the infant mortality rate for-Grundy County was higher than those in two adjacent counties but s= aller than those for the other three adjacent counties.
Addendum Another hypothesis proposed by Dr. Sternglass was that a correlation
~
existed between death rates due to respiratory diseases other than pneumonia and influenza for all age groups in Illinois and the Annual releases of gaseous radioactive effluents from the Dresden plant.
The U.S. Public Health Service report stated, "Sternglass' proposed rela-
---tionship_between respiratory diseases and radiation exposure is based on a
' difference in the rate of' increase between Illinois and New York.
Both J
I C
r-w
,,,m-
,,r-e we+
+e=----t
- a-="
~.
i
~
x States had similar rates in 1967(18.6and187/100,000),butin1959, Illinois and New York had rates of 10 9 and 13 0/100,000,, respectively.
The rise in both states is not unique, but is observed in the United States as a whole and is probably related to many factors cc :en to urban life.
To resolve this proble= vould require an analysis of the specific disease i
categories in several states. Many of the etiological factors are unidentified and it appears e:<tremely unlikely that the radiation is the single causative agent in H11nois... "
Finally, Dr. Sternslass alludes to the incidence of leukemia and calignant l
tumors as related to irradiation of the populations in niinois. This is discussed in the pHS report with their conclusions, "Neither the death rate from leukemia nor from all neoplasms are correlated with the gaseous discharge from Dresden."
~
I e
J 9
9 f
y>
References d
i 1.
Radiological Surveillance Studies at a Boiling Water ITuclear Power Reactor, Kahn, B., et al, U.S. Depart =ent of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, BRH 70-1, March 1970.
2.
A Critical Review of " Infant Mortality and !!uelear Power Generation,"
. Davis, A. K. and Kahn, B.,
Environmental Protection A6 ncy, January 1971.
3 Evaluation of a Possible Causal Relationship Between Fallcut Detosition of Strontium 40 and Infent and Fetal :.'ortality Trends, To:pkins, Edythalena and Brown, Morton L., U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, DBE 69-2, october 1969 4.
"More on Radioactive Fallout," ITewsletter Supplement, Committee on Environmental Hazards, American Academy of Pediatrics, April 15, 1970.
5 "The Sternglass Claims -- Ito Basis in Fact," Editorial in Americtn Journal of Public Health and the I!ation's Health, June 1970.
l 1
4 e
l l
l 4
o 1
k
- l f
Attachment A e
THEORETICAL ESTIMATES OF RADIATION EXPOSURES IN THE VICINITY OF DRESDEN FROM GASEOUS EFFLUFNTS DURING 1964, 1965 and 1966 The Atomic Energy Co= mission has developed a computer program to calculate external man-rem exposures due to beta and ga-a emitters released in nuclear power plant gaseous effluents.
The calculations are based on actual population distributica, average vind rose data (direction, speed, and frequency), and average mixes of weather types.* The exposure values are based on annual average effluent releases in terms of percentages of release limits. The results do not take into account the fact that people vill not normally be present continually year round and vill normally be indoors part of the time and vill normally be shielded by building materials. These factors would reduce actual exposures, perhaps by a factor of 2.
The attached Tables I, II and III provide the calculated values of the average annual dosos to the populations in annular sectors in the vicinity of the Dresden Euclear Power Plant for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966, respectively. Each table includes the average annual vind direction frequency and the total gaseous emission for the selected year.
This sa=e data is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3 which are maps of northern Illinois which includes the individual counties and the appropriate average annual doses in = rem for the annular sectors given in the tables.
- Yearly data do not deviate significantly from the averages used here.
-e e
1 r
TABLE I Calculatad Annual Avera;;c Doses (mrem) for 1964 Noble Gas Emission 521.000 Ci (2.37% of limit)
Wind Distance in Miles Direction Freq. %
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N
16.3 1.25 0.23 0.09 0.041 0.024 NE 17.1 1.78 0.24 0.09 0.044 0.026 E
17.4 0.99 0.24 0.09 0.044 0.026
. SE 15.3 0.84 0.2'2 0.08' O.039 0.022
'S 9.1 0.54 0.13 0.05 0.024 0.013 i
.. SW 7.0 0.37 0.10 0.04 0.017 0.011
.' W 7.1 0.41 0.10 0.04 0.017 0.011 NW 10.8 0.80 0.15 0.06 0.028 0.015 d
9 l
1 g
l f
h 9
4 9
e 9
I c
+
s f
6 4
TABLE II Calculated Annual Average Doses (mrem) for 1965 Noble Gas Emission 610,000 Ci (2.777, of limit)
Wind Distance in Miles Direction Freq. 7.
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N
16.3 1.46 0.27 0.10 0.04 8 0.028 NE 17.1 2.08 0.29 0.10 0.051 0.030 E
17.4 1.15 0.29 0.1'1 0.051 0.030 i SE 15.3 0.99 0.25 0.09 0.045 0.025
. S 9.1 0.63 0.15 0.05 0.028 0.015 SW 7.0 0.43 0.12 0.,05 0.020 0.012 W
7.1 0.48 0.12 0.05 0.020 0.012
~
W 10.8 0.93 0.18 0.07 0.033 0.018 4
- e e
9 e
\\
\\
i
TABLE III Calculated Annual Average Doses (mrem) for 1966 Noble Gas Emission 736.000 Ci (3.347. of limit)
Wind Distance in Miles Direction Freq. %
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N
16.3 1.76 0.33 0.12 0.058 0.033 NE 17.1 2.50 0.34 0.12 0.061 0.036 E
17.4 1.39 0.34 0,13 0.061 0.036 SE 15.3 1.19 0.31 0.11 0.055 0.031 S
9.1 0.76 0.19 0.07 0.033 0.019
-[ SU 7.0 0.52 0.14 0.06 0.024 0.015
~
W 7.1 0.58 0.14 0.06 0.024 0.015 NW 10.8 1.12 0.21 0.08 0.040 0.021 s
9 e
e t
4 e
4 S
n m
4 b
,-n---
,,, e e
e a
e s,.
,f g=
~
A y f( v I a N/ I (pt f.
It A
. we le m
1
'.o x
1 n
N d' wd lo
~.,
n u
/
so m.
=
u T
3h D,
b
~
/
k
'D O
.i;
./.
/ \\d r2 t-
.~
.s N.
'l C
.u o
N 1 -ljas x[8E k( L = W
's \\ s \\ ; f 4.
g a rca) e is.,.e e
N*
.y Q
M J
G
. yl c
- Q g
+.
D.
N-Wg D-L C
Z o
Cg vi CD e
>.*p 3
<:* Q L
W q v
D - -.
d I,
M e
X =
1 Z
s Z
\\
QD OD
-J. l D D*l
/
O
/
J eh
/
W 5
l$
\\
ei L __3V 2 E/
- N-M e
J 12 -
O-d
>-4
/
cn
.o
.~~
wb b
b D
h f5 l
O
.c.
t l
y su s
a.
p/. '..,,
N. -_
O es C
. M k
I
/
C o-a O
'k E
\\
t.: *
- C C
U 3-M W
<\\
5 O
o
. r'
- W Z
J G
i-c
~
d 3
3 i:
W
.i C.
=
o r
e.5
\\
m C
J O
sn S
O m
=
- 3-N Lk
^
,0 r
e.
~.,
.=-
W 3
H C:2 '. *,* -
- 2
.r O
r.'.
M c
c:
+
$'==
4 W-M M
M Q
'J
.. n--e C
2-.-
6 a
M c.
C d
y
,I
~
,,-l* *-
.,'s..
U-
"g**
~'
m m
s M.
Z g-y.
m w,-
.x.
e'
,O
. M
.O' M
s' C3
')
,.7 y,
s O
2
'f '
W 4J C*
L p.
M
~
/,
A^G n'
/ \\
YN Y I C N./.
1
.s g.qCN'g
/
=-
\\
l I
j,,g,
.cdCS s
i
\\
D
-3 7
f m
us i
m' m.
, ~ m-Ww
/
,o o -
- =
u -
M-c' 8
cI
<S e-4G1
/
.' _J
-- s/
s...a
- a. /
4 c,
s It ou
-u.s
/
e
'm n.
'N y
(<
.} s p,
e; i
I sE [e lh)y/M) is b len!c4
.s io o
e d;), C'
}
_2>h. \\
b M* l p,'- e R$ ' Q' u cx
=g.., 3p=2:~ d i
< x.
We
- i%, I C'
,.s yo
.C C
s_
.,,/ @1 e--
,~.
y s m
_ i e:
t_.,
=
e 5
'4 AE i.i; :.:.-d /:
=0.
oP1
/5 g'
c L.-
)
E l
l
- 'l,
?,
hllnb
~
7,.
a W
c e-W.
5 o
-i
- s W
t 6
'o o
a es e
M c(
g-g, e
N'
<:s X/
5 I
f ~.
d 0
==
4 c
L.C
- 3
]
O 5
/
/
1
- .~.
a o
.t.a 4,.
%"'"==-
D. /
c:
g-s
=-
u
-/,i i-o
=
v o
3 W
<\\
c Z
O 3
W J
C
~
1
- [,
. LIF.
m
~:
8L
]
3 C
J CC m
o.
1
- C D
E t.u=
=
W
.o 4
C,,
f***=
C,'.
g g;3 W
- 7
.e=
b W
I M
O c
c2 c.
'W C'
C.:
M LtJ O
3 l
.2 C
.I
.'-=
.M r'
(~
o M
e c.
l C.:
W
.g
- g
)..
a w
- \\
Q
- g
. \\.,
M
[
,#.'f g
M
~
..s W
' ' >C.
M e
14
.O 3>
Z..
s.
.n -
- :q -
.a
}*
o e
e;
,/
a
=
2, g
,o e
t
.y f
C.:
c:
m O
C C.
_J.
W
<O C.
C.:
e J
)
t
~
(.,KU a n/
/\\
vnv1 i nh t.#.
V '-
f V
i
,.ge?
l Q<
f o
/
.s
,f 2
m o
i ut to.
%y
/
.~
- ) cf
~~~~
l o
l m
W
]
D
- ~
y O
R/
dR
- z
,/
u e :
e
.3 s
q O
p.,
w Q
a o' a
4 W
N O C
/
d i
l c
=M (3
M
~~~
I e.\\
i:
ic i%
m
.Q-C c--
N Q%
-3 e
@n_
O '
C
[ %
O
['N '^M/
D' '
O' f.
I-f c,,3 f
' G*
l O' i
g 6-
$ b'5. !ds/ID
- ni s.9 o
mn
~;
m t
=
s b Q*
b Y
~
DO
(
c, A,
O
_ _ f-.
=
u e
/!
l
..a
- d. -,
8 a
'o, m
c.
w-c.
e 2/ g
--e i
u.: D Q
8 6f t.
C L
C c
O
~
n O
D c'k Q,
O N
N/
a m
~
- * = -. _
g
. x.
cp
/
~'.
s-g 3-
/,,
-d T o
' ~ - -. -
c W
w c
.:1 Z
U l
O
./.
g o
O 3
W
- N J
o
.e f..
y 1~
i o
~
J
.D 3
W c-e
_M, o*
s w.,
a m
t<,.a i
o*
r a
G r-cr.
Po r
u m
u, o
<a 0,3.
c~
H cf c4
+
m
.o O
o
'a o,
5 H
W J
w.
~
Os C
Q 2
=
w Z
H m
U
=
s;
'3 m
.m.
.h
=
m
~
I EI '
X-6 f
O g
s 5
O
. ~
i.
l C
2
/
=
3 g
g 4
4.J O
=
y L
O s
O-Q g
(
~
1
..,3 -
m.
.2-H' 0 '. 2 7.0
,I [
- s y
'E-2
'k p c:
8
-T E ST-B AN ->
-o' m o z.
N EVA D A -:. to H e
'26 h TESTS F$
W INFA NT 2't.
- 3 J
N o
- 6 MORTALITY l
,s o.
- o.2 5.0 iti 9
/p
/\\
/
N.Y.
- i I
E 24.0-
/'-<
,f. f LLINOIS (e
, 23.0L '
N
\\
O s
\\
22.0 z<
Lc_
N E '!/
(?
21,0 1/ Y0nx D
SDIN RAD ACTiVI m.
[ $_^.{
DIS C W>.3 G E
~
0.5 a.
a O
3 I
O F
\\
e-
)
/
/
w g
7 r
p m
\\-
b
/h
//-/".
~
O
'65.
'70 1960
,'.;c
..(gggggg yggg
+
- Data for 1969'added to Dr. Sternglass' Fig.1..
l f
)
g;n
,,