You are on page 1of 68

This dociunent consists of 67 pages.

«» *
No. 8 1 of 95 copies, Series TB

—•-".. -^ J^,tJtfH^Jgf^^.tmtr.-^\,-.

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

NYO-4505

RADIOACTIVE DEBRIS FROM OPERATIONS


TUMBLER AND SNAPPER OBSERVATIONS BEYOND
200 MILES FROM THE TEST SITE. PART 1

January 12, 1953

New York Operations Office, AEC

Technical i n f o r m a t i o n Sorvico, Oak Ridgo, Tonnotso*

This docuinent is
PUBLICLY
tLICLY EDLEASABLE
REl

Auiifliori'zing. Official
Date: M^/'o?
Prepared by the Staff,
Health and Seifety Division
Merrll Elsenbud, Director

In the Interest of econoiiQr, this report has been


reproduced direct from copy as submitted to the
Technical Infoxnatlon Service.

t1
\

11

AEC. Oak Ridge. Teiiii.-W3533S


DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an


agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in


electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
PREFACE

This Is Pairt I of a report prepared in two parts^ Issued


separately. Part II sets forth the results of studies of the data
made by the Special Projects Section, U« S. Weather Bureau, and
includes a detailed presentation of most of the data on maps.

Mechanically the two parts have been treated as if t h ^ were


separate reports in order to avoid delays in the coordination of
matters of clerical detail between the two agencies preparing them.
The division of the work Into two parts does not reflect any dls*»
imity in the subject matter. It was dictated by the different
skills and facilities available at the Office of the New York Opera-
tions Office of the Atomic Energy Oommlsslon and the Special Projects
Section of the Weather Bureau.

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

XiXul O r XJJIJ j D X T t A X x U f ^ ^ e o o o o o » « o « < » e « « o o * *

IJXQ X UiT XADXUSD « o e o o o o o o A o « « o e « o o o o o vXX

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

CHAPTER 2 » DESIGI OF THE PROGRAM . o . < . . . . . o . o 3


CHAPTER 3 - OEGANISA'KON OF THE PROGKAM „ k
CHAPTER k " METHODS OF FIELD OPERATION. . • 7
l u l Sainpling Procedures. . . . . . o . . . 7
ko!S The ?'ixsd Metwo^k. . . . . . ^ . . s . 11
k 3 Th@ ^bf.l@ Tea%s 11
CHAPTIR 2» - i^MPffi PHKJESSIIO . . . . . . » • 17
CHAPTER 6 - FIUDIMC^. . . , . 22
6«1 Test Period, . . . . . . . . . . . » • 22
6.2 Gtasiolati'/e D i s t r i b u t i o n of
Usposited Radioactivity. . . . . . . . 22
6o3 MsasTiLr-SHsnts fey Mobile Monitoring
TeaiKS 200-^00 mi®s from Proving

6tk Ooraparl.soa of Findings with Bata


tJ^osi. Previous Weapons Tests. . • . • . 26
6.5 Biologileal Significance. . . . . . . . 28
CHAPTER Y » 1¥ALMT10N OF SAMPLING METHODS. . . . . . . ^6

^v
ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER k METHODS OF FIELD OI^RATEQN


k»l Qummed Paper Holder. . . . . . . . . . . • • » . 7
k»2 High Volume Sampler. . . . . . . . . 8
k»3 High Volume SaxcplBr with Aerotec Assembly. . » • 9
k»k Samplers on Tripod Rack. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CHAPTER 0 SAMPLE PROCESSING
5*1 Data oard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . « • • • . . 17
5*2 ^ c a y of Activity, Con^slte Qraph . . . . . . . 21
CHAPTER 6 FINDINQS
6.1 Radioactivity Deposited From Tests .2k
6«2 Variation in Fallout with Distance from
XSSb wXlfSo o e o o o o o « o » o o o o o o o « o ^«^
6.3 GiuQulative Fallout Residue, Northeastern
United States, o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
60k Active Dust in Air, Burley, Idaho, after
6.5 Active Dust in Air, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
after Burst p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jJl
6.6 Active Dust in Air, Delta, Utah, after
DVOrsXt ^ o e o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o J/fc
6.7 Active Dust in Air, Elko, Nevada, after
sUrSb J7. o . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . • • . J}^
6a8 Active Bust in Air, Idaho Falls, after
SJVCCSV ^O o o o o o o e o o o o o 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^^
6*9 Active Bust in Air, Pocatello, Idaho,
after Burst p. • o e a . . . o o o o . . o . o o 3^
6«10 Active Dust in Aix, Ogdsn, Utah, after
OtiX'Qv >>o e o o o o o e o o o o e o o o o o o o o ^^
6.11 Active Dust in Air, Rock Springs, Wyoming,
Alter Bursw ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j^?
6.12 Active Bust in Air, Wendover, Utah, after
Burst p . . . a a . o . o o . o e . . » . o . o s jiO
6.13 Active Dust in Air, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
af&er Burs't o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j}(
6,lib Active Dust in Air, Denver, Colorado, after
BUrSb O, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o e . ^I
6,10 Active Dust in Air, Hanksville, Utah, after
i7U.JrS*W 0 ^ 0 0 9 0 0 0 00 000 eo 0 0 0 0 00 o ^0

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 k METHODS OP FIELD OPERATION

4.1 Fixed Sampling Stations, , « 13

CHAPTER 0 SAMPLE PROCESSING

0.1 Decay Slope of Dxist Radioactivity 20

CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS

6.1 Conversion Factors for Figure 6.1 . . . . . 23


6.2 Summary of Data from Locations at Which
Maximum Fallout was Observed by Mobile
XGSniS 0 * « f t O O O * 0 0 0 0 « 0 0 0 « 0 « ^(
6.3 Particle Size 03
6,it Beta Activity of Aerotec Fractions When
Counted. . . . . . 00

CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF SAMPLING METHODS

7.1 Statistics of Triplicate Gummed Paper


C>9in.pX@So o o o o « « o e « o o o « o o o o o pO
7.2 Statistics of Duplicate Filtered Dust
oampxeSo . o o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P7

vii
ABSTRACT

During tJie Spring, 1902, atomic weapons tests (Operations Tumbler


and Snapper) a nationwide network of weather stations, supplemented by
16 foreign stations, collected samples of settled and airborne dust
which were counted radiologj-cally. For a short period after each of
the last four test bursts, mobile teams supplemented the fixed network.
The data are reported as bases for estimating possible hazards to health
or industry.

Operating personnel of I38 fixed stations and 8 mobile teams collected


more than 30,000 samples.

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.

The highest concentration of airborne activity was 620,000 d/m/W


at Elko, Nevada, June 0th. The maximum 2l| hour.fallout was found at
Wendover, Utah, May 7th. It was 32 x 10° d/m/W.

Particle size distributions based on mobile team sampling varied


according to the burst to ^ich the activity was attributed.

Decay curves of activities attributed to bursts 6 and 8 agreed well


m t h the Way-*figner 1.2 power law. In the case of bursts 0 and 7 the
experimentally determined e:;5)onents of the time were respectively hi^er
and lower than 1.2 but it was not established that the differences were
significant.
!<»WvA**«#*fe-<l

CHAFTM 1

IHTRODUCTIQH

The New lork Operations Office was requested by the Division of


Biology and MBdicine, U.S« Atomic Snergjr Comnlssion, Washington, D.Q.,
to coordinate a continuing program for radiological monitoring of the
atmosphere* % e genesis of this program and its purposes are discussed
in report N I O - I S T O * "Radioactive Debris from Operations Buster and
Jangle" but, because of the limited distribution given that report, some
of its highlights will be repeated here.

Oaring Operations Ranger and Qreenhouse, photographic manufacturers


discovered that fall-out was occurring at places remote frcm the test
site in sufficient amounts to be significant to their highly radio-sensi*
tive processes. This finding, and theoretical studies of the extent to
lAilch radioactive dust from the weapons tests m l ^ t be e3q>ected in the
atmosphere, showed the need to acqtdfe information about the atmosphere's
radioactive dust burden and the fate of this dust outside a circle of
200 mile radius around the test site, (Honitoring the area inside of
this circle was a responsibility of the weapons test organization)*

For Operations Buster and Jan^e, in the Fall of 195l« a natioaxicLde


monitoring program was des.gned for the following purposest

1. To permit (Ton^t amd accurate z>eplies to requests


for infonca. ion that m i ^ t originate from public
sources,

2, To provi:." the National Association of Photographic


Hanufact. arere with information' requested by them
for process control.

3» To provide a monitoring program appropriate to the


special, requirements of Operation Jangle,

U* To provide basic information concerning the manner


in liitclx the deposition of bonb debris is related
to meteorological variables, type of burst and
properties of the radioactive cloud.

!nie purposes of the Tumbler Snapper survey, in the Spring of 1952,


were the same except "Uiat it was the second half of the operation which
required special monitoring,.,.v„^^^,,,^,„,H.,rt«,

-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

DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM

As in the case of Buster-Jangle, the program was designed in two


con^Jonents, A nationwide network of Weather Bureau offices, augKented
by 3 Civil Aeronautics Authority weather stations, a station on ihe
New York Operations Office roof, and l6 foreign stations collected daily
samples and mailed them to the NYOO laboratory.

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

ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM

The organization was somewhat simpler than in the case of Buster-


Jangle, but the cooperation of several agencies was still required. The
participating groups undertook responsibilities as follows:
1. Health and Safety Division, New York Operations Office
(a) Coordinated the program
(b) Developed operating procedures
(c) Developed and fabricated special equipment
(d) Procured and shipped equipment
(e; Provided direction for the mobile operation
(f) Processed and counted all samples and computed
unit activities.
2, U. S, Weather Bureau
(a) Made available facilities and personnel
(b) Mapped the data
(c) Analyzed the radiological data in the light
of nBteorological observations and principles,
3. Civil Aeronautics Adninistratlon
(a) Contributed three weather stations to the
fixed network
(b) Made facilities at certain airports available
to the mobile teams
U. U. S. Air Force
(a) Provided planes and crews for transportation
of the mobile teams.
(b) Contributed 6 weather stations to the fixed
network,
0, U. S. Anr^r
(a) Provided personnel for the mobile teams

-U-
6, Santa Fe Operations Office

(a) Provided access to the facilities of the


test site

7, Division of Radiation Safety (RADSAFE) of the Test Director

(a) S ^ e d as liaison with the Test Organization

8, State Department \

V.___(a) Contributed 7 stations to the fixed network


9, Canadian Weather Service

(a) Contributed 3 stations to the fixed network.


CHAPTER k

METHODS OF FJJELD OPERATION

i^ol SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Sampling procedures were designed tos

A. Sait?)le dust settling out of the atmosphere


over the entire United States,

B. Sample dust suspended in the air within


about 1000 miles of the test site, where It
was expected to be more radioactive than at
greater distances, and

C. Fractionate dust for particle size study at


locations where high enough concentrations
would make such stuc^ possible.

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.

Suspended dast was sampled by means of a Hi-Volume saapler, shown


in Figure U.2, a standard filtering device en5>loyed by the Health and
Safety Division for airborne particulates. The laiits are capable of
filtering air at the rate of 20 cfm through a U" #Ij.l Whatman disc, and
UO cfm through the M,S,A. toxic dust respirator filter.

For fractionating dast particles according to size the aerotec


unit and the cascade irapactor were used. The aerotec is an attachment
to the Hi-Volume sampler. It produces two fractions b/ separating the
larger particles, centrifugally, from the smaller particles. The cascade
in5)actor gives five fractions by passing the air stream through four
successively smaller orifices and finally through a paper filter. Both
items of eqtdpment are standard,

' All of the sampling eqxiipment is illustrated in Figures U.l to k»k»

^ m
Fig. 4.1 — Gimimed paper holder.

-7-
Flow Gage

I
00
I

Fig. 4.2—Case <q;)en, showing sampler.

I I
4
' I

I
I

Fig. 4.3—High volume sampler with aerotec assembly e3q)loded view.


Cascade Impactor Unit #1 /—Hi Volume Sampler #2

Aerotec Support

Cascade Impactor
Support

Cascade Impactor
Unit #2

Aerotec

Multiple
Power Outlet

Hi Volume
Sampler #1

Tripod

Filter cover

Fig. 4.4—Samplers on tripod rack.

-10-
«gas
••••••HtMi

k»2 THE FIXED NETWORK

109 fi3Eed stations collected 2U hour gummed paper sai^les in tri-


plicate, changing the paper at approximately 1830 Greenwich time each
day, during the period covered by this report, March 2Uth through
June I8th, 1902,

01 stations collected ik hour filtered dust aaxaples, from 1830 to


to 1830 Greenwich time. Nine of them duplicated tne samples and the
others collected a single sample each day,

29 stations collected both kinds of samples.

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.

Table U.l is a list of the fixed stations with symbols indicating


the type of sampling, but the mapped data of Part II give a better picture
of the network.

lt.3 THE M3BILE TEAMS

A force of I6 enlisted men commanded by an officer was assigned to


us by the Arny Chemical Corps. The men assembled at Ogden, Utah, in
time to begin monitoring with the Uth burst. Earlier bursts did not re-
quire mobile monitoring because t h ^ were not expected to produce high
activities at low altitudes near the test site.

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.

A member of the Health and Safety Division, NYOO, directed operations


from the test site, communicating liy telephone with his assistant, another
member of the division, who was stationed at the base (at first Ogden)
of the mobile force, and basing his instructions on the trajectory of the
radioactive cloud as predicted from wind data and cloud height. The assis-
tant deployed the teams under the expected trajectory. His other function
was to instruct the members of the force in the techniques of sanqjling
and radiation monitoring.

-n-
The work of the teams may be summarized as follows s

A, After each burst, beginning with burst U, the teams


were deployed roughly in a line across the predicted
path of the cloud, with the center teams as nearly
as possible under the trajectory and with the wing
teams far enough away to assure low results, only
slightly above background, and to allow for error in
the prediction of the cloud path. The teams were
transported by 0-1^7 aircraft and were located in
places accessible to t]ie plane.

B, Each team, on reaching its destination, started collect-


ing filtered dust samples, changing the filter every
two hours, but measuring radiation from the filter eveiy
twenty minutes with a survey B»ter modified for that
purpose. When a rise in activity indicated the presence
of airborne bomb dust, the sampling period was reduced
to twenty minutes and held there until the activiiy re-
turned to approximately normal.

C, Each team also collected dust samples classified into


two fractions by the Aerotec attachment to a second
Hi-Volume sampler,

D, Samples in five fractions according to particle size


were collected with the cascade is^ctor.

E, Each team collected a triplicate set of gimimed paper


samples. In SOKB cases the collection period was the
entire time the team was in the field. In other cases
this period was divided into 2h hour intervals,

F, After the return of the filtered activity at all stations


to about normal indicated that the cloud had passed, and
provided there was no meteorological reason to expect its
return, the teams and equipment were brought back to the
base and the san^les were mailed to the NYOO laboratory.

-12-
JrfSj

TABLE U . l

FIXED SAMPLING STATIONS

Symbol

0-01 Catalina Island, California *


0-02 Los Angeles, California ^
0«03 Bakersfield, California 0
O-OU Fresno, California *,_
O"O0 Sacramento, California
0"06 Reno, Nevada *
0-07 Winnemucca, Nevada
0-08 Elko, Nevada *,0
0-09 Salt Lake City, Utah *,0
0-10 Flagstaff, Arizona *
0-11 Phoenix, Arizona 0
0-12 Yuma, Arizona *,0
0-13 San Diego, California 0

1-00 Eureka, California »,


1-01 Red Bluff, California
1-02 Mount Shasta, California 0
1-03 Medford, Oregon *
l-OU Roseburg, Oregon 0
1"O0 Burns, Oregon 0
l-06 Pendleton, Oregon 0
1=0? Baker, Oregon 0
1-08 Boise, Idaho «50
1--09 Pocatello, Idaho *,0
1"10 Lander, Wyoming
1-11 Rock Sprl.ngs, Wyoming
1-°12 Denver, Colorado
l'=13 Grand Junction, Colorado *,0
l"lU Colorado Springs, Colorado 0
i"10 Paeblo, Colorado 0
l"'l6 Alamosa, Colorado 0
1-17 Ratonj, New Mexico 0
1"18 Albuquerque, New Ifexico *,0
1-19 Tucson, Arizona *,0

•M- Gummed Paper


0 High Volume Samplers

"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 *

3-01 Williston, North Dakota *,0


3-02 Bismarck, North Dakota *,0
3-03 Huron, South Dakota *,0
3-OU Valentine, Nebraska 0
3-00 Norfolk, Nebraska *,0
3-06 Concordia, Kansas *,0
3-07 Wichita, Kansas •
3-08 Wichita Falls, Texas *
3-09 Abilene, Texas *
3-10 Bel Rio, Texas *

U-01 Fargo, North Dakota *


U-02 St. Cloud, Minnesota *
U-03 Rochester, Minnesota *
k-^Qh Des Moines, Iowa *
U-00 Columbia, Klssouri •
U-06 Forth Smith, Arkansas *
I1.-O7 Texarkana, Arkansas *
U-08 Port A r t h w , Texas *
li-09 Corpus Christi, Texas *.

» 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 *

6-01 Marquette, Michigan *


6-02 Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan «
6-03 Escanaba, Mchigan *
6-Oli Alpena, Michigan *
6-05 Grand Rapids, Michigan «
6-06 Toledo, Ohio «
6-07 Fort Wayne, Indiana *
6-08 Dayton, Ohio »
6-09 Louisville, Kentucky *
6-10 Hashville, Tennessee *
6-11 Knoxville, Tem^ssee »
6-12 Atlanta, Georgia *
6-13 Birmingham, Alabama *
6-lU MontgoBBzy, Alabama «
6~l5 Mobile, Alabama *

7-01 Rochester, New York »


7-02 Buffalo, New Tork *
7-03 DansvUle, Hew York »
7-Olt Dunkirk, New York «
7-05 Youngstown, Ohio *
7-06 Charleston, West Virginia •
7-07 Lynchburg, Virginia *
7-08 Qreemrille, South Carolina *
7-09 Florence, South Carolina *
7-10 Savannah, Georgia •
7-11 Jacksonville, Florida *
7-12 Tallahassee, Florida «

8-01 WatertowR, New York »


8-02 Oswego, New York •
8-03 Syrac'ise, New York *
8-OJ4 Albany, New York »

* Gummed Paper -•*-'»**«^«^,

-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 «

9'^! Caribou, Maine *


9-02 Eastport, Maine «
9-03 Mount Washington, New Hampshire *
9-OU Providence, Rhcde Island *
9-00 Goose Bay, Labrador *
9-06 Boston, Massachusetts *
9-07 Stephenville, Newfoundland *
9-08 Bermuda *
9-09 Prestv,ivk, Scotland •«•
9-10 Rhein-Main, Germany *
9-11 Tripoli, Libya *
9-13 Lima, Peru «
9-li; Mexico City *
9-10 Bogota, Columbia *
9-16 Quito, Equador *
9-17 La Paz, Bolivia »
9-18 San Jose, Costa Rica «
9-19 Santiago, Chile *

* 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,

Upon receipt of the samples, a serial noaber was assigned to each


and entered on the data card and on the bottom of a plastic planchet.
Sanqple and planchet were sent to the chemical laboratory 'twere the
sanple was ashed and transferred to the planchet, which was then sealed
with approximately 100 others, betwe^i two strips of plastic tape. Siis
tape was fed from a spool to an automatic beta counter which printed
counting time and count on a paper tape*

The counters were designed by the Instruments Branch, Health and


Safety Divlsior. Six were built for the program. They are set to count
each saisple for &u minutes or 6U0 counts, whichever limit is reached
first, and then to print the result and move the next sa^le into place.

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.

Extrapolation was based on the formula

for toe activity, Ag^ at time tg if the activity at time, t^ was A^^.

The value of 1.2 was used for Z.

-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

DECAY SLOPE OF DUST RADIOACTIVITY

Gummed Paper Samples Filtered Samples


3urst 0 Burst 6 Burst 7 Burst 8 Burst 6

1.38 1.21 1.28 1.23 1.19 1.21

1.30 1.18 1.23 Lilt 1.10 1.23

1.36 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.26

1.32 1.26 1,2k 1.20 1.20 1.22

1.20 1.20 1.19 1.26 1.19 1.16

1.32 1.17 1.02 1.20 1.30 1.16

1.23 1.21 1.02 1.26 1.21 1.21

1.27 1.22 1.11 1.17 1.22 1.20

1.11 1.01 I.l6 1.23 1.12

1.19 1.21 1.26 1.18 1.26

1.19 1.02 1.22 1.21

1.17 1.00 I.2I4 1.19

1.20 1.20 1.23

i.n 1.27 1.18

1.10 1.23 1.21

1.23 1.28

Mean

1.31 1.18 1.13 1.22 1.21

. p-

' "' -20-


i^Rvjtfvrtsa-i*^ i-"U *,'<

Fig. 0.25 Decay of Activity, Composite Graph

Gummed Paper Saitples Indicated by Burst No.


Filtered SamplQg, Burst 6, Indicated by "F"

-21-
CHAPTER 6

FINDINGS

6,1 TEST PERIOD

The test program was a series of eight detonations beginning on


April 1st and ending June 0th. During this period more than 30,000
samples were collected and evaluated. This chapter will present the
principal observations and conclusions. The results in detail are mapped
in Part H .

6,2 CUMUUTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF DEPOSITED RADIOACTIVITT

Figure 6,1 presents the cumulative distribution of deposited radio-


activity from the eight explosions in disintegrations per minute per
square foot. The data were obtained by extrapolating the activities re-
ported for each of the daily collections to the arbitrary date, January 1,
1903, and then summing the extrapolated results from each station. These
data thus present the total activity deposited on the surface of the
ground as of the given date. Equivalent values for earlier dates can be
computed by the factors given in Table 6,1.

In general, the total fallout shows a geographical variation of two


orders of magnitude from 102 to 104, The area of highest deposition ex-
tends northward from the Proving Grounds and includes the stations in
Northern Nevada aj3d Utah, Idaho and Montana, The fallout in Salt Lake City
occurred almost entirely on one day, Ifay 7th, when the passage of the
radioactivity cloud over Salt Lake City and the surrounding area coincided
with rainfall in the region. For the twenty-four hour period beginning ,
1130 J6T on May 7th, the fallout at Salt Lake City was measxired at 8 x 10°

The fixed monitoring network was arranged in rough arcs centered on


the Proving Grounds, The station code nunfoers are prefixed from zero to
nine depending on the distance from the origin. The mean values for these
groups of stations are plotted in Figure 6,2, These data fit a smooth
curve except that the values for classes 0 and 8 are hlg^. The maximam
activity for each group of stations is also given and it is seen that in
each class these values are from 2 to I4 times the mean.

-22-
TABLE 6 . 1

CONVERSION FACTORS FOR FIQORE 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

n§. 6.x toMMcuntr Bi»Mit^ ttam ttpriim, S9S>* IMto


&MM MMMXSI Mi«t«r (^^^•«.n.) M JM. X. XH3

^
itOO 800 1200 1600 Distarce 2000 Miles

Fig. 6,2 Variation in Fallout with Distance from Test Site

+ Maximum values o Average values


6.3 MSASDREMEHTS BY MOBILE MONITORING TEAIB 20Q~500 MILES PROM
PROVING GROUNDS

As described above, mobile monitoring teams were deployed beneath


the tra;5ectory of the radioacttve cloud. The teams were not used during
the first phase of the weapons tests, including bursts 1 to It, because •
these bursts were air drops, made under conditions such that h5,gh concen-
trations of activity in the air near ground level were not expected. The
teams operated for a period of about 2U to 3<S hours after each of bursts
5 to 8*

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.

6.1* COMPARISON OF FINDINGS WIIH DATA FROM PREVIQUS WEAPONS TESTS

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

SmiMMlY OF DATA FROM LOCATIONS AT JKICH


MAXIMUM FALLOUT m S OBSERVED BT MOBILE IEM6

AIRBORNE DUST SETTIED DUST


i3«X£ SXs> Maximum 2)4 Hour Average Locality 2k Hour Falloui-
Cuncentration Cone e a t r a t i o n d/Tr/ft.2
(^sintegrations7i3^cu,meter)

Ogdenj Utah 510,000 it5,000 Wendoverj, Utah 32 X 106

'^/25/52 PriceJ Utah 27,000 2,200 Grand Junction,


Colorado 1 X 106

6/1/52 Elko, Nevada 360,000 53,000 Elko, Nevada U xlO<^


6/5/52 Elko, Nevada 620,000 30,000 Boise3 Idaho 8 X 10^
The fallout, in this region, from the tests conducted at Enlwetok
early in 1951 was of a lower order than that observed for the two Nevada
series. Within approximately 200 days this activity had decayed to a
level that was no longer significant in con^jarison with the radioactivity
present from the second of the three series. The total activity deposited
on unit area of the earth's surface during the period beyond approximately
200 days, and until the start of the third series, can thus be estimated
by the decay curve representing the second test series.

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.

Of the long-lived fission products, the isotopes S r ° ^ ~ ^ are most


likely to be absorbed into the body from soil or water in which fission
products are present due to the similarity of strontium to calcium and
radiujju An estimate of the long term hazard due to the biological uptake
of residual fission product activity may therefore be based on a con^jari-
son of the strontium component of the fission products with nattirally
occurring Ra226, Returning to Figure 6,3, the lower decay curve plots the
activity due to radiostrontium. This curve is con^nited from the total
fission product decay using data due to Hunter and Ballou (l). The resi-
dual radiostrontium is seen to be of a low order con5)ared to the nmst con-
servative estimate of the concentration of naturally occixrring radium.

As noted earlier. Figure 6,3 is calculated from the observations of


fallout in Northeastern United States where the mean deposition is approx-
imately 10$ of the fallout in areas closer to the Nevada Test Site. The
fission product activities of Figure 6,3 should therefore be multiplied
by a factor of 10 for an s^proximation of the residual radioactivity for
the regions of maximum fallout.

6.5 BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

As in the case of radioactivity deposited on the earth's surface, the


biological significance of radioactive dust suspended in air can likewise
be discussed in relation to radioactivity which is normally present. The
airborne dust associated with fallout is present in a given locality for

(1) Hunter, H.F, and Ballou, N«E,, Nucleonics, 9?G-2, November,195l«

•*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

The natural radioactivity of the atmosphere originates almost entirely


from radon which has diffused from the. earth. Unpublished measurements in
this laboratory indicate that 5 x lO"-"*' curies per liter of air is a con-
servative estimate of the radon concentration in normal air. The concentra-
tion varies with both geoga'apMcal and meteorological factors and is fre-
quently as high as 5 X 3.0"^ curies/liter. This radioactive gas is present
in eqxjilibriura with its daughter products which,because of their initial
charge, characteristically adsorb on inert atmospheric dust (2), When in=>
haled, a fraction of this dudt is ten5)orarily retained in the lung and some
concentration of the naturally occurring radioactive daughter products of
radon is thereby effected. Based on caleiilations due to Bale (3), a radon
concentration of 5 x 10"3i«- c/l, in equilibrium with its daughter products,
results in a daily lung dose of 10 mrem (assuming a factor of 20 for the
relative biological effectiveness of alpha particles).

With an appro3d.mation of the natural radiation dose to the limg as a


basis for conparison, one can now examine the significance of airborne
fission products. From Table 6,2, the highest average concentration of
radioactivity observed during a 2k hour period was 53,000 d/m/ii? at Elko,
Nevada. The mass median diameter of this dust was approximately 2 microns
which is in the region of optimum particle size for maximum retention in
the lung (ij.). The cumulative dose to the lung was calculated, with assump-
tions that (a) $0% of the dust is retained initially, (b) $0% is eliminated
from the luzig every 90 d^s^ (c) the lungs weigh 1000 grams, (d) the radio-
active dust lrradi.ates the lung uniformly and (e) an individual inhales
10 cubic meters of air in the 2k hour period. The approximation of the
cumulative dose thus obtained is 20 larem, equivalent to the dose from the
inhalation of normal atmospheric radon daughter products during a two-day
period. As was tsnie for whole body irradiation, the dose to the lung from
inhaled fission products for the case of iraaxiraum fallout is minute when
compared to the e5q;osire received in the course of a lifetime from natural
sources of radioaciivxty,

FigUi'as 6ol|. to 6,37 are graphs of the filtered dust activity in sam-
ples collected by the mobile teams.

(2) Harley^ J.H., Unpublished thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute


Jike, 1952,
3) Balej, W.Fo, Unpublished memorandum, March lU, 1951.
k) Eiseiibud, M,, Arch, Indus. Hyg, & Occup, Msd., September^ 1952.
of Ra^26 j ^ ^ p 3^2\ of eighth's crust
_^._-

\
^v
\

\ .

- \
N
\

Spring
1952
[Tests
U80 600
Days since Miay l,195l

Fig, 6,3 Cumulative Fallcsit Residue, Northeastern United States

Strontium Activilgr. ' Fission Product Activity.


i
-0
•H
O
C8 1 0 ^

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*"*.*?'''-**;'*'!^-'"

12 GCT May 7 00 GCT 12 GCT Iby 8, 1952

Pig. 6,6
Active Dust in Air, Delta, Utah, after Burst 5

12 GCT May 7 00 GCT 12 GCT May 8, 1952

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.

12 GCT mj 7 00 GCT 12 GCT May 8, 1952

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

12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT ^y 26, 1952


Fig, 6.II4
Active Dust in Air, Denver, Colorado, after Burst 6

-37-
. 1

12 OCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT May 26, 1952


Fig. 6.15
Active Dust in Air, Hanksville, Utah, after Burst 6

12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT May 26, 1952

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^ -

.•g*S 10^2 |-^L —


r-^
1

10 . . 1
Fig, 6,19
Active Dust in Air, Price, Utah, after Burst 6

12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 12 GCT MB^ 26, 1952

Fig, 6.20
Active Dust in Air, Rock Springs, \ifyoraing, aft«: Burst 6

•1
^ KlK^^^l''^ ' *^ . -^-^''' V^*''

I t*%

43

43
O

•P

12 GCT May 25 00 GCT 1§'(MT May 26, 1952


F i g , 6,21
Active Dust i n Air, Vernal, Utah, a f t e r Burst 6

«n

I
•H

•P
O

•P
pq

12 GCT June 1 00 GCT 12 GCT June 2, 1952

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

Active Dust in Air, Elko, Nevada, after Burst 7

^'4i2r'
12 GCT June 1 00 GCT 12 GCT June 2, 1952

Pig. 6^2U
Active Dust in Air, Denver, Colo., after Burst 7

12 GCT June 1 00 GCT 12 GCT June 2, 1952

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

12 OCT June 1 00 OCT 12 OCT June 2, 1952

Pig. 6.27
Active Dust In Air, Price, Utah, after Burst 7

«|||^
lik
*«is-,-?.-.-.,.,_•

12 GCT June 1 00 GCT 12 G O T J u n e 2, 1952

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_

12 GOT June 5 00 GCT 12 GCT 'june ^,1952

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'

12 OCT June $ 00 GOT 12 GOT Jtrne 6. 19^2

Fig. 6«33
Active Dust in Air^ Fallonj Nevadaj after Burst 8

12 OCT June 5 00 OCT 12 OCT June 6j 19^2

Aetive Dust in ktv^ Eeno^ Nevadaj after Burst 8


s-wwsM m,m»A^mii

' *«r«?*s»**-"«'^^

12 OCT 00 OCT 12 GOT June 6, 1952

Fig. 6.35
Active Dust in Air, Rome Oregon, after Burst 6

12 GOT June 5 00 GOT 12 GOT June 6, 1952


Fig. 6.36
Active Dust in Air, Sacramento, Calif., after Burst 8

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

12 OCT June 5 00 GOT 12 OCT June 6, 1952

Fig. 6.38

Active Dust in Air, EUco, Nev., after Burst 8

- N,
»

-;^|r''
v^h<<00hi

The mass lasdian dian»ters corresponding to the five fractions of each


cascade iinpactor saniple were plotted on logarithmic probability paper and
the mass median diaroster of the ssmple was read from the graph* The meas-
ured activity^ os which the conrputation was basedj, was assumed to be pro-
portional to masso

Composite results for several samples were also obtained by suinming


the activities of corresponding fractions and using the totals as bases
for a similar graphical calculation. In this way a curve on logarithmic
probability paper and an estimate of mass median diameter was obtained for
each of the last four bxu:*stSo The graphs are shown in Figure 6.38. The
plotted points for bursts 5 and 6 lie close to the same straight liae but
the size da.stribution of the smaller particles from bursts 7 and 8 are
better represented by curves. The composite graphs are typical of those
of the individual saxaples^ -rfiich for that reason have not been included in
this report,

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

Mass Median Percent less Percent small


Burst Diameter, than 5 MicronsJ ' particlesj
Nuii&>er Microns Cascade Inpactor Aerotec

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

o Burst 5 A Burst 6 ^ Burst 7 x Bwcst 8

<-'$k''
TABLE 6,U

BETA ACTIVITY OF AEROTEC FRACTIONS W]3EN COUNTED

Activity (d/a)
Burst In Small In Large
Number Location Particles Particles

5 Btirley, Idaho 102,000 X3,500


El.ko, Nevada 900 500
Pocatello, Idaho 2,300 310,000
Rock Springs, Tifyom1.ng 62,it00 105,000
Wendover^ Utah 10^000 230.000
Total 65^,6bo
Percent 21 79

6 Price, Utah 38,000 6,500


Cheyenne, Wyoming 2,700 13sOOO
Grand Junction, Colorado 133,000 0
Hanksville, Utah 626,000 1*70,000
Rock Springs3 Wyoming 2a00 300
Total 8oi;8o6 1*89,800
Percent 62 38

7 Price, Utah lt,000 5,800


Denver, Colorado 3,700 Uoo
Rock Springs, Wyoming 2,800 200
WendoveTj Utah 93,100 Uoo
Total 1^,666 6, Bob
Percent Ik 26

8 Boise, Idaho 161,000 85,500


Elko, Nevada 223,000 61,000
Fallon, Nevada 25,000 3,1*00
Gooding, Idaho 150,000 38,000
Reno, Nevada 28,700 7,700
Rome9 Oregon 93.000 21,000
Total 680^760 2l6;6o6
Percent 76 21*

J"
»55=

fi
CHAPTER 7

EVALUATION OF SAMPLING METHODS

In estimating the error of the gummed paper technique, a different


approach was used than that described in NYOO-1576. Neglecting results
of samples having gross count of less than 6U0 per 20 minutes, the
variance of complete triplicate sets was analyzed for each station
separately. Sample activities on counting date were used. It was found
that the vailance was not homogeneous but was, ratiher, an increasing
function of the activity. The data were then divided into groups accord-
ing to activity level ajid a separate variance computed for each group.
The results are listed in Table 7.1.

They show that the error is greatest at the higher levels but its
ratio to the activity decreases ^Aien the activity increases.

A similar analysis of the duplicate filtered dust samples from the


fixed stations was made except that the data were not grouped according
to activity level. These results are given in Table 7.2

TABLE 7*1

Statistics of Triplicate Gummed Pap(3r Saii5)les

Group A Group B Group C

Range of median, net c/isI :100-1000 1000-10000 100-10000

Mean 280 2570 3900

Standard deviation 100 530 850


Standard deviation/mean 0.36 0.21 0,22

Number of sets of 3 1*1*8 51 61

«56-
TABLE 7*2

Statistics of Duplicate Filtered Dust Samples

Station Number 0-02 0-0^ 0-11 l-ll* 2-08 2-lU 2-17

Msan, 6/m/}^ U.7 3.3 23 37 33 Ux 3.0


Standard devial^on h»k 2.8 3i* 13 19 $s 26
Standard deviation/
mean 0.95 0.85 0.62 0.36 0.57 1.25 8.7
Number of pairs 31* *31 26 35 26 . 27 31

QoBimed paper data are net counts per minute on counting (Sate. Data
less than 100 were rejected. Oroup A consists oft

(a) Those sets of three in vihlcb. no member was outside


ttie limits 100 to 1000, and

(b) Sets of three in which the mecHan was within these


limits and no member differed from the me(iian by
more' than a factor of 3.

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.

It is desirable, for instance, to tiy to obtain from the data a


nKjre precise idea of the relation between error and activity level. The
classification of Table 7.1 is not quite adequate for this purpose. The
apparently greater precision of the gummed paper technique as' comparefd
with the filtered dust sampling, shown by a con^jarison of Tables 7.1
and 7*2, is at least partly due to the different ways in which the two
tjrpes of samples were classified and to the rejecid.on of- gummed paper
results less than an arbitrary level. Some of the rejected results were
members of triplicate sets idiich also contained numbers within this rangf
of Group A or B. If these sets had been included in the analysis the
cos$)uted standard deviations would have been greater. These standard de
viations are rough approximations, intiicating the order of magnitude of
the error.

.58-

You might also like