SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY
2022, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 62–94
https://doi.org/10.1080/08929882.2022.2111757

Radiation Exposures and Compensation of Victims ofFrench Atmospheric Nuclear Tests in Polynesia
Sebastien Philippea, Sonya Schoenbergerb,c, and Nabil AhmeddaProgram on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; bDepartmentof History, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; cYale Law School, New Haven, CT, USA;d
Faculty of Architecture and Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACTARTICLE HISTORY

Between 1966 and 1974, France conducted 41 atmosphericnuclear weapon tests in French Polynesia, exposing local populations to radioactive fallout. Under French law, individuals
who were present at the time and later developed certain
radiogenic cancers are eligible for compensation from thegovernment—unless it is proven that they could not havereceived effective doses greater than 1 mSv in any given year.
Using new information available from recently declassified
documents, as well as atmospheric transport modeling ofradioactive fallout, this article shows that upper-bound government estimates of effective doses received by the public
have been underestimated by factors of 2 to 10. As a result,approximately 110,000 people, representing 90% of theFrench Polynesian population at the time, could have received
doses greater than 1 mSv per year. Integrating updated dose
estimates into the claim adjudication process would enlarge
the pool of eligible claimants by a factor of 10.

Received 17 January 2022
Accepted 11 July 2022

Introduction

At least 6 of the 41 nuclear devices France detonated over the atolls of
Moruroa and Fangataufa in French Polynesia between 1966 and 1974 led
to significant radioactive fallout on populated islands, including in theGambier archipelago, Tureia atoll, and Tahiti, and to possible adverse
health effects, including increased risks of developing radiation-induced
cancers.1 Recognition of incidental exposures of military personnel, test site
workers, and downwind communities in French Polynesia led the Frenchnational assembly in 2010 to pass a law, known as the “Loi Morin,” thatcreated a compensation mechanism to be managed by a dedicated

CONTACT Sebastien Philippesebastien@princeton.edu
Program on Science and Global Security,
Princeton University, 221 Nassau St, 2nd floor, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08929882.2022.2111757.
ß 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

63

committee, the Comite d’Indemnisation des Victimes des Essais
Nucleaires (CIVEN).2
Under French law, those present in French Polynesia during the nuclear
testing period who develop certain radiogenic cancers are eligible for compensation from the government—unless it is determined that the effective dose ofradiation received from nuclear tests was less than 1 mSv per year, in all
potential years of exposure.3 Given that in cases of uncertainty the presumption of causation provided for by law favors claimants, upper bound estimatesof doses are a key determinant of compensation outcomes.4
For members of the public who were not directly involved with the testing program, compensation decisions are based on retrospective dose calculations performed by the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in2006.5 These calculations were done for the six atmospheric nuclear tests
considered to be the most impactful on the downwind populations, including the 1974 Centaure test that contaminated Tahiti, home to two-thirds of
the Polynesian population at the time.
While the 2006 government studies represented a significant advance inthe understanding of the radiological consequences of key French nuclear
tests, they also had significant shortcomings. First, they could not be independently verified or peer reviewed. For example, the reports provide no
direct reference to the primary source material used as a basis for estimating external and internal doses. CIVEN recently recognized that it had
never verified the studies’ results and calculations.6 The only outside evaluation, upon which CIVEN has relied, was qualitative and assumed all dataand computations were correct.7 Second, the authors did not include with
their results any uncertainty or sensitivity analysis and relied upon exposure and contamination assumptions that can at times underestimate doses.8
Third, the reports only concerned three islands and atolls out of more than
50 that were inhabited and known to have been impacted by fallout at thetime.9 Thus, comprehensive and independently-verified effective dose estimates are still unavailable to the French Polynesian public. In the absenceof uncertainty analyses or quantitative reviews of the assumptions behindthe 2006 estimates, the upper bound of doses received by local populations
at the time of atmospheric testing may have been underestimated.
In this study, we reevaluate the upper bound of effective dose estimatesfrom six French nuclear tests to the French Polynesian public and study
the possibility of additional population exposures on islands and atolls forwhich no historical radiological surveillance data is available.
The article begins with a review of the legal background in which ourstudy is anchored. It then proceeds with the review and reevaluations of
the 2006 dose estimates beginning with the 1974 Centaure test, which
impacted the island of Tahiti, followed by the analysis of five other tests

64

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

that impacted the Gambier archipelago and the atoll of Tureia—two communities located less than 450 km from the test site.
Our reevaluation of doses is based on declassified French government
documents, including historical archives of the Joint Radiological Safety
Service (SMSR) and the Joint Biological Control Service (SMCB), that provide measurement data relating to the internal and external radiation exposures of local populations during the period of atmospheric testing as wellas technical information about the size and composition of French radioactive debris clouds. In particular, we used the latter to reconstruct the trajectory of the radioactive cloud generated by the 1974 Centaure test overFrench Polynesia using atmospheric transport modeling techniques andavailable historical meteorological data. This allows us to assess the impactof this test on islands for which no or limited historical radiological surveillance data is available.
Our results show how possible errors and omissions in the 2006 dosereconstruction studies may have resulted in significant underestimation of
French Polynesian population exposures and resulting doses. As CIVEN
relies on these studies in the adjudication process, such underestimations
adversely impact individuals bringing compensation claims. In particular,
our analysis of the 1974 Centaure test shows that over 90% of the French
Polynesian population at the time could have received effective doses
greater than the current compensation threshold of 1 mSv/yr. Finally, we
discuss the legal and policy implications of these findings.

Legal background

In January 2010, the French government created a single unified compensation mechanism for victims under the “Law regarding the recognition andcompensation of victims of French nuclear testing,” colloquially known as
the “Loi Morin.”10 The Law established a committee, the Comited’Indemnisation des Victimes des Essais Nucleaires (CIVEN), for processing
compensation claims from veterans, former workers at the test sites, andmembers of the public.11 The Loi Morin stipulates that individuals sufferingfrom a designated list of 23 (originally 21) potentially radiation-induced
cancers who lived or sojourned in specific geographic areas where France
conducted nuclear tests in Algeria and French Polynesia during the periodof testing should benefit from a presumption of causality between the tests
and their illnesses. The original version of the law stated that this presumption of causality should be upheld unless CIVEN considers the probabilityof such a causal link to be “negligible” due to the nature of the claimant’s
disease and their level of exposure.12

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

65

Figure 1. Timeline of the different methodologies in force for the compensation of victims
from French nuclear tests and corresponding claim rejection rates. These rates reflect all claims
submitted to CIVEN, not just those from residents of French Polynesia. Between 2010 and 2021,
the overall CIVEN rejection rate was 77% (reduced to 67% after judicial decisions favoringclaimants). For residents of French Polynesia, the overall rejection rate was 59% over the same
period (reduced to 53% after judicial decisions). Claimants who submitted applications and who
were rejected under the “negligible risk” framework were eligible to resubmit their claims toCIVEN through 31 December 2020, effectively extending the pure presumption of causality
standard backwards to cover all submissions prior to the Loi EROM amendments.

Between 2010 and 2017, the French Ministry of Defense and CIVEN
received a total of 1,039 applications and awarded compensation in 31
cases—an overall rejection rate of 97% (Figure 1).13 In light of these statistics,
the French legislature amended the Loi Morin through the “Loi EROM” toeliminate the “negligible risk” exception in February 2017.14 Shortly thereafter,in June 2017, the French Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest court for matters of
public administration, issued an opinion stating that the presumption of causality could only be overturned if the pathology in question resulted exclusively
from a cause other than ionizing radiation, or if the claimant was not exposed
to any amount of ionizing radiation.15 This decision effectively mandated thecompensation of all applicants meeting the Loi Morin’s basic eligibility criteria—that is, all persons who were present in French Polynesia during theperiod of nuclear testing suffering from one of the enumerated cancers.
The 2017 Loi EROM tasked a parliamentary commission with developing a
new methodology designed to limit compensation to “only those cancer cases
which were caused by French nuclear tests.”16 Based on the commission’s recommendations, CIVEN replaced the original “negligible risk” exception withan annual effective dose threshold requirement of 1 mSv in one year—themaximum annual level of ionizing radiation exposure attributable to nuclear
activities set for the general public under the French Public Health Code. Thischange was made official through another law voted in December 2018.17
The 1 mSv threshold has been the subject of significant controversy, andcurrently applies only to the adjudication of applications filed after 28
December 2018. In June 2020, in the wake of a January 2020 Conseil
D’Etatdecision that the 1mSv threshold should not be understood to66

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

function retroactively, the French legislature voted to extend this 1 mSv/
year threshold to all compensation claims, including those submitted prior
to the December 2018 law.18 In December 2021, however, the Conseil
Constitutionnel, France’s highest constitutional authority, effectively nullified this legislative action by declaring the 2020 law unconstitutional.19
Therefore, CIVEN today adjudicates claims brought by two distinct poolsof applicants, governed by two different adjudicatory standards (Figure 1):
claimants who filed between March 2017 and December 28, 2018 benefit
from a pure presumption of causality (no threshold), and claimants who
filed from January 2019 onwards (or in the very last days of December2018) benefit from the presumption of causality unless CIVEN shows thatthey could not have been exposed at or above 1 mSv in any given year during the period of atmospheric testing. For individuals who submitted theirclaims in 2019 and onwards, estimates of maximum possible exposures(based, for example, on their location after particular tests) can therefore
play a key role in determining compensation outcomes.
Methodology

To reevaluate the upper bounds of effective doses to the public, we started
from available data and dose computations produced by the French atomic
energy commission in 2006.20 For each test, the CEA produced estimates
for adult populations as well as for five age groups of children (babies,
1–2 years, 2–7 years, 7–12 years, and 12–17 years old). Table 1 presents thesummary results for adults and children 1–2 years old. These effective doses(over the whole body) are the result of the sum of the effective doses
received from four pathways: (1) inhalation of radioactive aerosols, (2)external irradiation by the plume (immersion in the radioactive cloud or
cloudshine), (3) external irradiation by ground deposits (or groundshine),and (4) ingestion of contaminated food products.
For the first three pathways (inhalation, cloudshine, and groundshine),
the effective doses are all calculated from the cumulative deposition ofradionuclides on the ground (surface activity expressed in Bq/m2) following
a linear relationship. For the last pathway (ingestion of contaminated products), the effective dose is calculated from measurements of radioactivity ina selection of everyday consumer products.
To review the CEA estimates, we began by checking all assumptions andinput data including air activity, ground deposition, and dose rate as wellas water, milk and foodstuff consumption and contamination levels used in
the computations and compared them from information available in declassified primary sources comprising over 200 documents issued by the SMSR
and SMCB. For cases where we found errors and omissions, we corrected

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

67

Table 1. CEA 2006 reconstruction of effective (whole-body) dose ranges received by membersof the public from French atmospheric tests in Polynesia.
Place

Year

Test

Effective dosechild age 1–2 (mSv)

Effective dose
Adult (mSv)

GAMBIER

1966
1966
1971
1966
1967
1971

ALDEBARANRIGEL
PHOEBERIGEL
ARCTURUS
ENCELADE

3–10
0.4–0.71
0.5–7.9
0.1–0.23
0.9–4
1.5–3.5

3–7
0.1–0.23
0.2–2.6
0.06–0.15
0.79–3.2
1.3–1.9

1974
1974
1974

CENTAURE
CENTAURE
CENTAURE

1.2
5.3
4.5

0.5
2.6
3.6

TUREIATAHITI (key districts)
Pirae (Papeete)
HitiaaTeahupoo and Taravao

Effective doses reconstructed by the CEA in 2006 are the basis upon which CIVEN assess whether a claimant
meets the effective dose threshold of 1 mSv/yr. under the conditions of the Loi Morin. They include“minimum” and “maximum” bounds (with the exception of the Centaure test) and are calculated over a sixmonth time frame.21

individual computations for effective (whole body) doses with respect toexternal exposure from groundshine and cloudshine as well as internal contamination from inhalation and ingestion of radionuclides.22 When no data
was available in primary source documents to verify the 2006 dose computations, we assumed the original results to be correct.
For the Aldebaran, Rigel, Arcturus, Phoebe and Encelade tests, which concerned the Gambier archipelago and the Tureia atoll, the CEA produced a confidence interval for its estimates in the form of a range of doses between aminimum dose and a maximum dose. This was not the case with the 1974
Centaure test, for which the CEA calculated three different doses corresponding
to three distinct zones of the island of Tahiti: the Pirae-Papeete zone, theHitiaa zone, and the southern zone of Teahupoo/Taravao Plateau. In particular,
the CEA considers that “the Pirae-Papeete zone corresponds to the minimum
doses received by the populations” and that the most affected zone Teahupoo/
Taravao is not inhabited (despite government census showing the contrary).23
Although the Pirae-Papeete zone concentrates the majority of the population present in French Polynesia at the time of the atmospheric tests(approximately 80,000 inhabitants in 1974), no range of doses, no intervalof confidence or uncertainty linked to this effective dose was calculated by
the CEA. The dose estimate used by CIVEN for this area cannot be considered a maximum for this population. By following the CEA methodology
and using new data and information from documents declassified in 2013,
we produce a new upper bound for the effective dose received by the
inhabitants of the Pirae-Papeete area in 1974.
Finally, we found radiological survey data in historical documents showing that other islands in French Polynesia had also been impacted by theCentaure fallout. To investigate whether even more islands had been
impacted despite the absence of historical measurement data, we modeled
the Centaure radioactive cloud trajectory over French Polynesia. To do so,

68

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

we used a modern atmospheric particle transport code together with historical weather data, open-source information about radioactive debris(“mushroom”) clouds, as well as data on the composition and particle sizesof the fallout from the Centaure test gleaned from declassified documents(see details of the modeling in Appendix A).
Results
Effective dose to the public from the 1974 Centaure test fallout on thesociety islands

On July 17, 1974, at 17:00 UTC France detonated an experimental plutonium-based nuclear device that generated an energy equivalent of 4 kt of
TNT. The experiment codenamed “Centaure” took place under a dirigible
balloon anchored 270 m above Moruroa (21 470 1300 S 138 530 3200 W).24
Twelve hours before the test, French radiological safety services predictedthat fallout from the explosion would occur northward from the test siteover the atolls of Hao and Tureia, but the potential impact was deemedsmall enough that the decision to conduct the test was neverthelessapproved. After the explosion, French technicians realized the radioactive
debris cloud did not reach the expected altitude (the top of the cloud
reached 5,200 m instead of the predicted 8,500 m). Meanwhile, the winds
had shifted toward the west pushing the cloud in the direction of Tahiti.
Our atmospheric transport simulation of Centaure shows the radioactive
cloud traveling from Moruroa to Tahiti and the rest of the Society islands
in a straight line reaching the island of Tahiti about two days after the
explosion (Figure 2 and the supplementary video). The significant deposition of fission products and transuranics including plutonium-239 on themost inhabited islands of French Polynesia is consistent with a low stabilized radioactive cloud height (well below the tropopause), the relatively
small (micron size diameter) but high-density metallic particles in thecloud, and heavy rain in the days following the test. Figure 2 shows thereconstruction of the 1974 Centaure cloud trajectory over French
Polynesia. Air activities in pCi/m3 (1 pCi ¼ 0.037 Bq) between 0 and 500 m
were obtained using the HYSPLIT atmospheric transport code (seeAppendix A). We find that the cloud traveled directly from Moruroa to
Tahiti in about two days before reaching the leeward islands (including
Huahine, Raiatea, Taha’a, Bora-bora and Maupiti). Early time steps of thecloud trajectory are consistent with the CEA map of the fallout simulated
for approximately the first 24 hours.
At the main radiological station of Tahiti, located at Mahina, the measured dose rate peaked at 390 microrad/h between H þ 48 and H þ 54.5.
Declassified documents show the total cumulative deposition reachedSCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

69

Figure 2. Reconstruction of the 1974 Centaure cloud trajectory over French Polynesia. Air activities in pCi/m3 (1 pCi ¼ 0.037 Bq) between 0 and 500 m were obtained using the HYSPLIT
atmospheric transport code (see Appendix A).

3.4  106 Bq/m2 (9  107 pCi/m2).25 Another recent study, independent
from our work, obtained the same cumulative value from the same declassified government documents.26 According to a 1974 map we found in thearchival documents, the fallout on Tahiti was uneven with ratios of deposited activity in various parts of the island ranging from 0.1 to 11 times thevalue measured at the Mahina radiological station. Figure 3. Shows themeasurements of ground activity in Tahiti following the 1974 Centaure fallout. Both maps provide deposition values in relation to the reference dataat the Mahina Radiological Control Station. The 2006 official map on theright is the reproduction of the original 1974 map on the left. The highest
activity values in Taravao (9.6 times) and Teahupoo (11 times) do notappear on the 1997 and 2006 versions but are considered in the 2006 dose
estimates, albeit assuming locals only spent 4 h outside per day (equivalent
to receiving no dose from groundshine 83% of the time). More importantly, the upper bound for activity in the western part of the main island is
modified from 0.3 to 0.2. The CEA 2006 Centaure reconstruction study
assume a 0.13 ratio between the Pirae/Papeete zone and Mahina, and as
the histogram of the daily deposition measured in Mahina shows, does notconsider ground deposition after 19 July.

70

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Figure 3. Measurements of ground activity in Tahiti following the 1974 Centaure fallout. Bothmaps provide deposition values in relation to the reference data at the Mahina RadiologicalControl Station.

Through analysis of primary sources, we also found information suggesting multiple errors or omissions were made in the 2006 retrospective dosereconstruction of the Centaure test that have important implications forthe computed results: First, the government study used a cumulative deposition of 2.5  106 Bq/m2 at Mahina, corresponding to the activity measured
on 19 July 1974 only (see Figure 3).27 Because of this lower value, allgroundshine, cloudshine and inhalation doses were underestimated by a factor of 3.4/2.5 ¼ 1.36. Second, a careful comparison of the 1974 original map
representing the deposited activity on the island of Tahiti and subsequent
copies published in official French government publications.28 Figure 3
shows that the ground activity measured on the road surface for the
Papeete/Pirae zone ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 times the value measured at theMahina station and not 0.1 to 0.2 as more recent government maps suggest.
In the dose reconstruction, official studies used a ratio of 0.13, which is 2.3
times lower than the historical upper bound ratio of 0.3 for this zone asfound on the 1974 map. While the declassified report associated with the original 1974 map suggests that deposition activity was relatively independent
from the road surface condition at the points of measurements, activity
measured away from the roads was typically higher—up to 30%. This suggest
the upper bound for ground deposition in the Papeete/Pirae could also be

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

71

higher: up to 0.39 the value measured at Mahina or 3 times the value usedby the 2006 CEA study.
Combined, these possible errors mean that the groundshine, cloudshine,
and inhalation upper dose estimates for the Pirae/Papeete zone, which washome to 80,000 inhabitants (2/3 of the total French Polynesia population)at the time, were underestimated by a factor of 4.08.
Regarding internal contamination, the 2006 study acknowledges the limited contamination data for foodstuffs, including the absence of radioactivity measurements for vegetables from the Papeete market in July 1974.29 As
a proxy, activities for the Papeete/Pirae region were taken from the Paea
market, which had the lowest contamination values on the island. Given
the possibility of sourcing vegetables elsewhere, it is equally plausible toassume that vegetables could have originated from nearby Hitiaa (which
had the highest measured contamination). Using the latter values raises the
maximum effective doses and thyroid doses equivalent from vegetable consumptions by a factor of 2.73 for Papeete. Given the lack of data in declassified government documents, it is difficult to estimate the validity ofreconstructed doses from other foodstuffs (e.g., meat or fish). For the purposes of this reevaluation, we assume they are valid.
Based on these findings, we corrected the 2006 computations for effective
doses from groundshine, cloudshine, inhalation, and ingestion received by
the inhabitants of Tahiti after the Centaure test using the CEA methodology but accounting for errors and omissions.
To produce a confidence interval for our new effective dose estimates,
we also assigned a 25% standard deviation to the Mahina ground deposition measurements from which groundshine, cloudshine and inhalation
doses are computed. This value is found in CEA reports and is typical forthis type of measurement.30 To a first order, the ground deposition measurement error propagates to groundshine, cloudshine and inhalation dose
estimates. This allows us to compute a new upper bound corresponding toa 95% confidence interval (1.96–r) assuming doses are normally distributed and all other sources of errors to be zero.31 (The latter being a conservative assumption.) The results are given for different age groups andpresented in Table 2 for the Pirae/Papeete area. Results for the Hitiaa andTaravao areas are available in Appendix B, Table B1. They suggest that, for
the Centaure fallout alone, the entire population of Tahiti (87,500 people
at the time) could have received effective (whole-body) doses above 1 mSv.
Interestingly, declassified documents show that the effective doses computed in the 1970s and assigned to Papeete were also greater than 1 mSv
for the year 1974 (see Appendix C, Table C1).
The 2006 study did not evaluate the impact of Centaure beyond theisland of Tahiti. However, we found in primary sources that ground72

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Table 2. Original and revised sum of external and internal effective dose estimates in mSv for
the Pirae/Papeete area due to the CENTAURE fallout.
Original estimate (2006)

Revised estimate

Age (years)
Inhalation
Cloudshine
Groundshine
Ingestion
Total
Inhalation
Cloudshine
Groundshine
Ingestion
Total

Newborn
0.032
0.002
0.053
0.680
0.77
0.195
0.012
0.335
0.680
1.22

1–2
0.050
0.002
0.053
1.086
1.19
0.304
0.012
0.335
1.686
2.34

2–7
0.046
0.002
0.053
0.611
0.71
0.280
0.012
0.335
1.121
1.75

7–12
0.049
0.002
0.053
0.508
0.61
0.298
0.012
0.335
0.948
1.59

12–17
0.048
0.002
0.053
0.487
0.59
0.292
0.012
0.335
0.827
1.47

Adult
0.046
0.002
0.053
0.352
0.45
0.280
0.012
0.335
0.612
1.24

The revised upper bound estimates only include measurement uncertainties with regards to the Mahina station
ground deposition measurement and nothing else, as taking other sources of uncertainty would increase thesevalues further.

contamination measurements were conducted on other islands including
Moorea, Bora-Bora, Raiatea, and Huahine. The average ground contamination for these islands was 0.3 times the value measured at the Mahinareference station. All islands had hotspots reaching up to 0.4–0.6 times thereference value, except for Huahine, which showed values up to 2.5 times
the reference point.32
This suggests that inhabitants from these islands could have received
effective doses from external exposure and inhalation ranging from 0.3 to
2.5 mSv, similar to the doses computed for the Pirae/Papeete and Hitiaa
areas on Tahiti (see Table S7). No information about the consumption ofcontaminated foodstuffs is available for these islands. Adding this contribution would raise the effective dose. Given known estimates of doses fromingestion for Tahiti (ranging from 0.6 to 3.5 mSv depending on the age ofthe individual), it is also possible that all the inhabitants of Moorea, BoraBora, Raiatea and Huahine (17,100 people) could have received an effective dose greater than 1 mSv.
For the other Society islands where no measurement data is available, oursimulation of the Centaure cloud pathway over French Polynesia (Figure 2)
shows that all, including Maiao, Tahaa, and Maupiti (4,200 people), were
impacted by the Centaure fallout. Our simulation suggests that Tahaa and
Maupiti were subjected to similar levels of deposition as Huahine, Raiatea, andBora-Bora, which is consistent with their geographic proximity (see Figure2).33 In our simulation, Maia finds itself, as Taravao on Tahiti, located directlyon the trajectory of the cloud’s center of mass where the activity is the highest.
We find that the island could have received levels of deposition 8 times
higher than those measured at Mahina. Given these results and the upperbound doses available for Tahiti, the populations of Maiao, Tahaa, andMaupiti could also have received doses greater than 1 mSv.

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

73

Effective dose from other tests on the Gambier archipelago and the atollof Tureia

In addition to the Centaure case study, the French government has produced
six dose reconstruction reports for the Aldebaran (1966), Rigel (1966: tworeports, one for the consequences on the Gambier archipelago and one on
Tureia atoll), Arcturus (1967), Encelade (1971), and Phoebe (1971) tests, which
concerned residents of the Gambier archipelago and the Tureia atoll (for a
total of 600 individuals) who lived less than 450 km away from the test site
and were the most impacted by French nuclear testing.
The first three of these tests were detonated from barges anchored on
the lagoon of Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls, while the latter two were suspended under balloons to limit the interaction of the expending fireballwith the lagoon water. In all five tests, either the Gambier islands, Tureia
or both were impacted by direct fallout (see Figure 4).
The dose reconstructions for these tests present again issues with key
assumptions that impact the resulting dose estimates to the local population. These include, among others, assumptions about the source of drinking water utilized by residents, which can affect estimates of internal
exposure to ionizing radiation, as well as errors in extracting available
measurement values from historical documents and accounting for measured dose rates from ground deposition when available. There is also an
issue with using generalized extrapolation of foodstuff and water contamination levels from measurements taken from other nuclear tests or otherplaces, when such data is unavailable for a given location or test, which
can lead to underestimation of the internal exposure of inhabitants. In addition, dose calculations for the Arcturus and Phoebe tests could not be fully
verified as key primary sources related to these tests are still publicly
unavailable. Figure 5 present the 2006 data and our reevaluation of theupper bound dose estimate for a child (see details and data for other age
groups in the Appendix B including Tables B3–B8).
Overall, we find that maximum effective whole-body doses could havebeen underestimated for the Aldebaran, Arcturus, Encelade, and Phoebe
tests by factors of 1.5–4. Dose estimates for the Rigel test, based on fewer
measurements, are much more uncertain and could have been underestimated by a factor of 10.
Discussion

Our results show that upper bound estimates of effective doses received by
the French Polynesian population during the period of French atmospherictesting have been under-appreciated by factors of 2 to 10, even without
considering all measurement and model uncertainties.

74

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Figure 4. Reconstruction of the fallout from key atmospheric nuclear tests that impacted theGambier archipelago and the atoll of Tureia between 1966 and 1971. Dose rate contours arenormalized to H þ 1 after the explosion and expressed in rem/h (1 rem ¼ 0.01 Sv) to allow for
direct comparison with historical simulations (red contours). Our results (solid blue) wereobtained using the atmospheric transport code HYSPLIT (see Appendix A). We find our results
to be in relatively good agreement with historical simulations further confirming the usefulnessof our approach for reconstructing local fallout from shallow water or balloon bursts.

Taking our new findings into account, as well as population census datafrom 1967, 1971, and 1977,34 we estimate that the total number of inhabitants who may have received doses greater than 1 mSv/yr. to be 110,000,
about 90% of the total French Polynesian population in 1974. This estimate
includes 87,500 inhabitants in Tahiti, 6,000 in Moorea, 16,000 in the
Leeward Islands, and 600 in Gambier and Tureia, and is about ten times
more people than the original 2006 estimates suggest.35
These findings introduce the possibility of much broader compensationfor victims of radiogenic cancer who resided in French Polynesia at the

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

75

Figure 5. Estimates of effective doses received by a 1–2 year-old child during the most importantfallout events on the Gambier archipelago and the atoll of Tureia. The name of the tests areabbreviated as follows: ALD for Aldebaran, RIG for Rigel, ARC for Arcturus, ENC for Encelade, andPHO for Phoebe. Our results (in blue) show that existing government dose reconstruction studies(black lines spanning from minimum to maximum doses) may have consistently underestimatedupper-bounds of doses received by the public by up to an order of magnitude.

time of the French atmospheric tests. We estimate the total number of cancers between 1975 and 2020 of types that are recognized under French law
to be radiogenic among the 110,000 people residing in the Society Islands
in 1974 (the majority on Tahiti) to be 10,000.
We obtained this number by assuming an average population death rate of
0.54% and an average recognized cancers incidence of 0.2% per year overthis period.36 Furthermore, based on available cancer incidence data from the
French Polynesian government, we find that the current average incidence ofradiogenic cancers among people born before 1975 in French Polynesia is
about 0.4% per year.37 Thus we might expect at most about 350 new cases ofradiogenic cancers per year among the 1974 residents who are still alive today.
Beyond that, projections would have to account for age-related increases inrate of cancer in a population declining due to all causes of mortality. We
note that this total number of cancers is two orders of magnitude greater thanwhat would be expected from estimates of lifetime attributable risk of solidcancer based on available effective dose estimates (assuming a population similar to the United States in 1999).38 It is impossible to attribute excess cancers
to specific individuals, however.
Our results have implications for both past and future claimants’ compensation claims. French Polynesians living in Tahiti in the summer of 1974 whose
compensation claims have been rejected by CIVEN on the grounds that they
were not exposed to 1 mSv of radiation in a twelve-month period, forexample, should have the opportunity to seek renewed review of their claims.

76

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Conclusion

In the context of French compensation law for victims of past nuclear testing, upper bound estimates of effective doses to the public are of key legal
and policy importance. For claimants, who have developed radiogenic cancers and were present in French Polynesia during the period of atmospheric testing, they are the scientific basis upon which compensation isdenied. For the French and French Polynesian governments, they also dictate the total number of eligible claimants and therefore the possible costof compensation incurred from past nuclear testing.
On the basis of dose reconstructions based on a review of declassified
French government source material and atmospheric transport modeling forsix nuclear tests, we estimate that the number of French Polynesians who may
have received effective doses greater than 1 mSv/yr, and would therefore be
eligible for compensation should they develop one of the 23 legally-recognizedradiogenic cancers, to be 110,000—about 90% of the total French Polynesian
population in 1974. Additional exposure and contamination from atmospherictests, which also impacted French Polynesian islands but were not reevaluatedin this study, could increase this number further.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) for theprovision of the HYSPLIT transport and dispersion model used in this publication. We
thank V. Jodoin and R. Draxler for useful conversations and advice in applying HYSPLIT
to nuclear fallout reconstructions, F. von Hippel and to Z. Mian for providing valuable
feedback on the manuscript, S. Lavrenchuk for her help with drawing figures 2 and 4, andthe supplementary video of the Centaure test, as well as T. Statius, O. Lucko, G. Livolsi,
and M. Destal for their help and inputs during this project. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data and code availability statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are either included or cited in the published article and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The relevant primary source documents can be accessed online (https://moruroa-files.org/
en/declassified-documents/). The source code for the HYSPLIT transport and dispersion
model is available upon request from the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (https://www.
ready.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT_linux.php). The open-source code for Onix is available online(https://github.com/jlanversin/ONIX).

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

77

ORCID
Sebastien Philippe
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7282-7520
Sonya Schoenberger
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1173-4790
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4390-5219
Nabil Ahmed

Notes and References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

See Ministere de la Defense, La dimension radiologique des essais nucleaires français
en Polynesie: a l’epreuve des faits (French Government, 2006), 1–476, and Gerard
Martin, ed., Les atolls de Mururoa et Fangataufa. Les experimentations nucleaires,
aspect radiologique (Commissariat a l’energie atomique, 2007), 1–751; National
Research Council, Exposure of the American Population to Radioactive Fallout from
Nuclear Weapons Tests: A Review of the CDC-NCI Draft Report on a Feasibility Studyof the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests
Conducted by the United States and other Nations (Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, 2003), 1–69 and S. L. Simon and A. Bouville, “Health Effects of
Nuclear Weapons Testing,” The Lancet 386 (2015): 407–9.
French National Assembly, Loi n 2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative a lareconnaissance et a l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucleaires français (2010),
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2010/1/5/DEFX0906865L/jo/texte.
See French National Assembly, Loi n 2018-1317 du 28 decembre 2018 de finances
pour 2019, JORF n 0302 du 30 decembre 2018, Article 232(2 )(b), referencing Article
L. 1333-2(3 ) of the French Public Health Code; See also Public Health Code Article
R1333-11 (which states that 1mSv, with the exception of certain particular cases, isthe annual effective dose limit for the general population), https://www.legifrance.
gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000037016765/; See also Conseil Constitutionnel,
Commentaire: Decision n 2021-955 QPC du 10 decembre 2021, 9, https://www.
conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/decisions/2021955qpc/
2021955qpc_ccc.pdf
See for exemple Leclerc, Olivier, Etienne
Verges, and Geraldine Vial. "Preuvesscientifiques et technologiques." Cahiers Droit, Sciences & Technologies 13(2021): 217–35.
There are seven reports in total. CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique desretombees de l’essai ALDEBARAN sur les ^ıles Gambier, Dossier d’etude technique(May 2, 2006), 1–37; CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees del’essai ENCELADE a Tureia, Dossier d’etude technique (May 2, 2006), 1–45; CEA/
DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai CENTAURE a Tahiti,
Dossier d’etude technique (May 2, 2006), 1–58; CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact
dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai PHOEBE sur les ^ıles Gambier, Dossier d’etudetechnique (July 13, 2006), 1–39; CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique desretombees de l’essai ACTURUS a Tureia, Dossier d’etude technique (August 29,2006), 1–39; CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai
RIGEL sur les ^ıles Gambier, Dossier d’etude technique (September 30, 20), 1–33;
CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai RIGEL a Tureia,
Dossier d’etude technique (September 20, 2006), 1–31.
Sebastien Philippe and Tomas Statius, Toxique: Enqu^ete sur les essais nucleaires
français en Polynesie (Presses Universitaires de France, 2021): 167.

78

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

In the only known review of the 2006 dose estimates organized by the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the French government, reviewers explained from theoutsets that their objective “was not to conduct a new detailed study or a newcomputation of doses from the data presented [by the French government]” and that
their conclusions were based “on the idea that all information, all calculations, and alldata provided in the 2006 report and other supplementary reports are correct.” Thereviewers accepted the CEA claims that dose calculations were based on “the highest
measurement results and relatively conservative assumptions” and noted that
uncertainties about dose estimates were particularly important and that it was
impossible to quantify them, because of “the absence of direct measurements ofspecific nuclides in all media, for all tests and all sites.” See IAEA, Rapport sur
l’examen par des experts internationaux de l’exposition du public aux radiations en
Polynesie française suite aux essais atmospheriques nucleaires français, September
2009 – July 2010 (2010), 1–214.
Inserm, Essais nucleaires et sante. Consequences en Polynesie française. Collection
Expertise collective (Montrouge: EDP Sciences, 2020), 1–604. Available since February
24, 2021, https://www.inserm.fr/sites/default/files/media/entity_documents/Inserm_
ExpertiseCollective_EssaisNucleaires2021_RapportComplet.pdf
F. de Vathaire, V. Drozdovitch, P. Brindel, F. Rachedi, J.-L. Boissin, J. Sebbag, L.
Shan, F. Bost-Bezeaud, P. Petitdidier, J. Paoaafaite, J. Teuri, et al., “Thyroid Cancer
Following Nuclear Tests in French Polynesia,” British Journal of Cancer 103 (2010):
1115–1121, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605862 and Vladimir Drozdovitch, Florentde Vathaire, and Andre Bouville, “Ground Deposition of Radionuclides in French
Polynesia Resulting from Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests at Mururoa andFangataufa Atolls,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 214 (2020): 106176.
French National Assembly, Loi n 2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative a lareconnaissance et a l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucleaires français,
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2010/1/5/DEFX0906865L/jo/texte.
French National Assembly, Loi n 2013-1168 du 18 decembre 2013 relative a laprogrammation militaire pour les annees 2014 a 2019 et portant diverses dispositions
concernant la defense et la securite nationale, JORF n 0294 du 19 decembre 2013,
Article 54.
French National Assembly, Loi n 2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative a lareconnaissance et a l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucleaires français, JORFn 0004 du 6 janvier 2010.
CIVEN, Rapport d’activite (2019), 11–12, https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/
files/contenu/piece-jointe/2020/07/rapport_dactivite_2019_avec_annexes.pdf
French National Assembly, Loi n 2017-256 du 28 fevrier 2017 de programmation
relative a l’egalite reelle outre-mer et portant autres dispositions en matiere sociale eteconomique (« Loi EROM »).
Conseil d’Etat Avis n 409777, Jun. 28, 2017, JORF n 0154 du 2 juillet 2017.
French National Assembly, Loi n 2017-256 du 28 fevrier 2017 de programmation
relative a l’egalite reelle outre-mer et portant autres dispositions en matiere sociale eteconomique (« Loi EROM »), Article 113.
French National Assembly, Loi n 2018-1317 du 28 decembre 2018 de finances pour
2019, JORF n 0302 du 30 decembre 2018, Article 232(2 )(b), referencing Article L.
1333-2(3 ) of the French Public Health Code. See also Public Health Code Article
R1333-11 (which states that 1mSv, with the exception of certain particular cases, isthe annual effective dose limit for the general population).

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

18.

19.

20.
21.
22.

23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.

29.
30.

31.

79

French National Assembly, Loi n 2020-734 du 17 juin 2020 relative a diverses
dispositions liees a la crise sanitaire, a d’autres mesures urgentes ainsi qu’au retrait duRoyaume-Uni de l’Union europeenne (effectively abrogating the 27 January 2020,
Conseil d’Etat Avis n 432578).
See Decision n 2021-955 QPC 10 decembre 2021, Journal Officiel de la Republiquefrançaise n 0288 du 11 decembre 2021, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/jo/2021/12/
11/0288, para. 12 and 13. The Conseil Constitutionnel reasoned that the law violated
article 16 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and heldthat the legislature’s intent to create uniformity in the compensation regime byextending the threshold retroactively did not constitute an “overriding reasons ofpublic interest” (“motif imperieux d’inter^et general”) that would justify such an injury
to those who initiated claims or legal proceedings before the 2018 law enteredinto force.
See the seven reports cited in endnote 6.
Table reproduced from Ministere de la Defense, La dimension radiologique des essais
nucleaires français en Polynesie, 293.
The CEA also computed thyroid dose equivalent estimates. While these are not thefocus of the paper, we re-evaluated them as they may be of interest to otherresearchers. Results are available in Appendix B.
CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai CENTAURE a
Tahiti, 16.
Martin, Les atolls de Mururoa et Fangataufa, 271.
SMSR, Campagne 1974. Retombees en Polynesie, Report 11/SMSR/PEL/CD (March
17, 1975): 66, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-29-58 and SMSR, Retombees en
Polynesie lors des 1ere et 2eme rafales de la campagne 1974, Note 3/SMSR/GOEN/SD(August 26, 1974): 2, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-43-58
Drozdovitch et al., “Ground Deposition of Radionuclides in French Polynesia,” 9.
CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai CENTAURE a
Tahiti, 16.
The original 1974 map is available in SMSR, Retombees consecutives au tir
CENTAURE, Report 101/SMSR.PAC/CD (September 7, 1974): figure 7, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-44-58. The latter (edited) versions appeared in
multiple documents starting in 1998. See: Ministere de la Defense, La dimension
radiologique des essais nucleaires français en Polynesie, 217, Martin, Les atolls deMururoa et Fangataufa, 427, and G. Bourges, Study of the Radiological Situation at
the Atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. Radiological Consequences of the Atmospheric
Tests on the Islands of French Polynesia from 1966 to 1974 (CEA/DAM/DRIF/DASE,
Paris, 1997), 947.
CEA/DAM. Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai CENTAURE a
Tahiti, op.cit., 22.

See Martin, Les atolls de Mururoa et Fangataufa, 538 and Chi Trach, « Etudede laretombee de fer-55 artificiel: application a l’estimation de la retombee de fer naturel
stratospherique, » (These de doctorat, Universite de Paris, Centre d’Etudes
Nucleairesde Saclay, Rapport CEA-R-3918, 1970), 30, https://inis.iaea.org/collection/
NCLCollectionStore/_Public/45/085/45085838.pdf
Including this 25% measurement uncertainty, the upper bounds for groundshine,
cloudshine, and inhalation contributions to the effective dose for the inhabitants of
the Pirae/Papeete are corrected by the following factor (1.36  0.3  1.3) / 0.13 

80

32.

33.
34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.
43.

44.

45.

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

(1 þ 1.96  0.25) ¼ 4.08  1.49 ¼ 6.08 times the values originally estimated by
the CEA.
The range of deposition values with respect to the Mahina reference station are
0.13–0.5 for Moorea, 0.15–2.5 for Huahine, 0.2–0.6 for Raiatea, 0.25–0.4 for BoraBora. See SMSR, Retombees consecutives au tir CENTAURE, figures 8–11.
Another study found similar results. See Table 6 in Drozdovitch et al., “Ground
Deposition of Radionuclides in French Polynesia,” 9.
See INSEE, Polynesie Française: Comparaison des resultats des recensements de 1956,
1962 et 1971, et du denombrement de 1967 (September 20, 1971): 1–14, and INSEE,
Resultats du recensement de la population de la Polynesie française (April 29, 1977).
Arnaud Castelnerac, Consequences Sanitaires des Essais Nucleaires Français dans lePacifique, Centre Medical de Suivi. Polynesian Government (February 2020), 1–8,
https://www.presidence.pf/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Fiche-DSCEN-Cons%C3%
A9quences-Sanitaires_essais_nuc.pdf
See The World Bank, Death Rate, Crude (per 1,000 people) – French Polynesia,
World Development Indicators (2021), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.
CDRT.IN?end=2019&locations=PF&start=1975 and Jacques Ferlay et al., Global
Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today (Lyon, France: International Agency for Research
on Cancer, 2020). Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today.
Ministere de la Sante Polynesien, Donnees d’incidence et de prevalence des cancers,situation au 14 decembre 2017. Letter ref 2400/MSS from Jacques Raynal to Eliane
Tevahitua (December 28, 2017).
National Research Council, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences,
2006), 279.
Ariel Stein, “NOAA’s HYSPLIT Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Modeling
System,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96, (2015): 2059–2077,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00110.1
Brian Moroz, Harold Beck, Andre Bouville, and Steven Simon, “Predictions ofdispersion and Deposition of Fallout from Nuclear Testing Using the NOAAHYSPLIT Meteorological Model,” Health physics 99 (2010): 252–269 and Glenn
Rolph, Fong Ngan, and Roland Draxler, “Modeling the Fallout from Stabilized
Nuclear Clouds Using the HYSPLIT Atmospheric Dispersion Model,” Journal ofEnvironmental Radioactivity 136 (2014): 41–55.
Eugenia Kalnay, M. Kanamitsu, R. Kistler, W. Collins, D. Deaven, L. Gandin, M.
Iredell, S. Saha, G. White, J. Woollen, et al., “The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis
Project,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77 (1996): 437–470.
SMSR, Retombees consecutives au tir CENTAURE, appendix, 1–2.
David Brown, M. B. Chadwick, R. Capote, A. C. Kahler, A. Trkov, M. W. Herman, A.
A. Sonzogni, Y. Danon, A. D. Carlson, M. Dunn, et al., “ENDF/B-VIII. 0: The 8th
Major Release of the Nuclear Reaction Data Library with CIELO-Project Cross
Sections, New Standards and Thermal Scattering Data,” Nuclear Data Sheets 148(2018): 1–142.
Julien de Troullioud de Lanversin, Moritz K€
uttand Alexander Glaser, “ONIX: An
Open-Source Depletion Code,” Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021): 107903, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107903.
See Keith Eckerman and Jeffrey Ryman, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air,
Water, and Soil. No. CONF-960415–36 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1996), 1–238,
and ICRP, Age-dependent Doses to the Members of the Public from Intake ofSCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.
51.

52.
53.
54.
55.

56.
57.
58.

59.

81

Radionuclides – Part 5 Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Coefficients. ICRP
Publication 72. Annuals of the ICRP 26 (1995): 1–91.
See for example, Roland Draxler, Delia Arnold, Masamichi Chino, Stefano Galmarini,
Matthew Hort, Andrew Jones, Susan Leadbetter, Alain Malo, Christian Maurer, Glenn
Rolphe et al., “World Meteorological Organization’s Model Simulations of theRadionuclide Dispersion and Deposition from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Plant Accident,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 139 (2015): 172–84 and Ariel
Stein, Yaqiang Wang, Jesus D. de la Rosa, Ana M Sanchez de la Campa Verdona
Universidad de Huelva, Nuria Castell, and R. R. Draxler “Modeling PM10 Originatingfrom Dust Intrusions in the Southern Iberian Peninsula using HYSPLIT,” Weather
and Forecasting 26 (2011): 236–42.
Arnaud Querel, Denis Quelo, Yelva Roustan, Anne Mathieu, “Sensitivity Study to
Select the Wet Deposition Scheme in an Operational Atmospheric Transport Model,”Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 237 (2021): 106712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvrad.2021.106712
It is known that radioactive fallout particles can change size and density over time,
especially if they contain water. See for example, Niels Farlow, “Atmospheric
Reactions of Slurry Droplet Fallout,” Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 17 (1960): 390–9.
Date, time, height of detonation, yield, and altitude of the stabilized cloud for eachtest were compiled from Martin, Les atolls de Mururoa et Fangataufa, 163–291; Cloud
dimensions for the 1966 and 1967 tests were extracted from a graph in SMSR, Reseau
Mondial 1967. Report 15/SMSR/PEL/CD (February 7, 1968): 22. https://moruroa-files.
org/documents/04-82-94. Type of explosion is based on Martin, Les atolls de Mururoa
et Fangataufa, 163–291 as well as Pierre Billaud and Venance Journe, “The Real Story
Behind the Making of the French Hydrogen Bomb: Chaotic, Unsupported, but
Successful,” Nonproliferation Review 15 (2008): 353–72. Most French fission tests wereplutonium-based with the notable exception of Castor and Encelade, which wereboosted highly enriched uranium devices designed for the first generation of French
sea launched ballistic missiles. Thermonuclear tests (Fission þ Fusion) involved both
plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
Martin, Les atolls de Mururoa et Fangataufa, 164.
SMSR, Rapport sur l’evolution de la radioactivite en Polynesie due aux retombees desexplosions Françaises au Pacifique, Report 8/SMSR/PEL/CD (March 17, 1967): 19,https://moruroa-files.org/documents/04-57-94
Martin, Les atolls de Mururoa et Fangataufa, 166.
SMSR, Bilan des mesures physiques concernant Mangareva, Juillet 1966, Report 14/
SMSR/PEL/PAC/S, August 19, 1966, 6, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-01-58
SMSR, Bilan des mesures physiques concernant Mangareva, 1.
Philippe Millon, Mission de la Coquille aux Gambiers du 2 au 10 juillet 1966, Report
MN/CEP/BRO Coquille/SMCB/S (July 10, 1966): 2, https://moruroa-files.org/
documents/04-18-94
SMCB, Fiche sur la Synthese des rapports SMSR/SMCB/SANTE relatifs a la retombee
Aldebaran (1967): 1–3, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-03-58
CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai
ALDEBARAN, 1–37.
SMCB, Rapport preliminaire concernant les resultats obtenus par le BRO “La
Coquille” pendant la 1ere demi-campagne, Report 110/CEP/SMCB/S (August 16,1966): 7, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/04-01-94
Millon, Mission de la Coquille aux Gambiers, 2.

82

60.

61.
62.
63.

64.
65.
66.
67.

68.

69.

70.
71.

72.
73.

74.
75.
76.
77.
78.

79.

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

See the two following reports: ORSTOM and SMCB, Rapport d’etude hydrologiqueaux Iles Gambier (August 1966): 8–9 and INSEE, Resultats du recensement de lapopulation de la Polynesie française (April 29, 1977): Table L7.
SMCB, Resultats obtenus par le BRO “La Coquille,” 6–7.
SMSR, Bilan des mesures physiques concernant Mangareva, 2.
Vladimir Drozdovitch, Andre Bouville, Marc Taquet, Jacques Gardon, Constance
Xhaard, Yan Ren, Françoise Doyon, and Florent de Vathaire, “Thyroid Doses to
French Polynesians Resulting from Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests: Estimates
Based on Radiation Measurements and Population Lifestyle Data,” Health Physics 120(2021): 41.
Billaud and Journe, “The Real Story Behind the Making of the French Hydrogen
Bomb,” 353–72.
SMSR, Compte rendu de decontamination sur l’atoll de Fangataufa, Report 1/SMSR/
DR (1967): 1–34., https://moruroa-files.org/documents/04-36-94
SMSR, Compte Rendu de l’Operation RIGEL, Report 27/SMSR/PEL/PAC/S, October
19, 1966, 7, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-04-58
See CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai RIGEL surles ^ıles Gambier, 13 and CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees
de l’essai RIGEL a Tureia,12.
See SMSR, Rapport sur l’evolution de la radioactivite en Polynesie due aux retombees
des explosions Françaises au Pacifique, 4 and SMSR, Compte Rendu de l’Operation
RIGEL, 7.
SMCB, Etude de la dose absorbee en contamination interne par les habitants deTureia au cours du mois suivant le tir Encelade, Report 126/CEP/SMCB, August 10,
1971, 7, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-12-58
CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai ARCTURUS, 13.
See for example Drozdovitch, “Thyroid Doses to French Polynesians Resulting from
Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests,”, 41 and 32;IRSN, Evaluation de l’exposition
radiologique des populations de Tureia, des Gambier et de Tahiti aux retombees desessais atmospheriques d’armes nucleaires entre 1975 et 1981, Report IRSN/201900498, 2019, 1–43.
SMSR, Bilan des mesures physiques concernant Tureia, Juillet 1967, Report 79/SMSR/
PAC/PEL/CD, July 27, 1967, 1–22. https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-53-58
SMSR, Retombees en Polynesie a l’issue de la premiere rafale de la campagne 1971,
Report 12/SMSR/ARCHIPEL/CD (June 23, 1971): 1–24, https://moruroa-files.org/
documents/02-46-58
SMCB, Etude de la contamination de Tureia apres le Tir Encelade, Report 222/CEP/
SMCB/CD (December 27, 1971): 1–7, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-40-58
SMCB, Etude de la dose absorbee en contamination interne par les habitants deTureia, 7.
SMSR, Campagne 1971, Retombees en Polynesie, Report 10/SMSR/PEL/CD, March 7,
1972, 1–39, https://moruroa-files.org/documents/02-48-58
CEA/DAM, Calcul de l’impact dosimetrique des retombees de l’essai PHOEBE, 32.
See SMSR, Compte Rendu de la Campagne 1974, Report 11/SMSR/DIR/SD,
November 26, 1974, 91 for external doses and SMCB, Controle Biologique en
Polynesie 1975–1976, Vol 2, 1978, 186–190 for internal doses.
Bourges, “Study of the Radiological Situation at the Atolls of Mururoa andFangataufa,” 924–951.

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

80.

81.

83

Op. cit., French National Assembly, Loi n 2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative a lareconnaissance et a l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucleaires français;
CIVEN, Rapport d’activite (2019), 11–12.
Op. cit., French National Assembly, Loi n 2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative a lareconnaissance et a l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucleaires français;
CIVEN, Rapport d’activite (2019), 11–12.

Appendix A. ATMOSPHERIC transport simulation of nuclear test fallout
Fallout patterns and cloud trajectories from French nuclear tests were reconstructed using
the US NOAA Hybrid Single-Particle Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) particle transportand dispersion model.39 Following previous studies,40 we modeled the dispersion anddeposition of fallout from a stabilized nuclear cloud using data available in historicaldeclassified documents or French government publications and meteorological data fromthe NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis (1948–present) project.41
Initial clouds are represented as a segmented vertical linear source with activity distributed among the cap, skirt, and stem of the cloud as 0.775/0.15/0.075 for barge surface tests
and 0.9712/0.0283/0.0005 for balloon tests. Cloud dimensions were obtained from government sources (see Table A1). In general, the base of the mushroom cap is 0.7 time thealtitude of the top. The base of the skirt is 1/2 and 2/3 the altitude of the base of the cap
for ground (barge) and air (balloon or airdrop) bursts respectively.
For Centaure, the corresponding altitudes were taken as 5200 m, 3640 m and 1815 mwith the stem extending to ground level. The cloud particle sizes were assumed to be lognormally distributed with parameters (d ¼ 73.6 mm, s ¼ 1.51) for barge tests and(d ¼ 0.15 mm, s ¼ 2.5) for balloon tests. Particles were equally distributed in 100 diameterbins of equal activity (according to the 2.5 and 3rd moment respectively) and summed to aunit release. Particle density was kept constant over time and was assumed to range from
1.30–2.16 to 4.8 g/cm3 for barge and balloon tests respectively. For Centaure, the particle
density was obtained from a granulometric measurement of particles collected at the Tahiti
Mahina radiological measurement station.42
HYSPLIT calculations were run on a 12-core Linux machine with MPI and involved therelease of 3,000,000 particles each. The meteorological data is provided on a 2.5 by 2.5
degrees global grid with a 6-hour time resolution. The output data include particle air concentration between 0 and 500 m and ground deposition on a 22 by 22 degrees grid with
0.05 by 0.05 degrees resolution. Air and ground activity were then computed assuming no
fractionation of fission products using the con2rem HYSPLIT routine. The source code of
con2rem was modified to allow for the use of more than 500 nuclides in the source term
and to account for the beginning of decay at the time of the explosion and not at the
beginning of the simulation. Different source terms were used for activity concentration
maps or dose rate contour calculations normalized at H þ 1 using uranium-235 and plutonium-239 ENDF8 fission product yields at 500 keV and 14 MeV.43 Decay of the source
term was conducted at different time interval with Onix, an open-source depletion codedeveloped at Princeton University.44 Activity to dose ratios for groundshine, cloudshine,
and inhalation were obtained from the US FGR12 and ICRP Publication 72.45 A Python
routine was written to generate relevant con2rem activity input files.
Overall fallout dose contours were found to be in good agreement with those produced historically by the French government (see Figure 4 of main text) despite known uncertainties
associated with the chosen particle size distribution, the cloud dimensions, and the meteorological reanalysis dataset. Similarly, air activity concentrations computed by HYSPLIT were84

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

found to be within an order of magnitude of historical measurements. They were often underpredicted by a factor of 5 to 10, however, depending on the test (for example, between the measured and the predicted air activity concentration at the Mahina station following the Centaurefallout). Underprediction for similar type of HYSPLIT computation have been noted elsewhere.46 In our case, they may be the result of multiple assumptions and models included in
HYSPLIT. For example, HYSPLIT typically overestimates wet deposition from light rain,47
which could deplete the debris cloud faster as it travels for several days. In addition, we assume
particle sizes and densities to remain constant over time and may be underestimating their settling velocity once they reach lower altitudes.48
Table A1. List of French atmospheric nuclear and safety tests in the Pacific (1966–1974) with
relevant data for atmospheric transport simulations.
#

Date DD/
MM/YYYY

Time
(UTC)

1

02/07/1966

15:34

2

19/07/1966

15:05

3

21/07/1966

12:00

4

11/09/1966

17:30

5

24/09/1966

17:00

6

04/10/1966

21:00

7

05/06/1967

19:00

8

27/06/1967

18:30

9

07/02/1967

17:30

10

07/07/1968

22:00

11

15/07/1968

19:00

12

03/08/1968

21:00

13

24/08/1968

18:30

14

08/09/1968

19:00

15

15/05/1970

18:00

16

22/05/1970

18:30

17

30/05/1970

18:00

18

24/06/1970

18:30

19

03/07/1970

18:30

20

27/07/1970

19:00

21

02/08/1970

19:00

22

06/08/1970

19:00

23

05/06/1971

19:15

24

12/06/1971

19:15

Name
ALDEBARAN

Location

Type

Barge
21 520 0700 S
139 000 0700 W
 0 00TAMOURE
21 46 32 S Air drop138 240 5200 W
GANYMEDE 21 460 4900 S Tower
138 540 1600 W
BETELGEUSE 21 470 3000 S Balloon
138 530 3300 W
Barge
RIGEL
22 140 2400 S
138 430 2200 W
 0 00Barge
SIRIUS
21 52 18 S
139 000 1200 W
 0 0€
ALTAIR
21 47 11 ’S Balloon
139 530 3300 W

ANTARES21 520 0800 S Balloon
139 000 0200 W
Barge
ARCTURUS
21 470 1100 S
138 530 3300 W
 0 00CAPELLA
21 47 24 S Balloon
138 530 3200 W
CASTOR21 470 2400 S Balloon
139 000 1300 W
POLLUX21 470 2600 S Balloon
138 530 3200 W
CANOPUS22 140 3600 S Balloon
138 430 3000 W
PROCYON21 520 3600 S Balloon
139 000 1800 W
ANDROMEDE 21 470 0300 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
CASSIOPEE
21 520 3400 S Balloon
139 000 1400 W
DRAGON22 140 2100 S Balloon
138 430 2600 W
ERIDAN21 470 0300 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
LICORNE21 520 3400 S Balloon
139 000 1400 W
PEGASE21 470 0300 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
ORION
22 140 0200 S Balloon
138 430 0100 W
TOUCAN21 520 3400 S Balloon
139 000 1400 W
DIONE21 470 1500 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
ENCELADE
21 520 3400 S Balloon
139 000 1400 W

Height
(m)

Yield
(kT)

Type

Cloud
top (m)Cloudbottom (m)1028

Fission, Pu

9,000

5,000

1000

50

Fission, Pu

150,0013,000

12

0

Safety, Pu

n.a.

n.a.

470

110

Fission, Pu

18,00010,0003

125

Fission, Pu

13,000

6,000

10

205

Fission, Pu

22,00012,000295

15Fission, Pu

11,000

8,000

340

120

Fission, Pu

20,000

8,500

3

22

Fission, Pu

15,000

7,100

463

115

Fission, Pu

16,70011,400650

450

Fission, HEU

21,00014,800490

150

Fission, Pu

17,60010,400520

2,600

24,00014,800700

1,280

24,00015,500220

13

Fission þ
FusionFission þ
FusionFission, Pu

10,000

7,500

500

224

17,00013,500500

945

21,00015,000220

1212,000

85,00

500

914

Fission þ
FusionFission, Pu

24,00015,0002,400
16,5001,680(estimate)
10,50019,00014,00013,400

11,20017,00013,500Fission þ
FusionFission þ
FusionFission, Pu

220

0.05

400

72

500

594

275

34

Fission þ
FusionFission þ
FusionFission, Pu

450

440

Fission, HEU(continued)

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

85

Table A1. Continued.
#

Date DD/
MM/YYYY

Time
(UTC)

25

04/07/1971

21:30

26

08/08/1971

18:30

27

14/08/1971

19:00

28

25/06/1972

19:00

29

30/06/1972

18:30

30

27/07/1972

18:40

31

31/07/1972

22:30

32

21/07/1973

18:00

33

28/07/1973

23:06

34

18/08/1973

18:15

35

24/08/1973

18:00

36

28/08/1973

18:30

37

13/09/1973

15:42

38

16/06/1974

17:30

39

01/07/1974

17:30

40

07/07/1974

23:15

41

07/17/1974

17:00

42

25/07/1974

17:30

43

28/07/1974

17:30

44

14/08/1974

0:30

45

24/08/1974

23:45

46

14/09/1974

23:30

Name

LocationType21 470 1000 S Balloon
138 530 3300 W
PHOEBE
21 470 1000 S Balloon
138 530 3300 W
RHEA
21 520 3900 S Balloon
139 000 3800 W
UMBRIEL
21 470 0900 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
TITANIA21 520 0000 S Balloon
139 000 2200 W
OBERON21 520 0000 S Balloon
139 000 2200 W
ARIEL
21 460 5000 S Tower
138 540 0200 W
EUTERPE21 520 0000 S Balloon
139 000 2200 W
MELPOMENE 21 470 1200 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
PALLAS21 470 1200 S Balloon
138 530 3400 W
PARTHENOPE 21 520 0000 S Balloon
139 000 2200 W
TAMARA21 480 5000 S Air drop139 150 1900 W
VESTA
21 460 4800 S Tower
138 530 5700 W
CAPRICORNE 21 510 5800 S Balloon
139 000 0300 W
BELIER21 460 4800 S Tower
138 530 5700 W
GEMEAUX
21 520 0800 S Balloon
139 000 0700 W
CENTAURE
21 470 1300 S Balloon
138 530 3200 W
MAQUIS21 580 5000 S Air drop139 110 1500 W
PERSEE
21 460 4800 S Tower
138 530 5700 W
SCORPION
21 520 0800 S Balloon
139 000 0700 W
TAUREAU21 470 1300 S Balloon
139 530 3200 W
VERSEAU21 520 2000 S Balloon
139 000 1200 W
JAPET

Height
(m)

Yield
(kT)

Type

Cloud
top (m)Cloudbottom (m)230

9Fission, Pu

9,000

5,500

230

4

Fission, Pu

4,800

1,800

480

955

20,00015,500230

0.5

Fission þ
FusionFission, Pu

2,400

220

4

Fission, Pu

5,800

1,680
(estimate)
2,600

220

6

Fission, Pu

8,500

6,500

10

0.001

Safety, Pu

n.a.

n.a.

220

11

Fission, Pu

n.a.

n.a.

270

0.05

Fission, Pu

2,300

1,800

270

4

Fission, Pu

5,500

1,800

220

0.2

Fission, Pu

2,500

1,400

250

6

Fission, Pu

n.a.

n.a.

4.1

0

Safety, Pu

n.a.

n.a.

220

4

Fission, Pu

6,900

5.6

0

Safety, Pu

n.a.

4,830
(estimate)
n.a.

312

150

15,250

10,668270

4

Fission þ
FusionFission, Pu

5,200

250

8

Fission, Pu

10,7000.001

Safety, Pu

n.a.

3,640
(estimate)7,490(estimate)
n.a.

312

96

17,500270

14

Fission þ
FusionFission, Pu

433

332

5.6

Fission þ
Fusion10,00019,00012,250(estimate)
7,000(estimate)
13,300(estimate)

Only tests with their name in bold were the focus of government dose reconstruction studies. Data was
extracted from French government documents.49 For cloud top and bottom, “n.a.” means the data is not available. For a few tests, the altitude of the cloud bottom was estimated to be 0.7 time the altitude of the top.

86

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Appendix B. Reevaluation of effective doses to the
public—supplementary data
Reevaluation of doses from the 1974 Centaure test
Table B1. Corrected effective dose estimates for the Centaure fallout on Tahiti.
Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Effective dose

Pirae

HitiaaTaravao

Pirae

HitiaaTaravao

Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Water
Milk
Vegetables
Meat
Eggs
Fish
Mollusk
Shellfish
Ingestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

0.32
0.01
0.30
0.05
0.36
0.95
0.08
0.02
0.15
0.02
0.06
1.69
1.99
0.33
2.32
1.19
1.95

1.70
0.03
0.78
0.10
2.10
0.95
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.07
0.06
3.48
4.25
1.73
5.98
5.27
1.14

6.22
0.12
2.86
0.02
0.36
0.56
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.07
0.06
1.26
4.11
6.35
10.46
4.55
2.30

0.32
0.01
0.28
0.02
0.03
0.41
0.04
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.61
0.90
0.33
1.23
0.45
2.73

1.70
0.03
0.71
0.03
0.20
0.41
0.02
0.00
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.84
1.55
1.73
3.28
2.59
1.27

6.22
0.12
2.58
0.00
0.03
0.24
0.02
0.00
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.47
3.06
6.35
9.40
3.56
2.64

Updated values in bold reflect higher ground deposition for the reference station (Mahina), higher upper boundfor deposition in the Pirae/Papeete zone, absence of data from the Papeeete/Pirae market for vegetables.
Groundshine was corrected for one year (instead of six months) and we assumed time spent outdoor to be
2/3 for Teahupoo/Taravao (as is assumed by the CEA for Pirae and Hitiaa) as opposed to the 1/6 coefficientchosen by CEA for this area, which was the most impacted by fallout.

Table B2. Corrected thyroid dose equivalent estimates for the Centaure fallout on Tahiti.
Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Thyroid dose equivalent

Pirae

HitiaaTaravao

Pirae

HitiaaTaravao

Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Water
Milk
Vegetables
Meat
Eggs
Fish
Mollusk
Shellfish
Ingestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

0.32
0.01
3.47
0.60
4.50
11.90
1.10
0.18
1.90
0.30
0.66
21.14
24.61
0.33
24.94
14.11
1.77

1.61
0.04
8.70
1.30
25.00
11.90
0.54
0.14
1.90
0.84
0.66
42.28
50.98
1.65
52.63
48.68
1.08

5.91
0.13
32.91
0.22
4.50
6.90
0.54
0.07
1.90
0.84
0.66
15.63
48.54
6.04
54.58
39.83
1.37

0.32
0.01
1.64
0.20
0.40
4.50
0.50
0.07
0.80
0.12
0.30
6.89
8.53
0.33
8.86
4.36
2.03

1.61
0.04
4.22
0.30
1.70
4.50
0.20
0.05
1.00
0.66
0.30
8.71
12.93
1.65
14.57
11.81
1.23

5.91
0.13
14.96
0.05
0.40
2.60
0.20
0.03
1.00
0.66
0.30
5.24
20.20
6.04
26.24
16.24
1.62

Updated values in bold include groundshine and cloudshine contributions to the Thyroid dose equivalent andaddress the absence of data for vegetables from the Papeeete/Pirae market.

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

87

Reevaluation of doses for tests that impacted the Gambier and Tureia
This section provides details on our dose reevaluations for the five tests that impacted
the Gambier archipelago and the atoll of Tureia. For each test, we provide a table with abreakdown of external and internal doses with a description of the corrections we implemented after our review of French government documents. For two of these tests(Aldebaran and Rigel), we provide additional background to show how limited data andpoor assumptions about the source of drinking water utilized by residents of Tureia andthe Gambier archipelago can lead to underestimations of internal exposure to ionizing radiation.

Aldebaran on Gambier (1966)
The first French nuclear test conducted in French Polynesia, codenamed “Aldebaran,” took
place on 2 July 1966. The plutonium device was fired at 15:34 (UTC) from a barge anchored on the surface of the Moruroa lagoon (altitude 10 m, water depth ¼ 30–40 m) andgenerated a 28 kt fission yield. The radioactive debris cloud (a mixture of slurry dropletscomprising a saturated solution of sodium chloride in water with sodium chloride crystals
and small radioactive particles in suspension) reached an altitude of 9000 m and was
pushed away by winds coming from the west-north-west direction.50 Meteorological data
reproduced in a 1967 declassified document indicates general wind directions were measured and known three hours before the test.51 Gamma detection buoys meant to measure
the primary axis of the fallout were deployed in an arc whose sector covered the Gambierarchipelago.52 The fallout from Aldebaran reached the Gambier islands 10 hours and
45 minutes after the test. Dry deposition of radioactive particles took place for about one
hour and 20 minutes, leading to a ground deposition of 6.2  107 Bq/m2 (single measurement of 1.67 mCi/m2).53 The dose rate at the end of the fallout reached 0.25 mGy/h (25mrad/h),54 which is in good agreement with our fallout predictions (see Figure 4 of maintext). It rained on the island shortly after, leading to the contamination of rainwater collection systems.
Despite ample time for issuing warnings, the population was not alerted about the risksof radiation exposures. Authorities in charge of measuring environmental and foodstuff
contamination on the islands suggested that it might be necessary to minimize the true
dose estimates to avoid losing the trust of local inhabitants.55 The 1966 estimates concluded
that the population received effective whole-body and thyroid doses of 7.12 mSv(0.712 rem) and 15.4 mSv (1.54 rem).56 These numbers were obtained using methodologies
and models available at the time and were computed for adults only.
In the 2006 dose reconstruction study of the event, the CEA computed effective (wholebody) dose and thyroid doses equivalent from groundshine, cloudshine, inhalation, andingestion of radionuclides for multiple age groups.57 The study developed minimum andmaximum estimates of the whole-body and thyroid doses to the local population based on
different assumptions.
For groundshine, a dose rate of 0.14 mSv/h was computed at H þ 11 (i.e., 11 hours after
detonation) from the ground deposition data and a radionuclide source term, without providing details and assumptions about how such source term was produced. This dose rate
was considered consistent with the measured ground activity and was chosen to computethe dose estimates, despite producing half the dose rate measured on Gambier at the time.
The CEA then calculated the corresponding external dose up to six months (and not up toa year). The result was then multiplied by 2/3 to account for time typically spent outside

88

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

rather than inside during the day, as opposed to a factor of 0.75 found in declassified historical documents (and without a quantitative estimate of the shielding provided by local
houses). One such document shows that significant radioactivity was measured on theclothes of a local inhabitant who was sleeping outside,58 highlighting the problem of using
a correction factor in this particular context to produce a maximum dose estimate.
For cloudshine and inhalation, two different values of deposition velocity (Vd ¼ 102
and 101 m/s) were used by the CEA to generate a minimum and maximum total integrated activity in air. These values are consistent with the dry deposition velocities for particles in the range of 6 to 20 mm in diameter with density 2 g/cm3. Given that the test
occurred on a barge anchored at the surface of the Moruroa lagoon and the relative proximity of the Gambier islands to ground zero, it is likely that a wider range of particle sizes
reached the atoll, yet no uncertainties associated with this parameter were considered.
For exposure from the ingestion of contaminated water, the CEA assumed that either nocontaminated water was consumed by the inhabitants in the case of the minimum exposure
dose estimate or that contaminated water from the main village stream water collection system (814 Bq per liter measured on 8 July, corresponding to 14,000 Bq/l at H þ 11) was consumed to compute the maximum dose. While the report of the radiological survey teamdispatched to the island described some French government employees drinking bottled
water,59 the local population, who were not made aware of the fallout, had no access touncontaminated sources of drinking water. Furthermore, isolated households typicallyrelied on rainwater collected in barrels and cisterns from their roofs as their primary sourceof drinking water in 1966 and as late as 1977.60
We estimated the contamination of rainwater from the Aldebaran test from two different type of measures, both obtained from historical documents. First, the radiological survey team, measured the contamination levels of rainwater samples collected on 8 July 1966
and 9 July 1966 and found values of 16,650 Bq/l and 14,800 Bq/l respectively.61 These correspond to values at H þ 11 ranging from (14,000/814)14,800 ¼ 2.54  105 Bq/l to (11/(7  24 þ 11))1.214,800 ¼ 4.2  105 Bq/l depending on methodologies to account for
decay between H þ 11 and the sampling time. This gives a factor of 20 difference between
the water contamination measured in the central water supply in Rikitea and the contaminated rainwater. Second, on 3 July, activity in rainwater samples collected from the SMSR
pluviometer ranged from 5.48  105 to 1.39  106 Bq/l.62 Correcting for decay this gives
2.19  106 to 5.56  106 Bq/l at H þ 11. The pluviometer collection area was 1 m2 and it
rained 13 mm. Typical individual household water collection involved surfaces of 30 m2
and cisterns of 15,000 liters capacity.63 Remembering that the measured total deposited
activity was 6.2  107 Bq/m2, this means that to a first order about 390 liters of contaminated water (6.2  107/(0.013  1,000) ¼ 4.77  106 Bq/l at H þ 11) would have been collected on the first day. Assuming a cistern half full, this activity would have been diluted
by a factor of 20 (note that the cistern could have been at lesser capacity) to2.5  105 Bq/l or 20 times the activity of the Rikitea water system.
By considering rainwater consumption and following the CEA methodology used inother reports where this contamination pathway is computed, we find that the maximum
effective and thyroid dose estimates from water consumption for the first month after the
fallout could have been underestimated by a factor of 20. Using this set of information, we
reevaluate the 2006 CEA effective dose and thyroid dose equivalent to adults and children
on the Gambier Islands. Our results shown in Table B3 suggest that maximum dose estimates could have been underestimated by a factor of 2.5.

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

89

Table B3. Effective and thyroid dose estimates for the Aldebaran fallout on the Gambierarchipelago.
Effective dose (mSv)
Child age 1–2 years
Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Water
Vegetables
Fish
MolluskIngestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

Thyroid dose equivalent (mSv)
Adult

Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

3.02
0.06
0.70
0.48
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.58
1.29
3.08
4.37
3.20
1.36

8.14
0.29
2.99
9.60
1.70
0.64
1.24
13.18
16.17
8.43
24.60
9.40
2.62

3.02
0.03
0.16
0.12
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.37
3.04
3.42
3.10
1.10

8.14
0.67
3.84
2.40
1.40
0.32
0.48
4.60
8.44
8.82
17.26
6.60
2.61

2.87
0.07
3.00
6.00
1.30
0.02
0.00
7.32
10.32
2.93
13.25
4.00
3.31

7.74
0.30
30.00
120.00
19.00
7.00
15.80
161.80191.808.04
199.84
78.00
2.56

2.87
0.03
1.30
1.30
1.00
0.01
0.00
2.31
3.61
2.89
6.50
2.00
3.25

7.74
0.71
13.00
26.00
14.00
3.20
5.40
48.60
61.60
8.45
70.05
37.00
1.89

Results are based on 2006 CEA data and our reevaluations (in bold) of the groundshine dose as well as doses
from contaminated water consumption. Groundshine and cloudshine contributions to the thyroid, missing
from the CEA analysis, were also included.

Rigel on Gambier and Tureia (1966)
The fourth French nuclear test in French Polynesia, codenamed “Rigel,” took place on 24
September 1966 from a barge anchored on the lagoon of the Fangataufa atoll (22 140 2400
S 138 430 2200 W). The test involved an experimental thermonuclear device consisting of aplutonium core surrounded by a thick shell of lithium deuteride.64 While no significant
fusion reaction took place, the device generated a 125 kt yield. The test led to significant
contamination of the Fangataufa test site, which required a major cleanup by military personnel.65 After the explosion, the radioactive cloud head traveled eastwards over the uninhabited Acteon islands. Parts of the cloud stem, however, traveled northwards and landed
on Moruroa and Tureia, a feature which our simulation reproduced (see Figure 4). Both
Tureia and the nearby Gambier islands also experienced radioactive rains two days after
the test.66
In the absence of comprehensive environmental and foodstuff radiological survey data,
the 2006 CEA dose reconstruction for both the Gambier islands and Tureia are primarily
built upon a single rain activity measurement at each location.67 From these individual
data points, dose estimates are computed for groundshine, cloudshine, inhalation, andingestion using activity ratios constructed from data available from other tests. For
example, the drinking water activity is calculated from the rainwater activity by using ratiosof these two values from the Arcturus (1967) and Encelade (1971) tests, which both
impacted Tureia and not the Gambier islands. On top of this, three major assumptions
have important impact on the final dose estimates from water consumption, especially inthe case of Tureia.
First, at least two different sets of measurements for the original rain contamination levels appear in two different historical documents. One in the report of the Rigel test, andone in the overall report on the 1966 campaign.68 The 2006 dose reconstruction uses thelowest of the two. Using the largest values of activities raise the maximum dose estimateby 1.52 and 2.85 for Gambier and Tureia respectively. (We also discarded a third set ofdata points for rain activity, three orders of magnitude larger than the others, assuming theunits were wrongfully reported.)

90

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Second, assumptions about the ratios of activities between rain contamination and collected rainwater underestimate maximum doses. Tureia had two kinds of rainwater collection systems: a shared communal cistern and individual household cisterns. For the
Encelade test, the latter were contaminated up to 7.4 times more than the communal cistern.69 The ratios used for the Rigel reconstruction, however, are based on measurementsfrom two different type of cisterns (communal for Arcturus, and household for Encelade)that have different collection surfaces and capacities, leading to different dilution factors of
the contaminated rain. In the case of Arcturus, no data is publicly available for the family
cisterns.70 Taking this possibility into account raises the maximum effective and thyroid
doses for the local population by at least a factor of 7. This does not mean that the cisterns were not contaminated with higher levels of fission products as dilution factors areaffected by the amount of water already present in the cisterns when the fallout occurs,
which remains unknown.
Third, for Tureia, the population is assumed to drink half the amount of water of otherinhabitants in French Polynesia (the core assumption is that adults drink one liter of water andtwo liters of coconut water per day). This assumption, no longer used in recent dose reconstruction studies,71 also leads to the underestimation of maximum doses by a factor of 2.
Together, changes in these three assumptions can affect the maximum dose estimates by
a factor of 10 to 20 depending on the age of individuals (see Tables B4 and B5). This
result is not surprising given the large uncertainties involved when relying on such limited
data. While the 2006 reconstruction studies present both “minimum” and “maximum” dose
estimates, our analysis and results clearly show that they should not be understood as suchnor as any type of confidence intervals. To our knowledge, any type of uncertainty andsensitivity analysis is still missing from the government studies available to date.
Table B4. Effective dose and thyroid dose equivalent estimates for the Rigel fallout on theGambier archipelago.
Effective dose (mSv)
Child age 1–2 years
Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Water
Vegetables
Fish and Mollusk
Ingestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

Thyroid dose EQ. (mSv)
Adult

Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

0.02
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.01
0.39
0.40
0.02
0.42
0.41
1.00

0.05
0.00
0.00
7.91
0.05
0.02
7.98
7.98
0.05
8.03
0.71
11.37

0.02
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.11
0.02
0.13
0.13
1.01

0.05
0.00
0.00
2.10
0.04
0.02
2.16
2.16
0.05
2.20
0.23
9.68

0.02
0.00
0.01
4.40
0.02
0.13
4.55
4.56
0.02
4.58
4.61
0.99

0.04
0.00
0.02
90.21
0.59
0.20
91.00
91.02
0.04
91.06
7.81
11.66

0.02
0.00
0.01
1.00
0.01
0.10
1.11
1.11
0.02
1.13
1.11
1.02

0.04
0.00
0.01
21.01
10.93
0.15
32.10
32.10
0.04
32.15
2.11
15.27

Results are based on 2006 CEA data and our reevaluations. Updated values in bold include corrections to thegroundshine dose as well as doses from contaminated water consumption. Groundshine and cloudshine contributions to the thyroid, originally missing, were also included. The maximum groundshine dose was computedfor one year instead of six months (factor of 1.04) and assumed 100% of time spent outside (factor of 1.5).
Groundshine was also corrected to account for the availability of higher rain activity measurement value(5,000 pCi/cm3) leading to an increase by a factor of 1.52 (note that deposition was estimated by the CEAfrom rainwater activity, the sole measurement available). The rain activity correction was also applied to cloudshine, inhalation as well as ingestion contributions from fish and vegetables consumption as they were allcomputed from this value. The contribution of water consumption to the maximum estimate was also corrected by a factor of 7.4  1.67 ¼ 12.3 to account for both higher measured rain activity and the possibility ofrain (cistern) water consumption on the Gambier Archipelago (based on Arcturus data corrected for possibly
higher family cisterns activity). Note that, technically, the maximum value could be increased further if no contaminated rain dilution is assumed.

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

91

Table B5. Effective and thyroid dose estimates for the Rigel fallout on the Tureia atoll.
Effective dose (mSv)
Child age 1–2 years
Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Water
Fish and Mollusk
Ingestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

Min
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.11
1.02

Max
0.22
0.00
0.01
3.37
0.27
3.65
3.65
0.22
3.88
0.23
17.02

Thyroid dose (mSv)
Adult

Min
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.06
1.32

Child age 1–2 years

Max
0.22
0.00
0.01
0.84
0.21
1.05
1.06
0.22
1.28
0.15
8.78

Min
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.52
0.06
0.58
0.61
0.05
0.66
0.61
1.08

Max
0.21
0.00
0.09
37.12
3.14
40.25
40.34
0.21
40.55
2.01
20.17

Adult
Min
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.12
0.02
0.14
0.15
0.05
0.20
0.15
1.32

Max
0.21
0.00
0.04
8.44
2.08
10.52
10.56
0.21
10.77
0.95
11.40

Results are based on 2006 CEA data and our reevaluations. Updated values in bold include corrections to thegroundshine dose as well as doses from contaminated water consumption. Groundshine and cloudshine contributions to the thyroid, originally missing, are also included. The maximum groundshine dose was computedfor one year instead of six months (factor of 1.04) and assumed 100% of time spent outside (factor of 1.5).
Groundshine was also corrected to account for the availability of a higher rain activity measurement value(2,000 pCi/cm3 measured on 9/26/1966) leading to an increase by a factor of 2.85. The rain activity correction
was also applied to cloudshine, inhalation as well as foodstuffs consumption as they were all computed fromthis value. The contribution of water consumption to the maximum estimate was also corrected by a factor of
7.4  2.85 ¼ 21.09 to account for higher measured rain activity and lower dilution of rainwater activity in family cisterns (based on Arcturus cistern data). Note that, technically, the maximum value could be increased further if no dilution took place. Finally, we correct water consumption for Tureia by a factor of 2 to be coherent
with recent dose reconstruction studies (see main article).

Arcturus on Tureia (1967)
Table B6. Effective dose and thyroid dose equivalent estimates for the Arcturus fallout on theTureia atoll.
Effective dose (mSv)
Child age 1–2 years
Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Cistern (rain) water
FruitsFish
MolluskIngestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

Thyroid dose EQ. (mSv)
Adult

Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

0.73
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.18
0.20
0.73
0.93
0.90
1.03

3.28
0.01
0.11
1.63
0.02
0.25
2.80
4.70
4.81
3.29
8.09
4.00
2.02

0.73
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.73
0.82
0.79
1.04

3.28
0.01
0.07
0.44
0.01
0.10
2.28
2.84
2.91
3.29
6.19
3.20
1.93

0.69
0.00
0.23
1.24
0.20
0.22
0.34
2.00
2.23
0.69
2.92
2.23
1.31

3.11
0.01
1.38
18.35
0.22
2.80
31.80
53.17
54.55
3.12
57.67
37.44
1.54

0.69
0.00
0.10
0.29
0.13
0.08
0.26
0.76
0.86
0.69
1.55
0.86
1.81

3.11
0.01
0.63
4.29
0.14
1.00
22.50
27.93
28.56
3.12
31.68
24.56
1.29

Results are based on 2006 CEA data and our reevaluations. Updated values in bold include corrections to thegroundshine dose as well as doses from contaminated water consumption. Groundshine and cloudshine contributions to the thyroid, originally missing, are also included. The maximum groundshine dose was computedfor one year instead of six months (factor of 1.04) and assumed 100% of time spent outside (factor of 1.5).
Groundshine was also corrected to account for the availability of a measured dose rate (3 mrad/h measured
on 7/2/1967), leading to an increase by a factor of 3 (note that another instrument measured 5 mrad/h).72
The rain activity correction was also applied to cloudshine, inhalation as well as foodstuffs consumption as
they were all computed from this value. The contribution of water consumption to the maximum estimate
was also corrected by a factor of 7.4 to account for potentially lower dilution of rainwater activity in family
cisterns (as measured after the Encelade test). Note that, technically, the maximum value could be increased
further if no dilution took place. Finally, we correct water consumption for Tureia by a factor of 2 to be coherent with recent dose reconstruction studies (similarly to the Rigel test).

92

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Encelade on Tureia (1971)
Table B7. Effective dose and thyroid dose equivalent estimates for the Encelade fallout on theTureia atoll.
Effective dose (mSv)

Thyroid dose EQ. (mSv)

Child age 1–2 years
Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Cistern (rain) water
Coconut water
Vegetables (papaye)
Vegetables (coprah)
Meat
Fish
MolluskIngestion
Internal
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

Adult

Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

1.39
0.00
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.35
0.36
1.39
1.75
1.49
1.18

6.93
0.02
0.12
3.82
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.38
4.46
4.59
6.94
11.53
3.50
3.30

1.39
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.13
0.13
1.39
1.52
1.25
1.21

6.93
0.02
0.05
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.32
1.38
1.43
6.94
8.37
1.91
4.38

1.30
0.00
0.14
3.00
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.13
0.54
3.74
3.88
1.30
5.18
3.88
1.34

6.51
0.02
1.64
44.73
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.06
2.25
3.56
50.66
52.30
6.53
58.82
26.54
2.22

1.30
0.00
0.04
0.66
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.41
1.14
1.18
1.30
2.49
1.18
2.10

6.51
0.02
0.50
9.96
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.84
2.69
13.53
14.03
6.53
20.56
7.53
2.73

Results are based on 2006 CEA data and our reevaluations. Updated values in bold include corrections to thegroundshine dose as well as doses from contaminated water and mollusk consumption. Groundshine andcloudshine contributions to the thyroid, originally missing, were also included. The maximum groundshine
dose was computed for one year instead of six months (factor of 1.04). It assumed 100% of time spent outside(factor of 1.5) and accounted for the first six hours of the fallout (þ0.32 mSv). It was also corrected to accountfor the difference between the reconstructed and the measured dose rate (6 mrad/h measured on 6/13/
1971),73 leading to an increase by a factor of 3.33. Maximum inhalation and cloudshine were multiplied by 2
(as the CEA assumed a 0.5 factor because the fallout occurred at night). Internal dose from mollusk consumption was multiplied by 1.58 to account for the maximum activity measured in Benitier (measurement ref.
38628 A).74 The maximum dose from water was multiplied by 1.06 to account for the maximum measured
value.75 Finally, we corrected water consumption for Tureia by a factor of 2 to be coherent with recent dosereconstruction studies (see main article).

Phoebe on Gambier (1971)
Table B8. Effective dose and thyroid dose equivalent estimates for the Phoebe fallout on theGambier archipelago.
Effective dose (mSv)
Child age 1–2 years
Groundshine
Cloudshine
Inhalation
Cistern (rain) water
FruitsFish
MolluskIngestion
Internal

Thyroid dose EQ. (mSv)
Adult

Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

20.11
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.41
0.41

0.65
0.00
0.00
10.99
0.72
0.00
0.05
11.76
11.76

0.11
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.13

0.65
0.00
0.00
2.83
0.64
0.00
0.02
3.49
3.49

0.11
0.00
0.01
4.30
0.34
0.00
0.18
4.82
4.83

0.62
0.00
0.04
138.47
9.00
0.00
0.58
148.05148.09

0.11
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.27
0.00
0.06
1.33
1.33

0.62
0.00
0.02
30.46
7.10
0.00
0.20
37.76
37.78

(continued)

SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY

93

Table B8. Continued.
Effective dose (mSv)
Child age 1–2 years
External
Total (mSv)
CEA 2006
Ratio

Thyroid dose EQ. (mSv)
Adult

Child age 1–2 years

Adult

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

0.11
0.53
0.52
1.01

0.65
12.42
7.88
1.57

0.12
0.25
0.24
1.02

0.65
4.14
2.57
1.61

0.11
4.94
4.83
1.02

0.62
148.71
97.82
1.52

0.11
1.44
1.33
1.08

0.62
38.40
26.72
1.44

Results are based on 2006 CEA data and our reevaluations. Updated values in bold include corrections to thegroundshine dose as well as doses from contaminated water consumption. Groundshine and cloudshine contributions to the thyroid, originally missing, were also included. The maximum groundshine dose was computedfor one year instead of six months (factor of 1.04). It assumed 100% of time spent outside (factor of 1.5). It
was also corrected to account for the difference between the reconstructed and the measured dose rate (5mrad/h measured on 8/8/1971),76 leading to an increase by a factor of 3.8. The maximum dose from water
consumption was multiplied by 1.57 to account for the maximum measured activity in Taku (1,800 Bq of iodine-131 per liter of water).77

Appendix C. 1970s declassified dose estimates2013 Declassified documents provide original 1970s dose estimates
Recently declassified documents show that estimates of external and internal doses to populations were computed as early as the first atmospheric test (Aldebaran, July 1966). Two
documents from 1974 and 1978 provide summaries of external and internal exposures forthe atmospheric tests period.78 Additional documents provide estimates of internal contamination due to the presence of long-lived fission products in the food chain from 1975 to
1988. We extracted these data and combined them to obtain the official dose estimates
known in the 1970s (see Tables C1 and C2). Using doses for newborns and children, we
also produced total dose estimates for children based on their birth year (see Table C3). All
these previously classified estimates predate the first public estimates by twenty years. 79
Overall, the historical data confirm the impact of atmospheric tests on the populationsof Tahiti, Gambier, and Tureia. While the 2006 retrospective dose reconstructions led tohigher dose estimates, this was not the case for Tahiti and Papetee who concentrated mostof the Polynesian population at the time of atmospheric testing.
Table C1. Official annual effective dose (1970s estimates) to a newborn, a 7-year-old, and an
adult in the islands of Tahiti (Papeete), Tureia, and Gambier for the 1966–1974 atmospherictest period.
PapeeteEffective dose
7-Year-old(mSv)
Newbornchild
Adult Newborn
1966
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.95
1967
0.05
0.03
0.02
1.71
1968
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.21
1969
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
1970
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.18
1971
0.15
0.07
0.06
2.16
1972
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.09
1973
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.05
1974
1.46
1.21
1.16
0.12
Total (mSv)
1.48
1.39

Tureia7-Year-old
child
0.95
1.82
0.19
0.10
0.21
2.16
0.09
0.05
0.12
5.69

Gambier
Adult
0.67
1.55
0.19
0.10
0.19
1.92
0.09
0.05
0.12
4.88

Newborn
3.97
0.14
0.03
0.02
0.21
1.88
0.02
0.02
0.04

7-Year-old
child
7.01
0.24
0.03
0.02
0.21
2.50
0.02
0.02
0.04
10.11

Adult
4.94
0.17
0.03
0.02
0.21
2.08
0.02
0.02
0.04
7.54

The doses are obtained by summing official external and internal dose estimates.80 Dose from inhalation were
not computed. Internal doses include the ingestion of radionuclides such as cesium-137, strondium-90 andcobalt-60. Dose to newborn does not include exposure in utero.

94

S. PHILIPPE ET AL.

Table C2. Official annual thyroid dose equivalent (1970s estimates) to a newborn, a 7-year-old
child, and an adult in the islands of Tahiti (Papeete), Tureia, and Gambier for the 1966–74
atmospheric test period.
PapeeteTureiaThyroid dose
7-Year-old(mSv)
Newborn
child
Adult
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Total (mSv)

2
0.69
0.59
0
1.34
2.13
0.12
1.42
7.44

0.26
0.09
0.09
0
0.19
0.28
0.02
0.2
2.04
3.17

0.1
0.03
0.04
0
0.07
0.11
0.01
0.08
0.78
1.22

Newborn
10.1
7.36
0.59
0
0
8.46
0
0
0

Gambier

7-Year-old
child
Adult Newborn
10.14
9.88
0.09
0
0.65
8.49
0
0
0
29.25

3.9
3.8
0.03
0
0.25
3.27
0
0
0
11.25

7.4
0.23
0
0
0
1.52
0
0
0

7-Year-old
child
Adult
75.3
2.3
0.11
0
0
15.45
0
0
0
93.16

29
0.89
0.04
0
0
5.94
0
0
0
35.87

The doses are obtained by summing official external and internal dose estimates.81 Dose from inhalation were
not computed. Internal doses include the ingestion of radioiodine through contaminated water. Dose to newborn does not include exposure in utero.

Table C3. Total effective dose and thyroid dose equivalent (1970s estimates) to children bornand raised in the islands of Tahiti (Papeete), Tureia, and Gambier during the 1966–1974
atmospheric test period.
Birth year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

Total effective dose 1966–74

Total thyroid dose Eq.1966–74

Total effective dose 1966–88

PapeeteTureiaGambier

PapeeteTureiaGambier

PapeeteTureiaGambier

1.48
2.29
1.80
1.67
1.47
1.43
1.74
1.32
1.32
1.46

5.69
5.69
4.62
2.94
2.72
2.60
2.42
0.26
0.17
0.12

10.11
7.07
3.00
2.85
2.82
2.80
1.96
0.08
0.07
0.04

3.17
4.91
3.51
3.32
2.73
3.88
4.39
2.36
3.46
7.44

29.25
29.21
16.59
9.73
9.14
8.49
8.46
0.00
0.00
0.00

93.16
25.26
15.79
15.45
15.45
15.45
1.52
0.00
0.00
0.00

1.54
2.36
1.87
1.74
1.53
1.50
1.81
1.38
1.39
1.52
0.07

5.89
5.89
4.82
3.14
2.92
2.80
2.62
0.46
0.37
0.32
0.20

10.19
7.15
3.08
2.93
2.90
2.88
2.04
0.16
0.15
0.12
0.08

The doses are obtained by summing the data from tables C1 and C2 per birth year. Dose from inhalation were
not computed. Doses do not include exposure in utero.