Professional Documents
Culture Documents
«» *
No. 8 1 of 95 copies, Series TB
—•-".. -^ J^,tJtfH^Jgf^^.tmtr.-^\,-.
NYO-4505
This docuinent is
PUBLICLY
tLICLY EDLEASABLE
REl
Auiifliori'zing. Official
Date: M^/'o?
Prepared by the Staff,
Health and Seifety Division
Merrll Elsenbud, Director
t1
\
11
tssc.mmt'MfmMmm
ill
G0NTSHT3
IrStjiiJkMAJiti o o o o t t o o A o a a t t O o o o o a » o » * * o XXX
ADDIICAOX « O O O O d O O O O 0 9 0 O 0 * 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 vXXX
CHAPTER 1 - INTHOnflCTIOF. . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
^v
ILLUSTRATIONS
r
6.16 Active Dust in Air, Montrose, Colorado,
after Btirst 6 38
6.17 Active Dust in Air, Farmington, New Mexico,
after Burst 6, • • . . • • • . • . • . . . • 39
6.18 Active Dust in Air, Grand Junction, Colorado,
after Burst 6 . . . . . 39
6.19 Active Dust in Air, Price, Utah, after
Burst 6 kO
6.20 Active Dtist in Air, Rode Springs, Wyoming,
after Burst 6. kO
6.21 Active Dust in -^ir. Vernal, Utah, after
Burst 6. hX
6.22 Active Dust in Air, Delta, Utah, after
Burst 7 « o hX
6.23 Active Dust in Air, Elko, Nevada, after
Burst 7 • • ^2
6.2U Active Dust in Air, Denver, Colorado,
ai^ter Burst 7 o . « . . o » . * . * . o . . . 43
6.20 Active Dust in Air, Grand Junction,
Colorado, after Burst 7 k3
6.26 Active Dust in Air, Ogden, Utah, after
Burst 7 . « o kk
6.27 Active Dust in Air, Price, Utah, after
Burst 7, • hk
6.28 Active Bust in Air, Wendover, Utah,
after Burst 7 , . ......... k$
6.29 Active Bust in Air, Rock Springs, Wyoming,
after Burst 7 « o . . . . . . . . . « * o . . h$
6.30 Active Bust in Air, Battle Mountain,
Nevada, after Burst 8 * . , . , , . . . , . . k6
6.31 Active Dust in Air, Boise, Idaho,
after Burst o« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MY
6.32 Active Dust in Air, Gooding, Idaho,
after Bxirst 8, , . • . • h&
6.33 Active Dust in Air, Fallon, Nevada,
after Burst 8 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6,3lt Active Dust in Air, Reno, Nevada,
after Burst 8 k9
6.35 Active Dust in Air, Rome, Oregon,
after Burst 8, 00
6.36 Active Dust in Air, Sacramento, Califond.a,
after Bxirst 8 00
6.37 Active Dust in Air, Winnemucca, Nevada,
after Burst 8 » , . 01
6.38 Active Dust in Air, Elko, Nevada,
after Burst 8 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.39 Mass Distrlbutig;;^ According to Particle
Size . . . . *'--5*v*^fc^,, »^ . . . . . . . . . . 04
vt
TABLES
CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS
vii
ABSTRACT
Fallout was slightly higher than that measured during the Buster-
Jangle series of late 1901. Inhalation doses estimated from maximum con-
centrations were found coii5)arable to the doses to be expected from natu-
rally present radon daughters. The cumulative deposit of radioactive
material on the earth's surface, from Tumbler-Snapper and earlier tests,
is about the same order as the natui'ally occurring radium in the upper
foot of the earth's crust, or lower, depending on the elapsed time since
the latest series of weapons tests.
CHAFTM 1
IHTRODUCTIQH
-1-
In furtherance of purpose number kt the monitoring data has been
made available to the Weather Bureau for study in relation to meteor-
ology. Their results are set forth in Part n of this report, prepared
by them. Part I, prepared by the staff of the Health and Safely Divi-
sion, New York Operations Office, describes the sampling and radiological
analysis and discusses those aspects of the results which do not Involve
meteorology.
-2-
CHAPTER 2
For the last four of the eight test bursts liiis network was not
considered dense enough to provide adeouate monitoring within about 000
miles of the Nevada Proving Grounds, Fixed stations would have had to
be impractically numerous in this arbd to provide sufficient coverage.
To meet this condition, a mobile operation was organized. A force of
eight tw3-man teams was deployed across the predicted trajectosry of the
cloud from each of the four bursts, with the purpose of estimatirig and
locating the maximtim airborne activity and fallout.
-3-
CHAPTER 3
-U-
6, Santa Fe Operations Office
8, State Department \
To collect settled dust a 13" x 13" square of gummed paper was set
horizontally in a frame so that one square foot was exposed. The frame
was mounted on a stand which elevated it three feet from the ground or
roof. The alevatlon was to reduce the amount of dust swept up by breezes
and deposited on the paper. The assembly is shown in Figure U.l. Trays,
used during tixe Buster-Jangle survey, were not employed this time because
coo$>arison had shown that the gummed paper gave equivalent results and
offered the advantage of ease in manipulation.
^ m
Fig. 4.1 — Gimimed paper holder.
-7-
Flow Gage
I
00
I
I I
4
' I
I
I
Aerotec Support
Cascade Impactor
Support
Cascade Impactor
Unit #2
Aerotec
Multiple
Power Outlet
Hi Volume
Sampler #1
Tripod
Filter cover
-10-
«gas
••••••HtMi
We did not provide the fixed stations with equipment for classifying
the particles accbrding to size. We reserved this kind of sampling for
the mobile teams because we expected them to encounter higher activity
levels than all but a few fixed stations.
The men were divided into eight teams of 2. Each team was provided
with equipment for collecting all of the types of samplesrasntioiMdabove
and in addition with standard survey instruments for meastiring alpha,
beta and gamma radiation.
-n-
The work of the teams may be summarized as follows s
-12-
JrfSj
TABLE U . l
Symbol
"13-
2-01 North Head, Washington *
2-02 Spokane, Washington *j0
2-03 Kalispell, Montana 0
2-OI4. Missoula, Montana 0
2-00 Butte, Montana 0
2-06 Helena, Montana 0
2-07 Great Falls, Montana *
2-08 Havre, MDutana 0
2-09 Billings, Montana «,0
2-10 Sheridan, Wyoming 0
2-11 Casper, Wyoming 0
2-12 Rapid City, South Dakota *,0
2-13 Scottsbluff, Nebraska «J^
2-lU Cheyenne, Wyoming 0
2-10 North Platte, Nebraska 0
2-16 Goodland, Kansas *,0
2-17 Dodge City, Kansas 0
2-18 Amarillo, Texas «
2-19 Roswell, New Mexico *
» Gammed Paper
0 High Voliame Saniplers
-lU"
Synibol
5-01 Cfereen Bay, Wisconsin *
5-02 Milwaukee, Wiscoixsin «
5-03 Terra Haute, Indiana *
5-OU Memphis, Tennessee *
5»^5 Jackson, Mississippi «
5-06 New Orleans, Loxiisiana *
5-07 Peoria, Illinois *
-15-
Symbol
8-00 Binghamton, New York »
8-06 LaGuardia Field, New York »
8-07 AEC, NYOO *
8-08 Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania *
8-09 Wilmington, Delaware «
8-10 Baltimore, Maryland *
8-11 Richmond, Virginia *
8-12 Washington, B.C. »
^-13 North Bay, Ontario *
B-lU Moosonee, Ontario *
8-10 Moncton, Ontario «
* Gummed Paper
" -16-
CHAPTER 5
SAMPLE PHOCESSIHG
The samples wsre nailed, with the field data^ entered on punch
cards, to the Health and Safety Division, HIOO, The card has marginal
holes for manual sorting with a needle. It is illustrated in Fig. $,1,
Blanks, that is, planchets containing the ash from unexposed sheets
of gummed paper, for background, and sanies of potassium carbonate as
standards to determine the geometry factor, were run. Usually two or
three of eadi •imT^ inserted in each tape.
The paper tapes were sent to a conpiting center and the results in
net counts per minute were transferred to the cards. Unit asad extra-
polated values were then computed.
for toe activity, Ag^ at time tg if the activity at time, t^ was A^^.
-17-
To check its application to the particular conditions of the current
tests, some cf the more active samples were counted repeatedly, for the
determination of decay carves. The slope, X, was determined for each
sample separately. The results are listed in Table 0.1. The samples were
grouped accordijtjg to sample type and burst assigned and samples in each
group were counted on a particular series of ds^s. This made it possible
to obtain a composite decay curve for a group by plotting the total activ-
ity for each d^. The points of Figure 0.2 were obtained in this way.
There are 0 sets of points, representing filtered dust assigiied to Burst
No. 6 arid guimed paper samples of bursts 0,6,7 and 8. The data were
reduced to percentages of 10 day old activity in order to show their re-
lation to the plotted line of slope 1.2.
>i\t. ••^•^^
TABLE 0.1
1.23 1.28
Mean
. p-
-21-
CHAPTER 6
FINDINGS
-22-
TABLE 6 . 1
Date E^ct<y
1/2/53 1
12/V52 1.U
9/1/52 2.U
8/2/52 3.7
7/2/52 7.1*
?«,
,/ija*j^'^»3*^!
I
^
itOO 800 1200 1600 Distarce 2000 Miles
Data fl"om the mobile teams reporting maximum fallout for each of the
four bursts are given in Table 6.2, The hi^est concentration of airborne
radioactivity dpes not always occur at the locality having the maximum
fallout as measured by settled radioactivity. This is easily understood,
recognizing that the method of collecting dust suspended in air at ground
level excludes raindrops tiiat sometimes entrain radioactive particles from
higher altitudes. MdreoTer , a lack of correlation between airborne and
settled dust can be attributed to differences in particle sizes One ex-
treme limiting case would be a suspension of rapidly falling particles
that are too large to be deflected into the air sampling device, or at the
other extreme, a dense suspension of particles too small to be influenced
by gravitational settling. The first would appear only as settled dust,
while the second would appear only as airborne dust. Neither extreme is
probable.
The fallout during these tests was slightly higher than the fallout
measured during the series in late 1951, The tests held at Enlwetok in
early 1951 caused less fallout in ihe United States than either of the
two continental test series for i^ich data are available.
The decay rate of the radioactive dust from each burst of a series
follows the time function given previously. During the period of the test
the succesive bursts are markedly different at any given time. As the
period from the last burst becomes long in relation to the interval between
the first and last burst, the decay curves approach a uniform slope and it
is possible to consider the accuimilation of debris from all bursts as be-
ing the same age. Thus, with ne^gible error, one might arbitrarily
select the midpoint of a four week test program as t^ for all bursts and
present in a single decay curve, activity versus time for an indefinite
period beginning 60 days from the end of the test series. In Figure 6,3
the average fallout in Northeastern United States from each of the three
test programs is plotted in this way.
TABLE 6 , 2
The fallout from the third and irwst recent series, being of the same
order, but slightly higher than the second series, is also given. Co-exist-
ing on the earth's surface is the fallout from the previous tests, the
total b^ng given by the upper decay curve which thus approximates the
activity which is now present from all three series of tests. The curves
are extended until approximately January 1, 195U.
•*i&0"»
only a few hours d-uilng which period its influence on the background radia-
tion level is of a lower order than the rise in background due to activity
deposited on the surface. However, in the case of airborne dust, we must
consider the radiation dose to the lung from inhalation of the radioactive
particleSo
FigUi'as 6ol|. to 6,37 are graphs of the filtered dust activity in sam-
ples collected by the mobile teams.
\
^v
\
\ .
- \
N
\
Spring
1952
[Tests
U80 600
Days since Miay l,195l
m
n-
10
irtTF—"mjY—o6"^cf 12 OCT May 'ff, 1952
Pig. 6,k
Active Dust i n A i r , Burley, Idaho, a f t e r Burst 5
10^
>lo3
^
•g 10^
< n On
05
m
10
"l^'GCT • fey T-~-SSnQCf ' 12 bCT ' Hay B, 1$52
Fig. 6,5
Active Dust i n A i r , Cheyenne, Wyoming, a f t e r Burst 5
- 31
^ V i % v » -nr ((•^Vt*"*.*?'''-**;'*'!^-'"
Pig. 6,6
Active Dust in Air, Delta, Utah, after Burst 5
Fig. 6.7
Active Dust in Air, Elko, Nevada, after Burst 5
J3i2!»
"•<t^XaflitS*i<ii.',i-i'i iri
10',i^
•H
•P
O
•<10*-
O T
0}
a_~_»»»j. •hMMBHM*i
12 GCT May 7 00 GCT 12 ICT May 8, 1952
F i g . 6.8
Active Dust i n Air, Idaho F a l l s , Idaho, a f t e r Burst 5
,-. 10^
nJ
^ L
>
^103 .
•0 1—'—1
^, 10'^ •
ij —1
1 1
10 i- — • " — » • — 1 — 1 — 1 — • — — 1 — 1 —
Figo 6,9
Active Dust i n Air,, Pocatello, Idaho, a f t e r Burst 5
12 GCT May 7 00 OCT 12 GCT May 6, 1952
Pig. 6.10
Active Dust in Air, Ogden, Utah, after Bxirst 5
-3k-
• ••*;
ST*'>--,- 'jf.
Fig. 6,11
Active Dust in Aix^ Rock Springs, Wyoming, after Burst 5
.4 >.>v*WS^'**l*=^'***
-35-
12 GCT May 7 00 GCT 12 GCT May 8, 1952
Fig. 6.12
Active Dust in Air, Wendover, Utah, after Burst 5
-36-
12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT May 26, 1952
Fig. 6,13
Active Dust in Air, Cheyenne, Wyoming, after Burst 6
-37-
. 1
Fig. 6.16
Active Dust in Air, Montrose, Colorado, after Bur&t 6
-36-
10^
<tl.
>L03 .
olO'
10 •
12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT May 26, 1952
Figo 6,37
Active Dust ta Air, Farmington, New Mexico, after Burst 6
10^
«n
HTJ
'§•10-^
43
«102
i nP\ Lfl
T-r ^ajnr^
PQ
10
12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT May 26, 1952
Figo 6.38
Active Dust in Air, Grand Junction, Colorado^ after Burst 6
rr
10^ -
10 . . 1
Fig, 6,19
Active Dust in Air, Price, Utah, after Burst 6
Fig, 6.20
Active Dust in Air, Rock Springs, \ifyoraing, aft«: Burst 6
•1
^ KlK^^^l''^ ' *^ . -^-^''' V^*''
I t*%
43
43
O
•P
«n
I
•H
•P
O
•P
pq
Fig, 6o22
Active Dust in. Air, Delta, Utah, after Burst 7
„ ^'C^-J->-^.n:%
"iilr
yr* . * e * M.
108 -
107 -
106 -
AotiTlty (d/
W 1
- n pu
.S103
\ 4 'Ml
102 [•
1
10 r
12 6CT June 1 ' OO'GCT ' ' 1^ (Mf ' June'2,1952
Fig. 6.23
^'4i2r'
12 GCT June 1 00 GCT 12 GCT June 2, 1952
Pig. 6^2U
Active Dust in Air, Denver, Colo., after Burst 7
Fig, 6.25
Active Dust in Air, Grand Junction, Colo., after Burst 7
12 GCT June 1 00 OCT 12 OCT June 2, 1952
Fig. 6.26
Active Dust in Air, Ogden, Utah, after Burst 7
Pig. 6.27
Active Dust In Air, Price, Utah, after Burst 7
«|||^
lik
*«is-,-?.-.-.,.,_•
Fig. 6,28
Active Dust in Air, Wendover, Utah, after Burst 7
^ 10-
-p
o
10 .
_n-
j-
12 GCT June 1 00 GCT 12 GCT June 2, 1952
Fig. 6,29
Active Dust i n A i r , Rock Springs, Vtyoming, after Burst 7
-U5-
12 OCT June 5 00 OCT 12 GCT June 6, 1952
Fig. 6.30
Active Dust in Air, Battle Mountain, Nev., after Burst 8
4|i6-
•P*
^ ic
m
JLO-^-
AA^ lil
10'-
T_
Fig, 6,31
Astive Dust in Air, Boise, Idaho, after Burst 8
12 GCT June 5 00 GCT ' 12 GCT June 6, 1952
Fig. 6.32
Active Dust in Air, Gooding, Idaho, after Burst 8
'.48-
^•t<^i'
Fig. 6«33
Active Dust in Air^ Fallonj Nevadaj after Burst 8
' *«r«?*s»**-"«'^^
Fig. 6.35
Active Dust in Air, Rome Oregon, after Burst 6
mim&mmmm
-50-
12 OCT
FLz, 6.37
Active Dust ia Ais?^ VirmBmiQZ&g NeVo^, after Burst 8
IHilMii
SB
.Q.
108 -
107 -
10^ I..
n
*| io5 -
11, n n n
•p
-
•- ^•^yVu^j^
o n 1
"U
1
^ 103
102
10 ". J L. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fig. 6.38
- N,
»
-;^|r''
v^h<<00hi
Ttie contrast between bursts 5 and 6 on the one hand and bursts 7 and
8 on the other5 in respect of particle size, is shown in Table 6.3. Mass
median diameters and percentage less than 5 microns were read from Figjure
6.38 and tabulated for con^iarison with Hie aerotec data of the last column,
^ i c h is another estimate of per cent less than five microns. The aerotec
results are shown in ^eater detail in Table 6«it, ^iiich lists the activities
in the two particle size classes for each station. Qualitatively they con-
firm the Cascade in^actor findings of smaller particles from the last two
bursts than from the preceding two.
Table 6.3
• Particle Size
5 5.6 kS 21
6 $.6 )6 62
7 1.6 83 71*
8 1.9 83 76
10 30 50 70 90
Per Cont ua Smaller Particles
Fig. 6.39
Mass Distribution According to Particle Size
<-'$k''
TABLE 6,U
Activity (d/a)
Burst In Small In Large
Number Location Particles Particles
J"
»55=
fi
CHAPTER 7
They show that the error is greatest at the higher levels but its
ratio to the activity decreases ^Aien the activity increases.
TABLE 7*1
«56-
TABLE 7*2
QoBimed paper data are net counts per minute on counting (Sate. Data
less than 100 were rejected. Oroup A consists oft
Group B was similarly defined but with limits 1000 to 10000. Sets
of three not fitting in either group were placed in group C.
Filtered dust data are d/ta/V^ on sampling date.
At every station of the filtered dust table there was a single pair
i M c h accoTinted for at least UO^ of the variance.
Some cjf the graphs. Figures 6.I4 to 6,37 show activity arriving at
a location sooner than seems possible on the p&8±s of known wind veloci-
ties and it Is reasonable to ascribe the <ilsagreement, at least tenta-
tively, to error. In fact. Independently of any meteorological conqjari-
son, the data reveal a degree of tjwqertainty in estimating and reporting
sampling tins, large enough to prevent any useful comparison with weather
information, although within acceptable limits of error for health moni-
toring.
-57-
!nie short (Jiscussion of this chapter is presented as an interim
report of a continuing study. Questions such as the efficiency of the
gunned paper technique, optimum san^le size, sam.pling period and degree
of replication require further investigation of the several sources
of error.
.58-