DNA 6023F 

OPERATION 

BUSTER-JANGLE 

1951 

United States Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests 

Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

Prepared by the Defense Nuclear Agency as Executive Agency 

for the Department of Defense 
Destroy this report when it is no longer 

needed. Do not return to sender. 

PLEASE NOTIFY THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY, 

ATTN: STTI, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305, IF 

YOUR ADDRESS IS INCORRECT, IF YOU WISH TO 

BE DELETED FROM THE DISTRIBUTION LIST, OR 

IF THE ADDRESSEE IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY 

YOUR ORGANIZATION. 
UNCLASSIFIED 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) 

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORTDOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORECOMPLETINGFORM 

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER 

1NA 6023F 

1.TITLE (and Subtftle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOD COVERED 

3PlXI'fIc)N BUSTER-JANGLE, 1951 Technical Report 

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 

) JRB 2-816-03-423-00 

1. AUTHOR(E) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e) 

Jean Ponton Robert Shepanek 

Stephen Rohrer Jean Massie DNA 001-79-C-0473 

:arl Maag 

3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AN0 AOORESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT. TASK

AREA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS 

JRB Associates 

Subtask U99QAXMK506-08 3400 Westpark Drive 

+icLean, Virginia 22102 

I!. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADORE55 i 12. REPORT DATE 

lirector 21 June 1982 

defense Nuclear Agency 13.NUMBER OF PAGE5 

dashington, D.C. 20305 190 

14. MONITQRING AGENCY NAME fi AOORESS(lf dfffsrent from Controlling Offlcs) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thfs report) 

UNCLASSIFIED 

15s. OECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRAOING

SCHEDULE 

N/A Since UNCLASSIFIED 

16. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thfs Report) 

ipproved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

17. OlSTRlBUTlON STATEMENT (of the abetract entered In Block 20, If dfffsrent from Repor?) 

ENTARY NOTES 

#i","%r ? was sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency under RDT&E RMSS Code 

3350079464 lJ99QAXMK50608 H2590D. For sale by the National Technical Infornation Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

IS. KEY ~0~0s 

3peratlon Continue 0” I~VM.~ BbSTER-JANGLE #Id* if nec.sauy and Identify by block number) 

Weapons Effects Test Unit Exercises Desert 

WLE EASY Weapons Development Rock I, II, III 

3AKER SUGAR Test Unit Radiation Exposure 

:HARLIE UNCLE Nuclear Tests Nevada Proving 

)OG Special \?eapons Command Ground 

20. ABSTRACT (-C-tb* - ,.“.r” ai* ff v mad Idsniffy by block number) 

fhis report describes the activities of DOD military and civilian personnel in 

lperation BUSTER-JANGLE, the second series of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 

conducted at the Nevada Proving Ground from 22 October through 29 November 1951. 

The BUSTER-JANGLE series consisted of seven events. DOD personnel participated 

in Exercises Desert Rock I, II, III and in scientific projects conducted by the 

test units. Radiological safety criteria and procedures were established and 

implemented during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE to minimize participants' exposure to 

DD EDITLOW 0F I rtov 65 bs OBSOLETE ,:z,“*, 1473 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THfS PAGE (WI-n “.sta Entered) 
UNCLASSIFIED 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(lFbm Data Entered) 

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (continued) 

The Defense Nuclear Agency Action Officer, Lt. Col. H. L. Reese, USAF, 

under whom this work was done, wishes to acknowledge the research and 

editing contribution of numerous reviewers in the military services and 

other organizations in addition to those writers listed in block 7. 
Fact dm 

Defense Nuclear Agency 

Public Affairs Office Sheet Washington, D C. 20305 

Subject: Operation BUSTER-JANGLE 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the second series of atmospheric nuclear 

weapon tests conducted at the Nevada Proving Ground (NPG),* 

consisted of seven nuclear detonations. Four of the detonations 

were airdrops. The other three shots consisted of one tower, one 

surface, and one underground detonation. The surface and 

underground detonations were the first of either type at the NPG. 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE lasted from 22 October to 29 November 

1951 and involved an estimated 9,000 Department of Defense (DOD) 

personnel in observer programs, tactical maneuvers, damage 

effects tests, scientific and diagnostic studies, and support 

activities. The series was intended to test nuclear devices for 

possible inclusion in the weapons arsenal and to improve military 

tactics, equipment, and training. 

Department of Defense Involvement 

Approximately 6,500 DOD personnel at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE took 

part in Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III, Army programs 

involving members of all four armed services. The remaining DOD 

personnel provided support for the Desert Rock exercises or 

participated in scientific activities. 

Exercise Desert Rock I was conducted at Shot DOG, and Exercises 

Desert Rock II and III were conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE, 

respectively. The troop exercises were the first staged by the 

Armed Forces during continental nuclear weapons testing. The 

Desert Rock exercises included observer programs, tactical 

maneuvers, and damage effects tests. Observer programs, 

conducted at Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE, generally involved 

lectures and briefings on the effects of nuclear weapons, 

observation of a nuclear detonation, and a subsequent tour of a 

display of military equipment exposed to the detonation. 

Tactical maneuvers, conducted after Shot DOG, were designed both 

to train troops and to test military tactics. Damage effects 

tests, conducted at Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE, were performed 

to determine the effects of a nuclear detonation on military 

equipment and field fortifications. Support for Exercises Desert 

Rock I, II, and III included radiological safety, security, 

transportation, communications, construction, and logistics 

services. During BUSTER-JANGLE, approximately 2,500 support 

troops, primarily from units of the Sixth Army, were present at 

Camp Desert Rock to provide such services. 

*Renamed the Nevada Test Site in 1955. 

1 
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the DOD conducted scientific studies to assess the effects of the nuclear detonations. 

Scientists and technicians from these agencies placed gauges, 

detectors, and other equipment around the point of detonation in 

the weeks before each scheduled nuclear test. After each 

detonation, when the Test Director had determined that the area 

was radiologically safe for limited access, these participants 

returned to the test area to recover equipment and gather data. 

The Air Force Special Weapons Command (SWC) provided military 

support, including weather and air support activities, for the 

test organization. 

Summaries of BUSTER-JANGLE Nuclear Events 

The seven BUSTER-JANGLE events are summarized in the accompanying 

table. The accompanying figure shows the ground zeros of the 

seven shots. The three events involving the largest numbers of 

DOD participants were Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE. 

Shot DOG, an airdropped nuclear device, was detonated with a 

yield of 21 kilotons at 0730 hours on 1 November 1951. The shot 

was fired 1,417 feet above the terrain of Area 7, Yucca Flat. 

As part of Exercise Desert Rock I, the armed services fielded a 

troop observer program with 2,796 participants, a tactical troop 

maneuver with 883 participants, and damage effects tests with 60 

participants. All troops observed the shot from a location 11 

kilometers south of ground zero. 

The following Army units conducted the tactical maneuver at Shot 

DOG: 

UNIT HOME STATION 

1st Battalion, 188th Airborne Infantry Camp Campbell, 

Regiment, 11th Airborne Division Kentucky 

3rd Medical Platoon, 188th Camp Campbell 

Airborne Medical Company 

Platoon, Company A, 127th Engineer Camp Campbell 

Battalion 

Battery C, 546th Field Artillery Fort Lewis, 

Battalion Washington 
The Army units formed a Battalion Combat Team (BCT) for the 

maneuver. During the weeks preceding the shot, BCT personnel dug 

foxholes and built gun emplacements and bunkers in a tactical 

defensive position southwest of ground zero. Several hours 

before the shot, the BCT and observers went by truck and bus 

convoy into the forward area. They proceeded to the observation 

point about 11 kilometers from ground zero, where they witnessed 

Shot DOG. After the detonation, the troops moved by convoy to 

their tactical defensive position, where they viewed the effects 

of the nuclear detonation on the fortifications. The BCT then 

proceeded in an attack formation to its ob.jective. The objective 

was southwest of ground zero; at its closest point, it was 460 

meters from ground zero. The BCT was accompanied by radiological 

safety monitors and was preceded by radiation survey teams who 

determined the limits of safe advance. After reaching the 

ob;jective, the troops toured two equipment displays 900 and 1,350 

meters south of ground zero. The troops were then trucked to a 

display position over six kilometers south of ground zero. 

During these activities, Human Resources Re,search Office 

personnel tested the troops to determine their psychological 

reactions to the detonation. 

In addition to Desert Rock I participants, about 300 DOD 

personnel participated in scientific projects coordinated by the 

test organization at Shot DOG. Approximately 300 SWC personnel 

from the 4925th Test Group (Atomic) and the 4901st Support Wing 

(Atomic) performed support missions. 

Shot SUGAR, the first surface detonation at the NPG, was fired 

with a yield of 1.2 kilotons at 0900 hours on 19 November 1951. 

The SUGAR device was detonated 3.5 feet above the ground in Area 

9, Yucca Flat. The initial survey detected onsite fallout to the 

north of ground zero. 

As part of Exercise Desert Rock II, the armed services conducted 

a troop observer program and damage effects tests. The 

observers, who were from the Army, witnessed the shot from a 

location nine kilometers south of ground zero. At least one day 

after the shot, the observers toured the display areas in a bus 

convoy. Five ten-man evaluation teams also toured the equipment 

displays on 20 November. One team came from each of the 

following Camp Desert Rock sections: Chemical, Signal, Engineer, 

Ordnance, and Quartermaster. The teams reentered the forward 

area during the next five days to retrieve test equipment. 

About 550 DOD personnel participated in scientific projects 

conducted by the two test units at Shot SUGAR. Approximately 450 

SWC participants performed support missions. Perhaps an additional 100 DOD personnel worked for various units coordinated by 

the test organization. 

Shot UNCLE, the first underground nuclear detonation at the NPG, 

was fired with a vield of 1.2 kilotons at 1200 hours on 

3 
29 November 1951. The nuclear device was detonated 17 feet 

beneath the ground in Area 10 of Yucca Flat. The initial survey 

showed onsite fallout north of ground zero. 

Exercise Desert Rock III activities were similar to those of 

Exercise Desert Rock II. The armed services conducted a troop 

observer program at UNCLE with 202 Army participants. The 

observers witnessed the shot from a location 9.5 kilometers 

southwest of ground zero. Two days after the shot, they viewed 

display areas from buses. About 60 participants from the same 

Camp Desert Rock sections that had participated at Shot SUGAR 

conducted damage effects tests. 

In addition to Desert Rock participants, approximately 650 DOD 

personnel participated in scientific projects conducted by the 

two test units at Shot UNCLE. About 550 SWC participants 

performed support activities, including cloud-sampling, courier, 

cloud-tracking, and aerial survey 

125 DOD personnel worked for vario

test organization. 

missions. 

us units 

Perhaps another 

coordinated by the 

Safety Standards and Procedures 

The Atomic Energy Commission established safety criteria to 

minimize individual exposure to ionizing radiation while allowing 

participants to accomplish their missions. The AEC established a 

limit of 1 roentgen of whole body gamma exposure for participants 

in Exercise Desert Rock I and a limit of 3 roentgens for participants in Exercises Desert Rock II and III, test organization, and 

SWC activities. SWC sampling pilots and crews were authorized to 

receive up to 3.9 roentgens because their mission required them 

to penetrate the clouds resulting from the detonations. 

Although the Test Manager was responsible for the radiological 

safety of all participants at BUSTER-JANGLE, Exercises Desert 

Rock I, II, and III, the test organization, and SWC each had 

responsibility for implementing radiological safety procedures 

for its personnel. The AEC assisted with radiological safety 

activities for the Desert Rock exercises. The Test Manager was 

responsible for the safety of test organization personnel at the 

NPG and for the radiological safety of individuals residing 

within a 320-kilometer radius of the NPG. The Radiological 

Safety and Health Unit, composed of personnel from the Los Alamos 

Scientific Laboratory (LASL), the armed services, and various 

civilian groups performed onsite and offsite radiological safety 

operations. The Radiological Safety Officer, who was appointed 

by the Test Director, was from LASL and headed this unit. Radiological safety procedures for SWC personnel at Indian Springs Air 

Force Base were implemented by the 4925th Test Group (Atomic). 

For SWC personnel at Kirtland Air Force Base, the 4901st Support 

Wing (Atomic) handled these procedures. 

4 
Although the missions of each organization required different 

activities and separate radiation protection plans and staffs, 

the general procedures were similar: 

0 Orientation and training - preparing radiological 

monitors for their work and familiarizing participants with radiological safety procedures. 

0 Personnel dosimetry - issuing, exchanging,

developing, and evaluating film badges to determine 

gamma exposure 

0 Use of protective equipment - providing clothing, 

respirators, and other protective equipment 

0 Monitoring - performing radiological surveys and 

controlling access to radiation areas 

0 Briefing - informing observers and project personnel 

of radiation characteristics and the current 

radiation intensities in the test area 

0 Decontamination - detecting and removing contamination from personnel and equipment to prevent its 

spread to uncontrolled areas. 

Radiation Exposures at BUSTER-JANGLE 

As of June 1982, 6,830 participants in BUSTER-JANGLE events had 

been identified by name. Film badge data for 2,642 of these 

participants are presented in the final table of this fact sheet, 

"Summary of Dosimetry for Operation BUSTER-JANGLE." 

5 
SUMMARY OF OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE EVENTS (19511 

w 

a 2 a !Y Y d 1 Y 2 u 2 3 

Sponsor LASL LASL DOD DODiLASL 

Planned Date 19 October 23 October 26 October 29 October 1 November 15 November 29 November 

Actual Date 22 October 28 October XI October 1 November 5 November 19 November 29 November 

Local Trme c6CFI 0720 0700 0730 oaxl ceoo 1203 

NPG Location Area 7 Area 7 Area 7 Area 7 Area 7 Area 9 Area 10 

Type Toher Airdrop Arrdrop Arrdrop Airdrop Surface Underground 

Height of Burst (feet) 100 1,118 1,132 1,417 1,314 3.5 17 

I I I I I I I 

Yield (kilaons) CO.1 3.5 14 21 31 1.2 1.2 

I I I I I I I 
D 

-UNCLE 

-SUGAR N 

- EASY 

_ BAKER, CHARLIE, 

DOG 

-ABLE 

Yucca Flat 

Frenchman 

Lake 

Mercury 0

LlAJ2-Y Camp Desert 

Kilometers Rock FCamp J 

NEVADA PROVING GROUND SHOWING GROUND ZEROS 

FOR OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

7 
_ 

BUSTER-JANGLE AS OF jUtiE 1982 

--

Personnel 

Personnel Identified Gamma Exposure Wloentgens) 

Identified by Name and 

Service by Name by Film Badge <O.l 0.1-1.0 -LqTz- 5.0+ 

Number of 

Personnel 

with 

Zero Gamma 

Exposure* 

Average 

Gamma 

Exposure 

IRoentgens) 

Maximum 

Gamma 

Exposure 

IRoentgenr) 

Army 5443 1836 1343 358 117 16 0 0.251 5.8 

Navy 203 181 33 97 48 3 

Marine Corps 115 90 86 0 2 0 

9 

83 

0.729 

0.041 

3.5 

1.9 

Air Force 963 329 156 115 41 17 I 

Scientific Personnel 185 185 93 80 12 0 

Contractors, and 

Observers 

Service Unknown** 21 21 13 8 0 0 

I 

Total 6830 2642 1726 659 220 36 I 4 

78 

8 

2 

180 

0.539 

0.261 

0.116 

0.312 

4.9 

2.4 

0.6 

• The number of personnel in this column is also represented in the <O.l Gamma Exposure column. 

••* Film badge data are available, but service affiliation is not known. 
PREFACE 

Between 1945 and 1962, the U.S. Government, through the 

Manhattan Engineer District and its successor, the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC), conducted 235 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 

at sites in the United States and in the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans. In all, an estimated 220,000 Department of Defense (DOD) 

participants, both military and civilian, were present at the 

tests. Of these, approximately 90,000 participated in the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Proving 

Ground (NPG),* northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. 

In 1977, 15 years after the last above-ground nuclear 

weapons test, the Center for Disease Control** noted a possible 

leukemia cluster among a small group of soldiers present at Shot 

SMOKY, a test of Operation PLUMBBOB, the series of atmospheric 

nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1957. Since that initial 

report by the Center for Disease Control, the Veterans Administration has received a number of claims for medical benefits from 

former military personnel who believe their health may have been 

affected by their participation in the weapons testing program. 

In late 1977, the DOD began a study to provide data to both 

the Center for Disease Control and the Veterans Administration on 

potential exposures to ionizing radiation among the military and 

*Renamed the Nevada Test Site in 1955. Some of the documents 

written during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, however, refer to the 

area as the NTS. 

**The Center for Disease Control is part of the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (formerly the U.S. Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare). 

9 
civilian participants in atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. 

The DOD organized an effort to: 

0 Identify DOD personnel who had taken part in the 

atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 

• Determine the extent of the participants' exposure 

to ionizing radiation 

• Provide public disclosure of information concerning 

participation by DOD personnel in the atmospheric 

nuclear weapons tests. 

METHODS AND SOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS VOLUME 

This report on Operation BUSTER-JANGLE is based on the 

military and technical documents associated with each of the 

atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Many of the documents 

pertaining specifically to DOD participation in Operation BUSTERJANGLE were found in the National Archives, the Defense Nuclear 

Agency Technical Library, and the Office of Air Force History. 

In most cases, the surviving historical documentation of 

activities conducted during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE addresses 

test specifications and technical information, rather than 

personnel data. Moreover, the available documents sometimes have 

inconsistencies in vital facts. These contradictions have been 

resolved when possible, or otherwise brought to the attention of 

the reader. 

For several of the Desert Rock exercises and test organization projects discussed in this volume, the only documents 

available are the Sixth Army Desert Rock operation orders and the 

Test Director's schedule of events from "Operation Order l-51." 

These sources detail the plans developed by DOD and AEC personnel 

prior to Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. It is not known if all the 

projects addressed in the planning documents were conducted 

exactly as planned. Although some of the after-action documents 

summarize the projects performed during the series, they do not 

10 
always supply shotlspecific information. In the absence of shotspecific after-action reports, projects are described according 

to the way they were planned. The references indicate whether 

the description of activities is based on the schedule of events, 

operation orders, or after-action reports. 

This volume uses the pro,ject titles and agency designations 

given in "Operation BUSTER, Final Report" and "Summary Report: 

Weapons Effects Tests, Operation JANGLE." Information on the 

dates and yields of the detonations, fallout patterns, meteorological conditions, and nuclear cloud dimensions is taken from 

General Electric Company-TEMPO's Compilation of Local Fallout 

Data from Test Detonations 1945-1962, Extracted from DASA 1251, 

Volume 1, except in instances where more specific information is 

available elsewhere. 

ORGANIZATION OF BUSTER-JANGLE SERIES REPORTS 

This volume details participation by DOD personnel in Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the second atmospheric nuclear weapons 

testing series conducted at the NPG. Two other publications 

address DOD activities during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE: 

0 Multi-shot volume: Shots ABLE to EASY, the First 

Five Tests of the BUSTER-JANGLE 

Series 

• Multi-shot volume: Shots SUGAR and UNCLE, the Final 

Tests of the BUSTER-JANGLE 

Series. 

The volumes addressing the test events of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE 

are designed for use with one another. The series volume 

provides general information, such as a discussion of the 

historical background, organizational relationships, and radiological safety procedures. In addition, it addresses the overall 

ob.iectives of the operation, describes the layout of the NPG, and 

contains a bibliography of all works consulted in the preparation 

of the three BUSTER-JANGLE reports. The multi-shot volumes 

combine shot-specific descriptions for the seven BUSTER-JANGLE 

11 
nuclear events. These volumes contain bibliographies only of the 

sources referenced in each of the two texts. Descriptions of 

activities concerning any particular BUSTER-JANGLE shot may be 

supplemented by the general radiological safety and organizational information contained in this volume. 

This volume is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 provides background information on Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, 

including an explanation of the historical context of the series, 

a description of the NPG, a summary and comparison of the seven 

events in the series, and a summary of the activities of DOD 

participants. Chapter 2 describes the test organization and 

Exercise Desert Rock, the two groups with major DOD participation 

at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. This chapter defines the responsibilities of each group in planning, administering, and supporting 

the various nuclear test events and in conducting other activities in conjunction with those tests. Chapter 3 discusses the 

Exercise Desert Rock I, II, and III military maneuvers conducted 

during the series, and chapter 4 describes the scientific experiments and support activities coordinated by the test organization 

and engaging DOD personnel. Chapters 3 and 4 define the objectives of the activities, describe the planned and actual procedures, and indicate at which shots the programs were conducted. 

Chapter 5 describes the radiological safety criteria and procedures in effect for each of the DOD groups with significant 

participation. Chapter 6 is a study of the results of the 

radiation protection program during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, 

including an analysis of film badge readings for DOD personnel. 

The information in this report is supplemented by the 

Reference Manual: Background Materials for the CONUS Volumes. 

The manual summarizes information on radiation physics, radiation 

health concepts, exposure criteria, and measurement techniques. 

It also has well as a list of acronyms and a glossary of terms 

used in the reports addressing test events in the continental 

United States. 

12 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FACTSHEET........................ 1 

PREFACE.......................... 9 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

CHAPTER 

1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

1.1 International Background and the Establishment of 

OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

1.2 The Nevada Proving Ground . . . . . . . 22 

1.3 Summary of Operation BUSTERIJiNiLi ivents. . . . . 25 

1.4 Department of Defense Participants and 

Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

2 FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS DURING 

OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

2.1 The Test Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

2.1.1 Test Manager's Organization ........ 32 

2.1.2 Test Director's Organization. ....... 34 

2.1.3 Field Manager's Organization. ....... 38 

2.2 The Organization of Exercises Desert 

Rock I, II, and III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

3 EXERCISE DESERT ROCK PROGRAMS AT OPERATION 

BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

3.1 Observer Activities at Exercises Desert Rock 

I, II, andIII.................. 50 

3.2 Troop Maneuver at Exercise Desert Rock I . . . . . 54 

3.3 Damage Effects Tests at Exercises Desert 

Rock I, II, and III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

4 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTICIPATION IN TEST 

ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE. . . . 58 

4.1 Department of Defense Involvement in Weapons 

EffectsTests................... 59 

13 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

CHAPTER PAGE 

4.1.1 Operation BUSTER Programs and Projects. . . 60 

4.1.2 Operation JANGLE Programs and Projects. . . 75 

4.2 Department of Defense Involvement in Programs

of the Weapons Development Test Unit . . . . . . . 106 

4.3 Air Force Support Missions at Operation

BUSTER-JANGLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 

5 RADIATION PROTECTION AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . 115 

5.1 Radiation Protection for Exercises Desert 

Rock I, II, and III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

5.1.1 Organization and Responsibilities ..... 116 

5.1.2 Orientation and Briefing. ......... 117 

5.1.3 Personnel Dosimetry ............ 117 

5.1.4 Monitoring. ................ 118 

5.1.5. Decontamination .............. 118 

5.2 Radiation Protection for the Test Organization . . 119 

5.2.1 Organization and Responsibilities ..... 119 

5.2.2 Personnel Dosimetry ............ 121 

5.2.3 Protective Equipment. ........... 121 

5.2.4 Monitoring. ................ 121 

5.2.5 Decontamination .............. 123 

5.3 Radiation Protection for the Special Weapons 

Command...................... 124 

5.3.1 Organization and Responsibilities . . . . . 124 

5.3.2 Briefing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 

5.3.3 Protective Equipment and Personnel 

Dosimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 

5.3.4 Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 

5.3.5 Decontamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 

6 DOSIMETRY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL AT 

OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 

6.1 Participation Data ................ 129 

6.2 Sources of Dosimetry Data ............ 130 

6.3 Dosimetry Data for Operation BUSTER-JANGLE 

Participants ................... 131 

6.3.1 External Gamma Exposure Data. . . . . . . . 132 

14 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Chapter 

6.3.2 Instances of Gamma Exposure Exceeding 

Prescribed Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURE 

l-l Location of Nevada Proving Ground .......... 

1-2 Nevada Proving Ground Showing Ground Zeros for 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE ...... ., ........ 

2-l Test Organization/Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III 

Structure within Federal Government ......... 

2-2 Test Manager's Organization ............. 

2-3 Test Director's Organization. ............ 

2-4 Field Manager's Organization. ............ 

2-5 Camp Desert Rock Organization, Exercise 

Desert Rock I .... T ............... 

2-6 Camp Desert Rock Organization, Exercises 

Desert Rock II and III. ............... 

3-l Ground Zeros, Observation Points, and Display Areas 

for Shots DOG (Exercise Desert Rock I), SUGAR 

(Exercise Desert Rock II), and UNCLE (Exercise 

Desert Rock III). .................. 

3-2 Briefing of Observers at the Observation Point 

before Shot DOG ................... 

3-3 Troops at the Observation Point Watching 

ShotDOG ....................... 

4-1 Pro,ject 6.2 Participants Measuring Radiation 

Intensities on Asphalt. ............... 

4-2 Indian Springs Air Force Base, 1951 ......... 

5-1 Radiological Monitors Check Radiation Levels on a 

B-29 Aircraft .................... 

Page 

133 

153 

PAGE 

23 

24 

31 

33 

35 

39 

41 

44 

52 

53 

56 

101 

108 

128 

15 
LIST OF TABLES 

l-l Summary of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE Events (1951). . . 26 

4-1 Weapons Effects Tests Conducted at Operation 

BUSTER........................ 62 

4-2 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 2, Operation 

BUSTER........................ 63 

4-3 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 3, Operation 

BUSTER........................ 66 

4-4 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 4, Operation 

BUSTER........................ 68 

4-5 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 6, Operation 

BUSTER........................ 70 

4-6 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 7, Operation 

BUSTER........................ 72 

4-7 Weapons Effects Tests Conducted during OReration 

JANGLE........................ 76 

4-8 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 1, Operation 

JANGLE........................ 79 

4-9 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 2, Operation 

JANGLE........................ 86 

4-10 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 3, Operation 

JANGLE........................ 93 

4-11 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 4, Operation 

JANGLE........................ 96 

4-12 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 6, Operation 

JANGLE........................ 99 

4-13 Weapons Effects Tests of Program 7, Operation 

JANGLE........................ 104 

4-14 SWC Mission Support at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. . . . 107 

6-l Distribution of Gamma Radiation Exposures for 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE by Affiliation . . . . . . . 135 

6-2 Distribution of Gamma Radiation Exposures for Army 

Participants and Affiliates, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 136 

16 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

TABLE PAGE 

6-2a Detailed Listing of "Other" Category, Army

Participants, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . 138 

6-3 Distribution of Gamma Radiation Exposures for Navy 

Participants,Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. . . . . . . . . 144 

6-3a Detailed Listing of "Other" Category, Navy 

Participants, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . 145 

6-4 Distribution of Gamma Radiation Exposures 

for Marine Corps Participants,Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 

6-4a Detailed Listing of "Other" Category, Marine Corps 

Participants, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . 147 

6-5 Distribution of Gamma Radiation Exposures for Air 

Force Participants, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . 148 

6-5a Detailed Listing of "Other" Category, Air Force 

Participants, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . 149 

6-6 Distribution of Gamma Radiation Exposures for 

Scientific Personnel, Contractors, and 

Observers,Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . . . 150 

6-6a Detailed Listing of "Other" Category, Scientific 

Personnel, Contractors, and Observers, 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 

6-7 Film Badge Readings Exceeding Established Limits 

for Participants in Operation BUSTER-JANGLE . . . . . 152 

17 
The following 

AEC 

AFB 

AFSWP 

BCT 

BJY 

DOD 

EG&G 

FCDA 

HE 

HumRRO 

IBDA 

LASL 

NPG 

R/h

REECo 

swc 

UTM 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

abbreviations and acronyms are used in this volume: 

Atomic Energy Commission 

Air Force Base 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

Battalion Combat Team 

BUSTER-JANGLE Y 

Department of Defense 

Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier, Inc. 

Federal Civil Defense Administration 

High Explosives 

Human Resources Research Office 

Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment 

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 

Nevada Proving Ground 

Roentgens per hour 

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company 

Special Weapons Command 

Universal Transverse Mercator 
CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the second series of atmospheric 

nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Proving Ground, 

consisted of seven nuclear detonations. This test series lasted 

from 22 October through 29 November 1951 and involved about 9,000 

Department of Defense personnel in observer programs, tactical 

maneuvers, and scientific and diagnostic studies. The operation 

was intended to test nuclear weapons for possible inclusion in 

the defense arsenal and to improve milita:y tactics, equipment, 

and training. 

This volume summarizes information on the organizations, 

procedures, and activities of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. The 

background information in this chapter includes: 

0 A discussion of the historical background and the 

establishment of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE 

0 A description of the NPG 

0 A synopsis of the seven individual nuclear events 

0 An overview of DOD participation at this test 

series. 

This information provides a basis for understanding the nature 

and extent of DOD participation discussed in more detail in 

subsequent chapters of this volume and in the BUSTER-JANGLE 

multi-shot reports. 

1.1 INTERNATIONAL BACKGROUND AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OPERATION 

BUSTER-JANGLE 

The origin of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE and all U.S. nuclear 

test series can be traced to the post-World War II tension 

19 
between the United States and the Soviet Union. Expecting 

eventual Soviet development of nuclear weapons, the United States 

continued to expand its nuclear arsenal to maintain superiority 

over its most potentially dangerous adversary. The Soviet Union 

exploded its first nuclear device in 1949, well ahead of 

expectations. Operation BUSTER-JANGLE was an outgrowth of 

America's reaction to the Soviet threat. 

This series was planned as two separate weapons testing 

programs: Operation BUSTER and Operation JANGLE. In November 

1950, the AEC notified the DOD that plans were underway to 

conduct nuclear weapons development tests, to be called Operation 

BUSTER, in the fall of 1951 at the NPG. On 12 February 1951, the 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) presented an outline 

to the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning military participation in 

the BUSTER tests. On 8 March 1951, AFSWP asked the Departments 

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to submit proposals for projects 

to be conducted during the operation. During the spring of 1951, 

the AFSWP Research and Development Board reviewed the proposals 

and approved a comprehensive testing program. The BUSTER tests 

were to evaluate new devices developed by the Los Alamos 

Scientific Laboratory (LASL) and to obtain data on the basic 

phenomena associated with these devices. 

Plans for Operation JANGLE, consisting of the first underground and surface detonations, originated with Operation 

CROSSROADS, conducted at Bikini in 1946. Scientific studies of 

the underwater CROSSROADS detonation led to inquiries concerning 

the effects and possible military value of an underground nuclear 

detonation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff obtained AEC agreement to 

conduct tests involving an underground and a surface nuclear 

20 
detonation. The general ob,jectives of the tests were to determine the effects of an underground and a surface detonation and 

to study the devices for inclusion in the nuclear arsenal (55).* 

During 1950, the AEC and the DOD looked for a suitable test 

site. They considered locations in the Pacific and Atlantic 

Oceans, as well as within the continental United States. They 

eventually selected Amchitka Island, one of the Aleutian Islands, 

as the site for the tests, to be called Operation WINDSTORM and 

to be conducted from 15 September to 15 November 1951. In late 

September 1950, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the site and 

schedule and delegated responsibility to the Chief of Naval 

Operations for administering the testing. On 30 November 1950, 

President Truman endorsed the plans for Operation WINDSTORM (55). 

AFSWP then asked the Army, Navy, and Air Force to submit 

proposals for proSects they wanted to conduct during the two 

nuclear events. Upon receiving proposals from the armed 

services, the AFSWP Research and Development Board developed a 

comprehensive test program. In so doing, the Board recommended 

that the tests be conducted not at Amchitka Island but within the 

continental United States (55). 

On 28 March 1951, representatives of AFSWP, the AEC, and the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff met to consider the location of the test 

site. They decided that the tests should be conducted at the NPG 

and be coordinated by the Air Force. The two nuclear events were 

subsequently renamed Operation JANGLE (55). 

Because BUSTER and JANGLE were then both scheduled for the 

fall of 1951 at the NPG, AFSWP recommended that the two series be 

*All sources cited in the text are listed alphabetically and 

numbered in the Bibliography at the end of this volume. 

23 
conducted as consecutive phases of one series, Operation BUSTERJANGLE. On 19 June 1951, the AEC approved this AFSWP recommendation (55). 

1.2 THE NEVADA PROVING GROUND 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, like Operation RANGER earlier that 

year, was conducted at the Nevada Proving Ground. Originally 

established by the AEC in December 1950, the NPG is located in 

the southeastern part of Nevada, 100 kilometers* northwest of Las 

Vegas, as shown in figure l-1. 

The NPG, depicted in figure l-2, is an area of high desert 

and mountain terrain encompassing approximately 1,600 square 

kilometers in Nye County. On its eastern, northern, and western 

boundaries, i;t adjoins the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range, of 

which it was originally a part. The NPG has been the location 

for the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted within the 

continental United States from 1951 to the present. 

The BUSTER-JANGLE shots were detonated in Yucca Flat, a 

320-square-kilometer desert valley surrounded by mountains. 

Situated in the north-central part of the NPG, Yucca Flat is 

approximately 4,000 feet above mean sea level. The Control 

Point, which consisted of several permanent buildings, was on the 

west side of Yucca Pass, which permitted visual observation of 

Yucca Flat to the north. Power and timing cables led from the 

control building to each test area. The Control Point was also 

the location of decontamination facilities for personnel and 

vehicles returning from the testing areas and for the Air 

Operations Center, which controlled all aircraft conducting test 

support missions over the NPG. 

*Throughout this report, surface distances are given in metric 

units. The metric conversion factors include: 1 meter = 3.28 

feet; 1 meter = 1.09 yards; and 1 kilometer = 0.62 miles. 

Altitudes and other vertical distances are given in feet. 

22 
--- 

-- 

N 

P

OREGON IDAHO -_ 

: 

I 

I 

NellIs Bombay 

and Gunnery 

UTAH 

ARIZONA 

Springs v 

Nevada Proving Ground 

AFB,Las Vegas ] 

0 100 

Kilometers 

Figure 1-1: LOCATION OF NEVADA PROVING GROUND 

23 
-e--m 

UNCLE 

SUGAR N 

EASY 

BAKER, 

CHARLIE, DOG 

ABLE 

liE Camp Mercury 0

LI 1 

Camp Desert m Kilometers Rock I 

Figure 1-2: NEVADA PROVING GROUND SHOWING 

GROUND ZEROS FOR OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

24 
Camp Mercury, at the southern boundary of the NPG, was the 

base of the test organization. Camp Mercury provided office and 

living quarters, as well as laboratory facilities and warehouses, 

for the participants in various AEC and DOD test activities. 

Indian Springs Air Force Base (AFB), located 30 kilometers 

east of Camp Mercury, and Kirtland AFB in New Mexico served as 

the principal staging and decontamination areas for Air Force 

aircraft participating in Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 

Camp Desert Rock, headquarters of the Desert Rock exercises, 

was Just off the NPG, three kilometers southwest of Camp Mercury. 

Camp Desert Rock consisted of Quonset huts and semi-permanent 

structures augmented by trailers and tents. The camp was 

established during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE to serve as a base for 

the first military training maneuvers conducted during a nuclear 

test series: Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III. During 

BUSTER-JANGLE, Camp Desert Rock housed several thousand DOD 

personnel (57; 60). 

1.3 SUMMARY OF OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE EVENTS 

During the planning for Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the AEC 

directed LASL and the DOD to indicate experimental areas that 

could be pursued during the 1951 test series. Based on the 

responses of these two organizations, the AEC scheduled the seven 

events listed in table l-l.* The first BUSTER-JANGLE detonation 

occurred on 22 October after a three-day delay. Inclement 

weather and technical difficulties caused delays in all the tests 

except for Shot UNCLE, fired as planned on 29 November as the 

final event of the series. Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE, which 

*As seen in table l-l, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

coordinates are used in this report. The first three digits 

refer to a point on an east-west axis, and the second three 

digits refer to a point on a north-south axis. The point so 

designated is the southwest corner of an area 100 meters square. 

25 
Table l-l: SUMMARY OF OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE EVENTS (1951) 

Spcnsor I LASL LASL 

I 

LASL 

I 

LASL 

I IASL I 

DOD 

I DOD/iASL I 

Planned Date 

I 19 October I 

23 October 

I 

26October 

I 

29October 

I 1 November 15 NovemberI 29 NovemberI I 

Actual Date 22October 28 October 1 30October 1 1 November 1 5 November 1 19 November 1 29 November 1 

I 

Local Time 

I 06m 0720 0700 0733 0330 @9al 1200 

NPG Location 

I 

Area 7 Area 7 Area 7 Area 7 Area 7 Area 9 Ares 10 

IIpI Coordinates 1 z 870045 87cw5 871844 887053 854897 850139 

Airdrop Airdrop Airdrop Airdrop Surface Underground 

Height of Burst (feet) 100 1,118 1,132 1,417 1,314 3.5 - 17 I 

Yield (kilotons) (0.1 3.5 14 21 31 1.2 1.2 I 

26 
involved Desert Rock exercises, engaged the largest numbers of 

DOD participants (57; 60). 

1.4 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTICIPANTS AND ACTIVITIES 

An estimated 9,000 military and civilian DOD personnel 

participated in Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. Approximately 70 

percent of these participants took part in Desert Rock 

operations. According to the Desert Rock I final report, 

Exercise Desert Rock I activities at Shot DOG involved 3,700 

participants (57). The documentation is not as complete for 

Exercises Desert Rock II and III. Only two sources, a bus roster 

and a report by an officer observer, give DOD personnel totals 

for Desert Rock III activities at Shot UNCLE. These documents 

state that 135 Camp Desert Rock observers and 67 officer 

observers took part in Desert Rock III (10; 59). No personnel 

totals are documented for Desert Rock II exercises at Shot SUGAR. 

According to the Desert Rock I final report, 2,500 support 

troops were attached to Camp Desert Rock for Shot DOG (57). 

Because there were fewer DOD participants at Desert Rock II and 

III, the number of support personnel was reduced after Desert 

Rock I. 

The remaining 2,500 DOD personnel, 30 percent of the DOD 

participants, either assisted in the administration of BUSTERJANGLE, provided air or ground support, or took part in the 

scientific and diagnostic programs conducted by the two test 

units of the AEC test organization, the principal authority for 

planning and directing the series. 

The five BUSTER shots (ABLE, BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY) 

were concentrated on AEC weapons development but, nevertheless, 

had by far the ma,jority of DOD participants. Desert Rock troop 

27 
maneuvers were restricted to Operation BUSTER. The two JANGLE 

shots (SUGAR and UNCLE) were intended to test weapons effects. 

DOD field participants in these events were essentially limited 

to observers and to personnel who provided support to the Weapons 

Effects Test Unit. 

28 
CHAPTER 2 

FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS 

DURING OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

The test organization and Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and 

III managed the many activities associated with Operation BUSTERJANGLE. This chapter discusses the organizational structures of 

these groups as a basis for describing their activities in 

chapters 3 and 4. 

The test organization was principally staffed by representatives from both the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department 

of Defense. The primary responsibilities of this organization 

were to schedule and detonate the nuclear devices and to evaluate 

the results of each detonation. The Test Manager and his staff 

performed the first function, while the Test Director and his 

staff were responsible for the second. Section 2.1 of this 

chapter describes the roles and responsibilities of both the Test 

Manager and the Test Director. 

Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III were staffed and 

administered by the Army. Desert Rock functioned separately from 

the test organization, with liaison between the two groups to 

ensure that Desert Rock training programs did not interfere with 

the scientific programs of the test organization. Army personnel 

from various units served either as support troops or as exercise 

troops, as described in section 2.2. During their period of 

participation, troops resided at Camp Desert Rock. Support 

troops provided such services as security and law enforcement, 

radiological safety, medical care, transportation, construction, 

communications, food, and laundry. Exercise troops were assigned 

to Camp Desert Rock for periods of one to several weeks to 

participate in a particular military training program. 

29 
In addition to those from the AEC and DOD, participants at 

BUSTER-JANGLE included employees of other Federal agencies, 

research laboratories, and private firms under contract to the 

Government. DOD personnel also participated in the activities of 

many of these organizations. 

2.1 THE TEST ORGANIZATION 

The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense 

shared responsibility for planning and implementing the 

atmospheric nuclear weapons test program. The AEC was responsible for exploring and developing new areas of nuclear weapons 

technology, while the DOD was to incorporate the weapons into the 

military defense program. 

The Director of the AEC Division of Military Application, 

who was a member of the Armed Forces, supervised nuclear test 

operations from AEC headquarters in Washington, D.C. This 

individual delegated onsite responsibility for test preparations 

at the Nevada Proving Ground to the Manager of the AEC Santa Fe 

Operations Office. This responsibility included supervising the 

preparation and use of the various test areas at the NPG and 

managing the necessary AEC contractor support for each agency 

involved in test activities. Prior to Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, 

the Director of the Division of Military Application had 

appointed the Manager of the Santa Fe Operations Office as the 

Test Manager of the test organization at the NPG. Figure 2-l 

shows the structure of the test organization and the Desert Rock 

exercises within the Federal Government (1; 14; 15; 61). 

In mid-1951, the Air Force Chief of Staff, in his capacity 

as executive agent for the coordination of military nuclear test 

programs and military support to the AEC, designated the Special 

Weapons Command (SWC) as the DOD agency responsible for coordinating military participation and military support for the 

30 
Command 

_ - _ _ - - - - Liaison 

Military Secretary AEC 

Liaison of Commissioners 

Committee -- Defense 

I 

Joint 

Chiefs 

of 1 

Manager, 

Santa Fe Commanding Operations General, Off ice/ Sixth U.S. 

Test 

Manager 

L I 

Exercise Director, 

J 1 DY;yYk 

I- __-__-----_-----

Figure 2-1: TEST ORGANIZATION/EXERCISES DESERT ROCK I, II, AND Ill 

STRUCTURE WITHIN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

L 

-I 
continental nuclear test program. The Commanding General of SWC 

delegated this responsibility to a Special Projects Officer, who 

became the Commanding General's representative at the NPG. He 

and his staff established direct liaison with the AEC Santa Fe 

Operations Office and Exercise Desert Rock officials (47; 55; 

58; 61). 

Although SWC was in charge of overall military activities 

for BUSTER-JANGLE, the Commanding General of the Sixth U.S. Army 

had direct command of Desert Rock activities. The Joint Chiefs 

of Staff supervised Exercise Desert Rock through the Office, 

Chief of Army Field Forces (57; 69). 

2.1.1 Test Manager's Organization 

The Test Manager was responsible for the overall direction 

of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. This responsibility included 

deciding whether or not to proceed with a shot as planned, coordinating the agencies involved in the weapons development and 

weapons effects projects, and supervising the staff units that 

performed support functions for the test participants. 

The Test Manager was assisted by personnel from the AEC 

Santa Fe Operations Office, AEC contractors, and various DOD 

agencies. Figure 2-2 shows the elements of his staff (55). 

The Advisory Panel consisted of representatives from SWC and 

scientists from the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, an AEC 

nuclear weapons development laboratory. This panel advised the 

Test Manager on such factors as weather conditions and their 

potential effects on the scheduled tests. 

The Field Manager provided for and supervised all auxiliary 

services required for operating the NPG during Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE. 

32 
SWC 

Advisory Panel ----

I 

Test Manager ---mm Special 

Projects 

Deputy Test Manager Officer 

Field Manager, 

Nevada Proving Ground 

Deputy Test Director 

Director, Director, 

Weapons Weapons 

Effects Development 

Tests Tests / 

Command 

--s-m- Liaison 

Figure 2-2: TEST MANAGER’S ORGANIZATION 
2.1.2 Test Director's Organization 

While the Test Manager and his staff provided the guidance 

necessary to conduct Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the day-to-day 

responsibility for preparing the nuclear devices and planning and 

implementing the experiments during the operation was delegated 

to the Test Director (55; 61). 

The daily planning and implementation of the many test 

programs performed by agencies and contractors of the AEC and DOD 

required close liaison between the agencies involved and the 

units administered by the Test Director, a representative of 

LASL. The principal components of the Test Director's 

organization were the Weapons Effects Test Unit and the Weapons 

Development Test Unit. The Weapons Effects Test Unit conducted 

scientific experiments designed to measure the effects of each 

detonation. Although administered by SWC, these experiments were 

planned and implemented by the AEC, the Armed Forces Special 

Weapons Project, and various military agencies and laboratories. 

Both the administration and scientific activities of the Weapons 

Development Test Unit, which conducted scientific experiments to 

evaluate the nuclear devices detonated, were under the direction 

of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. 

As shown in figure 2-3, the Test Director's organization 

included several subsections. These subsections were responsible 

for technical liaison, engineering and construction, plans and 

operations, administration, classification, and liaison with SWC. 

Consisting of representatives from various DOD and AEC agencies, 

the subsections provided services to projects of both the weapons 

effects program and the weapons development program. 

34 
Weapons 

Assembly 

Unit 

*Military Support Provided by 

Special Weapons Command 

Command 

- - _ _ - - Liaison 

Figure 2-3: TEST DIRECTOR’S ORGANIZATION 
Other units provided services to the Test Director. As 

indicated in figure 2-3, SWC supported 

The six units not involving SWC support 

four of the 

were (55; 61): 

ten units. 

• Radiological Health and Safety 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Weapons Assembly 

Timing and Firing 

Firing Party 

Documentary Photography 

Rear Echelon. 

The Radiological Health and Safety Group supervised onsite 

and offsite radiological safety activities at BUSTER-JANGLE. The 

Onsite Operations Officer was responsible for the area within a 

32-kilometer radius of each ground zero. He and his staff issued 

film badges during BUSTER-JANGLE, directed monitoring activities, 

and briefed recovery and decontamination personnel prior to their 

postshot entry in the shot area. The Offsite Qperations Officer 

was responsible for radiological safety activities extending to a 

320-kilometer radius of the test site. He and his staff supervised both ground and aerial surveys, maintained liaison with the 

Air Weather Service and the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and 

managed an Information Center. The Offsite Operations staff 

included a representative from the Civil Aeronautics Administration, who helped determine the airways to be closed to commercial 

aircraft on shot-days. The Radiological Health and Safety Group 

is discussed further in section 5.2 of this volume, Radiation 

Protection for the Test Organization (86; 102). 

The Weapons Assembly Unit included personnel from Sandia 

Corporation whose responsibilities involved preparing the nuclear 

device for detonation. 

The Timing and Firing Unit, which included personnel from 

Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier, Inc. (EG&G), provided 

instruments and apparatus for setting the timing for the 

36 
detonations and for firing the nuclear devices. The Firing Party 

prepared for detonation the nuclear devices that were not dropped 

from aircraft. 

The Documentary Photography Unit consisted of personnel from 

LASL. These individuals took motion pictures and still 

photographs for the scientific and technical programs. 

The Rear Echelon notified the Director of LASL of the 

readiness and progress of test unit activities (55; 61). 

The units of the Test Director's organization receiving SWC 

support were: 

• Weather 

0 Special Phenomena 

0 Strike Plane 

0 Military Support Plane. 

The Weather Unit gave the Test Director meteorological 

information important in scheduling the detonations, such as 

specific data on wind and cloud conditions. The 2059th Air 

Weather Group, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, directed the meteorological 

analysis from the Control Point Weather Station and stations in 

the surrounding area. The 6th Weather Squadron was assisted by a 

consultant from Andrews AFB, Maryland. 

The Special Phenomena Unit conducted cloud sampling and 

cloud tracking. Section 4.3 of this volume, Air Force Support 

Missions at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, discusses these activities. 

The Strike Plane Unit was responsible for the air delivery 

of nuclear devices. 

The Military Support Plane Unit supplied air transportation 

support to the Test Director. The group also operated helicopters required for radiological safety surveys (55; 61). 

37 
The Test Director's technical advisors and support personnel 

planned and conducted the day-to-day test activities. The technical advisors reviewed the proposed activities for each program 

and project of the various laboratories and agencies. Working 

with the technical advisors and representatives of the support 

group, the Test Director and his staff revised the proposed plans 

to include schedules, construction, supplies, transportation, 

radiological safety, air support, and postshot recovery operations. The Test Director and his staff presented these revised 

plans to the Test Manager, who had final authority to review and 

approve activities associated with Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 

2.1.3 Field Manager's Organization 

The Field-Manager was in charge of auxiliary services 

required for maintenance of the NPG, including Camp Mercury. 

These services included administration; operations, which 

involved construction, camp maintenance, and transportation; 

communications; security; and public relations. While the Field 

Manager and his staff were mostly AEC personnel, various 

contractors performed the services. The specific duties of the 

sections responsible for these services are indicated by their 

titles in figure 2-4 (55). 

2.2 THE ORGANIZATION OF EXERCISES DESERT ROCK I, II, AND III 

Exercise Desert Rock troops were present at Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE through an agreement between the AEC and DOD. 

Desert Rock activities were contingent upon approval of the Test 

Manager. The Test Manager had final control over the planning 

and scheduling of the nuclear events and review and approval 

authority over all associated program activities at the NPG. 

Therefore, his influence extended to Desert Rock activities. 

Operationally, however, Desert Rock had its own administrative 

structure. 

38 
field 

Manager 

Security Transportation 

Camp Administration Travel Bureau I 

Figure 2-4: FIELD MANAGER’S ORGANIZATION 
Headquarters for Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III were 

formally established in the spring and summer of 1951. Although 

there were three exercises, there were only two Desert Rock 

organizations at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. The first organization 

conducted Exercise Desert Rock I at Shot DOG, and the second 

implemented Exercise Desert Rock II at Shot SUGAR and Exercise 

Desert Rock III at Shot UNCLE. The two Desert Rock organizations 

were complex and included many military units. The following 

paragraphs highlight the key elements within the Desert Rock 

organizations. 

Exercise Desert Rock I was directed by the Commanding 

General of III Corps, as shown in figure 2-5. The Exercise 

Director was also the Commander of Camp Desert Rock. As Exercise 

Director, he was responsible for supervising the activities of 

the exercise troops, as well as those of the support troops. 

Exercise troops were organized under unit commanders, who 

reported to the Exercise Director. As Camp Desert Rock 

Commander, the Exercise Director supervised the administration of 

base facilities. 

The Exercise Director was assisted by adm.inistrative and 

staff units. These units provided the services necessary to 

sustain the exercise troops participating in specific test 

activities (57; 60). 

The Chief of Staff was responsible for coordinating all 

staff functions related to Exercise Desert Rock I. The Deputy 

Exercise Director and the Deputy Camp Commander reported to the 

Chief of Staff. The Deputy Exercise Director directed Desert 

Rock I activities. The Deputy Camp Commander administered Camp 

Desert Rock and provided the Exercise Director with clerical and 

administrative support. The Deputy Camp Commander also 

administered the Camp Desert Rock Visitors' Bureau. The 

Visitors' Bureau planned and administered many aspects of the 

40 
Camp Commander 

and Exercise Director, 

(Commanding General, 

III Corps) 

I 

Chief of Staff 

DeputV 

Camp 

Commander 

Visitors’ 

Bureau 

Deputy Exercise 

I I I 

G-l G-2 G-3 G-4 

Administration Security and Operations Logistics 

Intelligence 

uu I 

II 

Maneuver 

Troops I I I

I Teams I 

I Radiological 

Safety 

Command 

--_-__-_ Liaison and Coordination l.2-J

Figure 2-5: CAMP DESERT ROCK ORGANIZATION, 

EXERCISE DESERT ROCK I 
observers' activities, including transport between Camp Desert 

Rock and the NPG (57). 

General staffs for administration, security and intelligence, operations, and logistics coordinated the activities of 

the Desert Rock support and maneuver units, which operated Camp 

Desert Rock and conducted the Desert Rock exercises. 

The G-l, Administration, established personnel management 

and other administrative policies for Camp Desert Rock (57). 

The G-2, Security and Intelligence, was responsible for 

arranging adequate security safeguards for all classified 

material connected with Exercise Desert Rock I and ensuring that 

all personnel had proper security clearances. The staff maintained close -liaison with the Security Branch of the test organization to ensure a smooth flow of troop observer and troop 

maneuver convoys into the NPG on shot-days (57). 

The G-3, Operations, was responsible for planning and 

coordinating the troop exercise. Specific duties included coordinating the involvement of the effects evaluation teams and the 

maneuver troops and overseeing radiological safety procedures (57). 

The III Corps technical service representatives, in 

coordination with the AFSWP Advisory Group, conducted the Desert 

Rock I effects tests. Six evaluation teams, each consisting of 

approximately ten persons, studied the effects of Shot DOG on 

military equipment and field fortifications. One team came from 

each of the following branches: Chemical, Signal, Engineer, 

Medical, Ordnance, and Quartermaster. Section 3.3 details 

activities of the evaluation teams during Exercises Desert Rock 

I, II, and III (57). 

42 
Working through the G-3, the Deputy Exercise Director 

directed the troop maneuver at Shot DOG. Section 3.2 discusses 

this troop maneuver, which was the only one conducted during 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 

The Chemical Officer, who worked with the G-3, was 

responsible for the Desert Rock Radiological Safety Unit, which 

planned and conducted the radiological safety procedures 

developed to limit the exposure received by troops entering the 

forward area. The Desert Rock Radiological Safety Unit was 

assisted by the AFSWP Advisory Group. The unit operated 

separately from but with the guidance of the AEC Radiological 

Health and Safety Group. Before the Desert Rock exercises began, 

AEC radiological safety instructors trained Desert Rock personnel 

in radiological safety procedures. Desert Rock monitors 

conducted ground surveys before troops entered the forward area 

after a detonation. Monitors also accompanied Desert Rock 

participants entering the forward area (57; 101). 

The G-4, Logistics, was responsible for logistical services 

for Camp Desert Rock and the exercise troops. This section 

coordinated the procurement of equipment and materials for 

displays, construction materials for bunkers and gun emplacements, and heavy construction equipment. It also provided staff 

supervision for construction, communications, and transportation 

(57). 

Exercises Desert Rock II and III were administered by an 

organization similar to but smaller than the structure established for Exercise Desert Rock I. The Desert Rock II and III 

organization, shown in figure 2-6, was headed by the Exercise 

Director. He was an Akmy general, although not the Commanding 

General of III Corps, as in Exercise Desert Rock I. The Exercise 

Director of Desert Rock II and III supervised troop participation 

43 
Camp Commander 

and 

Exercise Director 

Deputy Visitors’ 

I Camp 

Commander 

Bureau 

lI I I I 

s-2 

s-3 s-4 S-l Security 

Administration Operations Logistics and 

Intelligence 

I 

Officer in 

Charge, 

Effects Tests 

Effects 

Evaluation 

Command Teams 

_____-__ Liaison and Coordination 

Figure 2-6: CAMP DESERT ROCK ORGANIZATION, 

EXERCISES DESERT ROCK II AND Ill 
in Desert Rock activities and directed Camp Desert Rock activities. He was assisted in his duties by the Chief of Staff and 

the Deputy Camp Commander. The Chief of Staff also coordinated 

Desert Rock II and III activities, a responsibility he did not 

have in Exercise Desert Rock I. The Deputy Camp Commander 

functioned as he did in Exercise Desert Rock I, administering 

Camp Desert Rock and the Visitors' Bureau (60). 

The Officer in Charge, Effects Tests, was responsible to the 

Chief of Staff. Working with the AFSWP Advisory Group, this 

officer commanded the damage effects evaluation teams at SUGAR 

and UNCLE. The position of Officer in Charge, Effects Tests, did 

not exist in the Desert Rock I organization (60). 

Because Desert Rock II and III were not structured on the 

Corps level, the organization included staff sections designated 

S-l, s-2, S-3, and S-4, rather than general staff sections (60). 

Their responsibilities were basically the same as those of the 

general staff sections in the Exercise Desert Rock I 

organization. 

45 
CHAPTER 3 

EXERCISE DESERT ROCK PROGRAMS AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III were troop training 

programs organized by the Sixth U.S. Army at Operation BUSTERJANGLE. Exercise Desert Rock I was conducted at Shot DOG, and 

Exercises Desert Rock II and III were conducted at Shots SUGAR 

and UNCLE, respectively. The exercises were the first staged by 

the Armed Forces during continental nuclear weapons testing. 

During the summer of 1951, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy 

Commission received the proposal for Exercise Desert Rock I 

through the Military Liaison Committee. The Chairman agreed to 

the outline fo& the operations, which included a troop maneuver 

at Shot DOG and activities for military observers and effects 

evaluation teams at all three shots (7; 76). 

Because of the increasing dependence of U.S. defense policy 

on nuclear capabilities, the armed services developed Exercise 

Desert Rock to test tactics and protective measures for use 

during a nuclear conflict. The ob.jectives were to (57; 60): 

0 Study the military uses of nuclear weapons 

0 Train military 

nuclear weapons 

personnel in the tactical use of 

0 Study the psychological reactions 

participants to the detonation of 

weapon 

of military 

a nuclear 

0 Test the effects of 

animals and military 

a nuclear 

equipment 

detonation on 

46 
a Determine the effects of a nuclear detonation 

on field fortifications and defensive 

structures 

• Determine appropriate measures for radiation 

protection and instruct participants in those 

measures. 

Approximately 6,500 individuals took part in Exercise Desert 

Rock I, II, and III activities. DOD personnel at Camp Desert 

Rock, located just outside the southern boundary of the NPG, were 

divided into two groups: Camp Desert Rock troops and Desert Rock 

exercise troops (57; 85; 102). 

Camp Desert Rock Troops 

Camp Desert Rock troops consisted of about 2,500 soldiers at 

the beginning of Exercise Desert Rock I. These soldiers were 

drawn mainly from units of the Sixth U.S. Army. Some Desert Rock 

troops were stationed at the camp throughout Exercises Desert 

Rock I, II, and III. Many troops, however, returned to their 

home stations after the first and largest exercise was completed 

on 1 November 1951. Desert Rock personnel provided necessary 

support functions for the camp, such as administration, transportation, construction, communications, security, food, and 

laundry. 

Some Desert Rock participants entered the forward testing 

areas of Yucca Flat to help prepare for specific Desert Rock 

activities, to assist in operations during test events, or to 

help ensure safe postshot recovery operations. Three units 

particularly involved in shot-day operations were the Control 

Group, the Radiological Safety Unit, and the AFSWP Advisory 

Group. 

The Control Group, composed of members of the Camp Desert 

Rock staff sections, along with military police and signal 

47 
personnel, accompanied the troops into the forward area. Their 

duties were to supervise Desert Rock operations and to maintain 

contact with the Exercise Director. 

The functions of the Radiological Safety Unit included: 

• Enforcing radiological safety criteria 

0 Issuing and collecting film badges 

0 Providing radiological safety 

those provided by the AEC 

monitors to supplement 

0 Conducting 

AEC survey 

radiological surveys after the initial 

e Accompanying observers and evaluation 

postshot inspections of the equipment 

teams on 

displays 

their 

0 Establishing 

dures. 

decontamination stations and proceThe functions of the Radiological Safety Unit are discussed 

generally in chapter 2 and specifically in chapter 5 of this 

volume (57; 60; 102). 

The AFSWP Advisory Group, consisting of three AFSWP 

officers, was assigned to Camp Desert Rock to provide technical 

assistance and advice to Desert Rock personnel. Before the shot, 

they instructed observers and maneuver troops in nuclear weapons 

and their effects. After the detonation, they briefed the 

participants as they toured the equipment displays. In addition, 

they assisted the evaluation teams in assessing and then 

preparing reports on the detonation's effects on the displays. 

Besides the Control Group, the Radiological Safety Unit, and 

the Advisory Group, several other Desert Rock support elements 

engaged in activities before shot-day and on the day of the 

detonation. Members of the 231st Engineer Combat Battalion spent 

from one to five days constructing field fortifications in the 

display areas prior to Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE. On shot-day, 

48 
transportation personnel conveyed observers to a location at 

least nine kilometers from ground zero, where they witnessed the 

detonation. After the detonation, they transported the observers 

and evaluation teams into the forward area for an inspection of 

the equipment displays. This inspection took place on shot-day 

at Shot DOG but not until one day after Shot SUGAR and two days 

after Shot UNCLE. The Shot DOG observers left the buses to walk 

through the display. At Shots SUGAR and UNCLE, however, 

observers remained on the buses while they drove through the 

displays. 

Military police provided traffic control in Camp Desert Rock 

and at the Nevada Proving Ground during the rehearsals conducted 

before shot-day and during the activities on the day of detonation and the days following. 

Signal Corps personnel installed, operated, and maintained 

wire and radio communications within the forward area, as well as 

at Camp Desert Rock. They also established public address systems 

at the observation points and display areas to be used for briefing 

participating troops. 

Medical support was provided in the forward area, as well as 

at Camp Desert Rock. During operations on shot-day, a medical 

aid station was established at the observation point. Maneuver 

units also provided some of their own medical support (57; 60). 

Desert Rock Exercise Troops 

Approximately 3,700 exercise troops participated in 

Exercise Desert Rock I indoctrination and training programs. At 

least several hundred exercise troops took part in Exercises 

Desert Rock II and III, but the total has not been documented. 

These troops, unlike the support troops, were stationed at Camp 

Desert Rock for short periods ranging from several days to about 

two weeks. 

49 
Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III consisted of the 

following activities: 

0 

0 

0 

Troop 

Troop 

Damage 

observer 

maneuver 

effects 

program 

tests. 

The troop observer program was designed to acquaint military 

and civilian Department of Defense personnel with the effects of 

nuclear detonations. The program consisted of preshot lectures 

and films, observations of nuclear detonations in the forward 

area of the Nevada Proving Ground, and postshot tours of equipment display areas (57; 60). 

The troop maneuver was designed to train participants in the 

tactical use of nuclear weapons and to demonstrate to participants the effects of nuclear detonations. A troop maneuver was 

conducted at Shot DOG as part of Exercise Desert Rock I. Troop 

maneuvers were not conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE (60). 

The damage.effects tests were conducted to determine the 

effects of a nuclear detonation on military equipment, field 

fortifications, and animals (57; 60). 

3.1 OBSERVER ACTIVITIES AT EXERCISES DESERT ROCK I, II, AND III 

The Exercise Desert Rock I observer program involved 2,796 

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel. Army 

personnel comprised the largest number of observers. A 

documented total number of observers for Desert Rock II and III 

is unavailable, although an observer bus roster and an observer's 

report indicate that 135 Camp Desert Rock observers and 67 

officer observers participated in Desert Rock III activities at 

Shot UNCLE (10; 55; 59; 60). 

50 
Participation in nuclear test events was basically the same 

for all Exercise Desert Rock observers at any particular shot. 

The armed services were invited to send observers to the nuclear 

tests. Each service was informed of the reporting and departure 

date for each shot, as well as the records and equipment to be 

carried to Camp Desert Rock by individual observers. 

After arrival at Camp Desert Rock, the observers began a 

scheduled routine which, although it varied from shot to shot, 

included a standard set of activities. In the days preceding the 

detonation, instructors from the Advisory Group provided the 

observers with films and lectures on the characteristics of a 

nuclear detonation and the procedures to follow during a nuclear 

detonation. The orientation also involved a rehearsal of 

shot-day activities, including a visit to the area observers 

would occupy on shot-day, a practice of the countdown and 

activities scheduled for the detonation, and a tour of the 

display areas. Figure 3-1 indicates the observation points and 

the display areas for Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE (57). 

About one hour before the scheduled shot, participants 

arrived at the observation area by truck or bus convoy. There, 

Advisory Group instructors briefed them on the scheduled 

detonation and on safety procedures. Figure 3-2 shows the 

briefing of observers at the observation point before the 

Shot DOG detonation. Shortly before the shot, the instructors 

directed observers to sit on the ground with their backs toward 

ground zero. After the initial flash of light from the 

detonation, they directed the observers to turn and view the 

fireball and cloud. Observers inspected the display areas when 

radiological safety conditions permitted entry into the forward 

areas. Accompanied on'their tour by Advisory Group instructors, 

they examined the effects of the detonation on military equipment 

and fortifications (57; 60). 

51 
Observation Point 

Shot UNCLE 

6oOo57) 

I I 

1 Km 

Desert Rock III 

Display Area 

\ 

and Foxholes 

Shot UNCLE 

Shot SUGAR 

Ground Zero 

63 (854097) 

Desert Rock II -

Display Area 

and Foxholes 

Shot SUGAR 

Shot DOG 

Ground Zero 

(871044) 

Desert Rock I 

Display Positions 

BJY Shot DOG 

Observation Pain, 

Shot SUGAR 

0348005) BCT Tactical 

Defensive Position 

Observation Point 

A Shot DOG (855934) 

Figure 3-1: GROUND ZEROS, OBSERVATION POINTS, AND DISPLAY 

AREAS FOR SHOTS DOG (EXERCISE DESERT ROCK II, SUGAR 

(EXERCISE DESERT ROCK II), AND UNCLE (EXERCISE 

DESERT ROCK Ill) 52 

3.2 TROOP MANEUVER AT EXERCISE DESERT ROCK I 

The military services developed the troop maneuver at Shot 

DOG according to the following scenario. An aggressor with 

overwhelming forces invaded the western United States and 

established a line of strong defensive positions which resisted 

breakthrough by friendly forces using conventional weapons. To 

gain the offensive and penetrate enemy lines, friendly forces 

counterattacked with Shot DOG. After the detonation, they 

advanced to capture the enemy objective. 

The maneuver involved 883 men from four units (57): 

0 1st Battalion, 188th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 

11th Airborne Division, Camp Campbell, Kentucky 

0 3rd Medical Platoon, 188th Airborne Medical Company, 

Camp Campbell 

• Platoon, Company A, 127th Engineer Battalion, Camp 

Campbell 

• Battery C, 546th Field Artillery Battalion, Fort 

Lewis, Washington. 

At Camp Desert Rock, the participants were organized into a 

Battalion Combat Team (BCT). Their activities involved (57): 

0 Preparing tactical defensive positions 

• Observing the nuclear blast 

0 Conducting a tactical maneuver 

0 Touring the display areas. 

During the two weeks preceding Shot DOG, BCT personnel dug 

foxholes and built gun emplacements and bunkers in a tactical 

defensive position southwest of ground zero. This position was 

developed to test the effects of weapons on the structures and 

emplacements. Participants did not occupy the structures and 

emplacements at shot-time. 

54 
Several hours before the shot, the BCT and the observers 

boarded vehicles which took them to an observation point 11 

kilometers south of ground zero, where they witnessed the 

detonation, as shown in figure 3-3. After the detonation, the 

troops moved by convoy to their prepared defensive position, 

where they viewed the effects of the detonation on the position. 

On order, the BCT moved forward in an attack formation to an 

objective southwest of ground zero, as shown in figure 3-l. At 

its closest point, the objective was 460 meters from ground zero. 

The BCT was accompanied by radiological safety monitors and was 

preceded by radiation survey teams who determined the limits of 

safe advance. After reaching the objective, the BCT toured 

display positions 900 and 1,350 meters south of ground zero. The 

troops were then taken by truck to view a display position over 

six kilometers south of ground zero. Available documents 

indicate that the troops did not visit the other two display 

areas. The trucks and buses then transported the troops and 

observers to the decontamination station at Yucca Pass. After 

monitoring, the troops and observers returned to Camp Desert Rock 

(57). 

An additional study associated with the troop maneuver was 

performed by the Human Resources Research Office (HumRRO), a 

civilian agency under contract to the Department of the Army. At 

Shot DOG, HumRRO investigated the psychological reactions of the 

maneuver troops. The agency was particularly interested in troop 

behavior during the maneuver and the changes in troop attitudes 

about nuclear weapons before and after participation in the 

activity. In addition, the agency assessed factors governing the 

amount of information on nuclear testing communicated to other 

troops by participants returning to their bases. The data 

collected by HumRRO dssisted the Army in determining the probable 

behavior of troops involved in nuclear warfare (13). 

55 

3.3 DAMAGE EFFECTS TESTS AT EXERCISES DESERT ROCK I, II, AND III 

During Desert Rock I, II, and III, evaluation teams, each 

consisting of as many as ten men, studied the effects of the 

detonations on military equipment and field fortifications. The 

Chemical, Signal, Engineer, Medical, Ordnance, and Quartermaster 

sections of Camp Desert Rock each supplied one team, except for 

Exercise Desert Rock II, where the medical team apparently did 

not participate. Each team was responsible for constructing 

equipment displays at the display areas shown in figure 3-1, for 

recovering test equipment after the detonation, and for preparing 

a report of its findings (57; 60). 

Members of the 231st Engineer Combat Battalion spent several 

days before each detonation constructing the displays. In 

addition, they instrumented foxholes with film badges to indicate 

the radiation exposure that personnel might have received had 

they been in the foxholes during the detonation. 

After each shot, the evaluation teams went to the display 

areas to assess the damage to the equipment and fortifications. 

Each team was accompanied by a radiological monitor to warn 

personnel if they were approaching areas with hazardous radiation 

intensities. The teams later reentered the forward area to 

retrieve test equipment. Members of the 231st Engineer Combat 

Battalion recovered materials used in the fortifications (57-60). 

In preparing their reports, the teams received technical 

information from the AFSWP Advisory Group. They also received 

assistance from the LASL Graphic Arts Group, which provided 

photographs of the weapons effects tests for the reports (57; 

60). 

57 
CHAPTER 4 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTICIPATION IN 

TEST ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS AT OPERATION 

BUSTER-JANGLE 

During Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the test organization 

coordinated separate programs of scientific research, including 

tests of the nuclear devices and tests of military effects of the 

detonations. Air support, coordinated by the Air Force Special 

Weapons Command, was provided to these programs as needed. In 

most cases, the individual projects conducted under each program 

required relatively few personnel. Only about 30 percent of the 

Department of Defense participants in BUSTER-JANGLE, about 2,500 

personnel, were part of the test organization. Although their 

numbers were relatively small compared to Desert Rock personnel, 

the test organization participants' activities are significant, 

since they often repeated their tasks throughout the entire 

series of atmospheric nuclear tests. 

This chapter describes these test activities, beginning with 

the scientific and diagnostic experiments conducted by two test 

units: 

0 Weapons Effects Test Unit 

0 Weapons Development Test Unit. 

Composed of scientists, technicians, and military personnel from 

various military and civilian laboratories and support contractors, the test units developed and conducted field experiments to 

gather data before, during, and after the nuclear detonations. 

Of the test units at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the Weapons 

Effects Test Unit involved the greater number of DOD participants. The mission of the Weapons Effects Test Unit was to 

measure weapons effects characteristics. The data obtained from 

the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were used to strengthen the 

nuclear arsenal and to expand techniques and strategies for using 

58 
that arsenal. The Weapons Development Test Unit, through its AEC 

nuclear weapons development laboratory, the Los Alamos Scientific 

Laboratory, performed diagnostic tests on the phenomena produced 

by nuclear devices. The data from these experiments were used to 

improve the weapons and to develop new designs (5; 48; 55). 

Throughout Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, numbers were used to 

identify the sponsors of the technical programs and experiments 

performed by the test units: 

0 Programs 1 through 4 and 6 through 9 were conducted 

by the Weapons Effects Test Unit. 

0 Program 10 was conducted by the Weapons Development 

Test Unit. 

The final section of this chapter describes the air support 

and services provided by the Special Weapons Command. Permanently based at Kirtland AFB, SWC supported the Test Manager and 

the test units by supplying crews and aircraft for airdrop 

delivery missions, cloud-sampling and cloud-tracking missions, 

aerial surveys, and other air missions as requested. The Air 

Operations Center, located at the AEC Control Point in Yucca 

Pass, maintained operational control over all aircraft flying 

over and near the Nevada Proving Ground during testing periods 

(55). 

4.1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INVOLVEMENT IN WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS 

During Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the Weapons Effects Test 

Unit conducted experiments to provide a better understanding of 

the effects of nuclear weapons for both offensive and defensive 

deployment. The Dire.ctor of the Weapons Effects Test Unit, who 

reported to the Test Director, coordinated these activities. 

Each program was managed by a program director, who was 

responsible to the Director of the ~Weapons -Effects Test Unit. 

Each program was divided into several projects, each headed by a 

project officer. 

59 
The Department of Defense used the weapons effects tests to 

attain the following ob.jectives: 

0 Develop the vehicles for deploying the nuclear 

devices 

0 Design military equipment able to withstand the 

effects of a nuclear detonation 

a Develop doctrine for better use of the weapons 

0 Determine the military requirements for future 

nuclear weapons designs. 

The weapons effects tests were divided into three 

categories: 

0 Basic measurements of the output characteristics of 

nuclear devices, such as blast, thermal, and 

radiation measurements 

0 Tests to determine blast, thermal, and radiation 

effects on living animal tissues, structures, 

equipment, and material 

• Operational tests to develop and evaluate techniques 

and equipment unique to nuclear warfare, such as 

Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment (IBDA). 

This section details the objectives and general procedures 

employed for each project, first of the Operation BUSTER shots 

and then of the Operation JANGLE shots. Because each operation 

had different scientific programs and projects associated with 

it, they are discussed separately. In several instances, similar 

projects were conducted at both operations. In some cases, the 

project had one number for BUSTER and a different number for 

JANGLE. The pertinent multi-shot volumes contain information 

regarding participants' activities at a particular shot. 

4.1.1 Operation BUSTER Programs and Projects 

During the BUSTER phase, the Weapons Effects Test Unit 

conducted projects that were part of seven programs fielded by 

60 
various military and civilian DOD laboratories and contractors. 

Table 4-l lists the programs and projects conducted at each shot. 

This table is an index to project descriptions in this chapter 

and in the multi-shot volume, Shots ABLE to EASY, the First Five 

Tests of the BUSTER-JANGLE Series. 

The sources used to compile table 4-l are the weapons test 

reports generated by each project. These sources describe actual 

rather than planned shot participation. Although other documents 

are available listing pro,ject participation by shot, they indicate planned participation only. Table 4-l shows the pro;jects 

that actually were conducted at each shot. 

Program 2, Thermal and Nuclear Radiation, investigated the 

military significance of nuclear and thermal phenomena associated 

with nuclear detonations. Table 4-2 lists the Program 2 projects 

conducted during Operation BUSTER, including the shots at which 

the project was performed and the fielding agencies (48). 

Pro.ject 2.2, Thermal and Blast Effects on Idealized Forest 

Fuels, was conducted at Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by 

the Division of Fire Research of the Forest Service. The ob,jective was to study the effects of a nuclear detonation on forests. 

Pro,ject participants arranged forest fuels, such as pine needles, 

hardwood leaves, and grass, in trays, the tops of which were 

flush with the ground to approximate natural conditions. Before 

each detonation, they installed the trays at six stations ranging 

630 to 4,400 meters from ground zero. At stations 2,130 and 

2,740 meters from ground zero, Naval Radiological Defense 

Laboratory personnel installed high-speed cameras to record 

ignition and combustion behavior. They also took preshot and 

postshot photographs and studied the natural vegetation of the 

NPG before and after each detonation (17). 

61 
Table 4-l: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS CONDUCTED AT 

OPERATION BUSTER 

Estimated 

Personnel 

Program 2, 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 10 

Thermal and Nuclear Radiation 2.3 2.3 5 

2.4a 2.4a 5 

2.4b 2.4b 5 

2.4-l 2.4-l 2.4-l 2.4-l 2.4-l 8 

2.4-2 2.4-2 8 

2.6 2.6 2.6 12 

Program 3, 

Blast Effects on Structures and 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 9 

Equipment 3.8 3.8 3 

3.9 6 

Program 4, 

Biomedical 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 5 

4.2 4.2 8 

4.2a 4.2a 8 

4.3 4.3 4.3 17 

Program 6, 

Test of Service Equipment and 6.lb 6.1 b 6.1 b 6 

Operations 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 * 

6.5 6.5 * 

6.9 6.9 6.9 * 

Program 7, 

Long-range Detection 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 30 

7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 

7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 2: 

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 14 

7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 * 

Program 8, 

Supporting Measurements 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 90 

8.4 8.4 * 

Program 9, 

Personnel Shelter Evaluation 9.la 9.la 9.la 10 

9.1 b 9.1 b 9.1 b 9.1 b 10 

*Unknown 

62 
Table 4-2: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 2, OPERATION BUSTER 

Project Title Objective Shots Participants 

2.2 Thermal and Blast Effects To study the effects of a BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, Division of Fire Research, 

on Idealized Forest Fuels nuclear detonation on forests EASY Forest Service 

2.3 Effects of Geometry on Flash To determine the effects of BAKER, DOG Naval Material Laboratory 

Thermal Damage exposure configuration 

on thermal damage 

2.4a Protective Value and Ignition To determine the protective BAKER, DOG Office of the Quartermaster 

Hazards of Textile Materials value of clothing materials General; 

Exposed to Thermal exposed to thermal Quartermaster Board; 

Radiation radiation Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories 

2.4b Thermal Radiation Effects on To determine thermal effects BAKER, DOG Engineer Research and 

Paints, Plastics, and Coated on various materials Development Laboratories 

Fabrics 

2.4-l Basic Thermal Radiation To obtain thermal radiation ALL Naval Radiological Defense 

Measurements measurements at various Laboratory 

distances from a nuclear 

detonation 

2.42 The Effect of Thermal To determine thermal effects BAKER, DOG Naval Material Laboratory 

Radiation on Materials on various materials 

2.6 Protective Effects of Field To determine the protection BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG Engineer Research and 

Fortifications against Neutron afforded by field fortifications Development Laboratories 

and Gamma Ray Flux against the radiation from a 

nuclear detonation 

63 
Project 2.3, Effects of Geometry on Flash Thermal Damage, 

was conducted at Shots BAKER and DOG by the Naval Material 

Laboratory. The objective was to determine the effect of a 

target's size, shape, and thermal properties on the thermal 

damage resulting from a nuclear detonation. In the days 

preceding each shot, Project 2.3 and 2.4 participants installed 

wooden materials at three stations 610 to 1,520 meters from the 

BAKER ground zero and 1,220 to 1,830 meters from the DOG ground 

zero. They returned to the shot area after the detonation to 

examine the effects of the detonation on each of the materials 

(96). 

Project 2.4a, Protective Value and Ignition Hazards of 

Textile Materials Exposed to Thermal Radiation, was conducted at 

Shots BAKER and DOG by the Office of the Quartermaster General, 

the Quartermaster Board, and the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories. This project was to evaluate the protective 

value of clothing materials exposed to thermal radiation. Before 

each detonation, pro.ject participants placed various fabrics at 

four stations 650 to 2,180 meters from the BAKER ground zero and 

at three stations 1,240 to 2,150 meters from the DOG ground zero. 

They returned to the shot area following the detonation to 

evaluate and photograph damage to the fabrics (31). 

Project 2.4b, Thermal Radiation Effects on Paints, Plastics, 

and Coated Fabrics, was conducted at Shots BAKER and DOG by the 

Engineer Research and Development Laboratories. The objective 

was to determine the effects of a nuclear detonation on various 

paints, plastics, and fabrics. Project participants applied 

paints to steel, aluminum, and wood surfaces before each detonation. They positioned these painted samples, along with plastic 

and fabric specimens, in the shot area at various distances from 

ground zero. After the detonation, they monitored the specimens 

for radiation and photographed and retrieved the samples for 

laboratory analysis (77). 

64 
Project 2.4-1, Basic Thermal Radiation Measurements, was 

performed at Shots ABLE, BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the 

Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The objective was to 

conduct thermal measurements at distances from a nuclear detonation where significant thermal damage was expected. Project 

personnel used thermal detectors to detect and record the thermal 

pulse. They placed the instruments and samples of cloth, wood, 

and paint at stations 500 to 3,660 meters from ground zero (15). 

Project 2.4-2, The Effect of Thermal Radiation on Materials, 

was conducted at Shots BAKER and DOG by the Naval Material 

Laboratory. The objective was to study the physical characteristics of thermal radiation and its effects on various materials. 

The study continued a similar experiment conducted during ,Operation GREENHOUSE that investigated thermal damage to materials. 

Participants placed panels of different materials and thermal 

indicators at various ranges from each ground zero (79). 

Project 2.6, Protective Effects of Field Fortifications 

against Neutron and Gamma Ray Flux, was conducted at Shots BAKER, 

CHARLIE, and DOG by the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories. The objective was to evaluate the protection afforded by 

field fortifications against the radiation from a nuclear detonation. 

Project personnel constructed two-man foxholes in Area 7 at 

275-meter intervals and at distances of 90 to 2,000 meters 

southwest of the intended ground zero. They also constructed 

one-man foxholes adjacent to the two-man foxholes located 365, 

915, and 1,465 meters from ground zero. Before each detonation, 

pro,ject personnel instrumented each foxhole with gamma film 

detectors. They also placed neutron detectors in the two-man 

foxholes located within 920 meters of ground zero. Project 

participants retrieved the gamma and neutron detectors within two 

hours of each detonation. The detectors were then flown to LASL 

for analysis (113). 

65 
Program 3, Blast Effects on Structures and Equipment, 

investigated the effects of airburst nuclear weapons on selected 

military equipment. The program involved the pro,jects shown in 

table 4-3. 

Table 4-3: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 3. OPERATION BUSTER 

Project Title Objective Shots Participants I 

3.5 Minefield Clearance To determine the abilio/ of BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, Engineer Research and 

airburst nuclear devices to EASY Development LaboratorIes 

detonate antitank mines 

3.8 Effects of an Atomic To determine thermal and DOG, EASY Wright Air Development 

Detonation on Aircraft blast effects on parked Center 

Structures on the Ground aircraft 

3.9 Effects on Selected Water To determine blast, thermal, EASY Engineer Research and 

Supply Equipment and radiation effects on Development Laboratories 

water storage tanks 

Project 3.5, Minefield Clearance, was conducted at Shots 

BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories. The ob,jective was to determine the 

effects of a nuclear airburst on antitank and beach mines placed 

at various distances from ground zero. Project personnel used 

the Universal Indicator mine, which behaves similarly to antitank 

and beach mines. Scientists computed the probabilities of mine 

detonation based on the project results. 

Participants designed a minefield pattern having 20 positions consisting of two rows of ten mines each. The pattern 

began 400 meters south of the BAKER, CHARLIE, and DOG ground zero 

and 900 meters southeast of the EASY ground zero and then 

extended 1,830 meters east. In preparing the minefield, 

participants bulldozed a path 20 meters wide in Area 7 (110). 

Project 3.8, Effects op an Atomic Detonation on Aircraft 

Structures on the Ground, was conducted at Shots DOG and EASY by 

66 
the Wright Air Development Center. The objective was to determine the structural damage to parked aircraft that resulted from 

the thermal and blast energy of a nuclear detonation. Pro.ject 

personnel tested one B-17 and one F-47 aircraft at each shot. 

They placed the aircraft at specific ranges from ground zero 

based on predicted overpressures (89). 

Pro,ject 3.9, Effects on Selected Water Supply Equipment, was 

performed at Shot EASY by the Engineer Research and Development 

Laboratories. The primary ob.jectives were to determine the: 

0 Blast and thermal 

filled with water 

damage to 3,000-gallon tanks 

0 Radioactive contamination of water in the tanks 

0 Amount of induced radioactivity 

sea water in various dilutions 

assorted fresh water. 

in canned samples 

and in bottles of 

of 

Before 

canned 

ground 

the detonation, pro.ject personnel placed water tanks 

and bottled water samples 460 to 3,930 meters southwest 

zero. After the detonation, they examined the tanks 

and 

of 

and 

water samples (71). 

Program 4, Rio-medical, was to determine the nuclear and 

thermal effects of airburst nuclear devices. By exposing test 

animals and instruments to the detonations, program personnel 

hoped to gain information concerning these effects on the human 

body. Table 4-4 shows the projects in this program. 

Project 4.1, Radiation Dosimetry, was conducted at Shots 

BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the Naval Medical Research 

Institute. The objectives were to: 

Measure the ionization produced by gamma radiation 

at various depths in the ground and at various 

distances from ground zero 

0 

0 Correlate laboratory measurements with field 

measurements. 

67 
Project personnel placed dosimeters and other radiation detection 

instruments at four stations located at various distances from 

ground zero. They recovered the instruments about three hours 

after each detonation (48; 86). 

Table 4-4: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 4, OPERATION BUSTER 

Project Title Objective Shots Participants 

4.1 Radiation Dosimetry To measure gamma radiation BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, Naval Medical Research 

exposure at various locations EASY lnstrtute 

4.2 Thermal Effects on Animals To compare burns produced BAKER, DOG, Medical College of Vtrgrnia; 

(Dogs) on dogs in the laboratory Office of the Surgeon 

wtth those produced by a General 

a nuclear detonation 

4.2a Thermal Effects on Animals To investigate burn damage BAKER, DOG Naval Radiological Defense 

(Rats.1 to rats Laboratory 

4.3 Flash Blindness To determine visual BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG Arr Force School of 

difficulties resulting from Aviation Medrcine 

witnessing the flash of 

a nuclear detonation 

Pro.ject 4.2, Thermal Effects on Animals (Dogs), was 

conducted at Shots BAKER and DOG by the Medical College of 

Virginia and the Office of the Surgeon General. The primary 

objective was to determine the biological relationship between 

burns produced on dogs in the laboratory and those caused by a 

nuclear detonation. The secondary objective was to determine the 

protection afforded against burns by military fabrics. Before 

each detonation, project personnel placed two anesthetized dogs, 

each clothed in a canvas jacket, 1,220 meters from the BAKER 

ground zero and six anesthetized and jacketed dogs 2,130 and 

2,740 meters from the DOG ground zero. After the detonation, 

they recovered the animals for laboratory analysis (16; 86). 

Project 4.2a, Thermal Effects on Animals (Rats), was 

conducted at Shots BAKER and DOG by the Naval Radiological 

68 
Defense Laboratory. The objective was to investigate burn damage 

to rat skin as a function of the energy delivered from a nuclear 

detonation. Before Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, test participants 

had used only dogs and pigs in investigating burns at nuclear 

tests. Prior to each detonation, project participants placed 60 

anesthetized rats along a radial line 640 to 3,660 meters from 

ground zero. Two hours after the detonation, participants 

recovered the rats for laboratory analysis (100). 

Pro.ject 4.3, Flash Blindness, was conducted at Shots BAKER, 

CHARLIE, and DOG by the Air Force School of Aviation Medicine. 

The ob.jectives were to evaluate the: 

0 Visual handicap that might be expected if military 

personnel were exposed to the flash of a nuclear 

detonation 

0 Effectiveness of goggles developed to protect the 

eyes during exposure to a nuclear flash. 

During each detonation, an estimated 17 volunteers orbited 

in a C-54 aircraft about 15 kilometers from ground zero, at an 

altitude of 15,000 feet. Beginning immediately after the 

detonation, pro,ject personnel performed a number of visual tasks. 

The aircraft then returned to Kirtland AFB (18). 

Program 6, Test of Service Equipment and Operations, was 

designed to test equipment and techniques developed by three 

services to determine various effects of nuclear detonations. 

The program consisted of the pro,jects listed in table 4-5. 

Pro_ject 6.lb, Evaluation of Dosimetric Materials, was 

conducted at Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, and DOG by the Signal Corps 

Engineering Laboratories and the Bureau of Ships. The objective 

was to field-test several personnel dosimeters, including some 

that were and some that were not self-reading. Pro,ject participants placed the dosimeters inside aluminum shelters located at 

various distances from each ground zero (30). 

69 
Table 4-5: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 6, OPERATION BUSTER 

Project Title Objective Shots Participants 

6.lb Evaluation of Dosimetric To field-test personnel BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG Signal Corps Engrneering 

Materials dosimeters Laboratones; 

Bureau of Shops 

6.4 Airborne Radiac Evaluation To evaluate equipment used BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, Bureau of Aeronautics; 

to detect radioactivity from EASY Wright Air Development 

aircraft Center; 

Air Research and Development Command 

6.5 Operational Tests of To test radar and DOG, EASY Wright Air Development 

Techniques for Accomplish- photographic equipment for Center 

ing IBDA use as an IBDA system 

6.9 Effects of Atomic Detona- To determine the effects of CHARLIE, DOG, EASY Signal Corps Engineering 

tions on Radio Propagation a nuclear detonation on Laboratories 

radio communications 

Pro_ject 6.4, Airborne Radiac Evaluation, was conducted at 

Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the Bureau of Aeronautics, 

Wright Air Development Center, and Air Research and Development 

Command. The objective was to evaluate the capabilities of 

airborne radiation detection equipment in detecting the cloud 

resulting from a detonation and in indicating the cloud's 

position relative to the monitoring aircraft. The instruments 

evaluated were the AN/ADR-3 and Type F-l ground survey meters and 

the AN/ADR-1 recording dosimeter. A Navy P2V-2 and an Air Force 

B-17 aircraft equipped with the radiac devices participated at 

each of the shots. During the detonation, the aircraft were 

about 30 kilometers from ground zero. After receiving permission 

from the tower, they proceeded in the direction of the cloud to 

determine the maximum distance from which the cloud could be 

detected (109). 

Project 6.5, Operational Tests of Techniques for Accomplishing Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment, was conducted at Shots DOG 

and EASY by the Wright Air Development Center, with support from 

Lookout Mountain Laboratory. The ob.jective was to test, under 

70 
operational conditions, radar and photographic equipment as a 

means of determining ground zero, height of burst, and yield of a 

nuclear detonation. With measurements gathered by strike aircraft, it would then be possible to assess the effect of the 

nuclear detonation on enemy installations. For this pro,ject, two 

B-50 and one B-29 aircraft instrumented with radar equipment and 

cameras took photographs and recorded data following the detonations (65). Lookout Mountain Laboratory personnel participating 

in Project 8.4 did the photography (55; 65). 

Pro;ject 6.9, Effects of Atomic Detonations on Radio 

Propagation, was conducted at Shots CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the 

Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories. The objective was to 

determine the effects of a nuclear detonation on the propagation 

of radio communications at various frequencies. Pro;ject personnel made measurements at the Nevada Proving Ground and at Alamo 

and Beatty, Nevada. The onsite station was 2.4 kilometers from 

the Control Point and about 14 kilometers from each ground zero 

(106). 

Program 7, Long-range Detection, tested and evaluated 

various techniques used to detect nuclear detonations at long 

ranges. Table 4-6 indicates the Program 7 projects. 

Project 7.1, Transport of Radiation Debris, was conducted at 

Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by Headquarters, Air Force, 

and the Air Weather Service. The objective was to determine the 

distribution of airborne debris from a nuclear detonation. The 

Air Weather Service tracked the debris at various distances from 

the Nevada Proving Ground (3). Cloud tracking is described in 

section 4.3 of this chapter, on Air Force support missions during 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 

71 
Table 4-6: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 7, OPERATION BUSTER 

Project Title Objective Shots Participants 

7.1 Transport of Radiation To determine the distri- ALL Headquarters, Air Force; 

Debris bution of airborne radio Air Weather Service 

active debris resulting from 

a nuclear detonation 

7.2 Long-range Light To study light transmission BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, 4925th Test Group; 

Measurements from a nuclear detonation EASY EGErG 

7.3 Radiochemical, Chemical, To perform analysis of bomb ALL Headquarters, Air Force; 

and Physical Analysis of debris collected in cloud- 4925th Test Group 

Atomic Bomb Debris sampling missions 

7.5 Seismic Waves from To determine the seismic ALL 1009th Special Weapons 

A-Bombs Detonated over a waves resulting from a Squadron; 

Land Mass nuclear detonation Naval Ordnance Laboratory; 

Wright Air Development 

Center; 

Coast and Geodetic Survey 

7.6 Airborne Low-frequency To evaluate acoustic BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, Naval Electronics Laborator); 

Sound from the Atomic equipment used to detect EASY Signal Corps Engineering 

Explosions during Operations nuclear detonations at long Laboratories; 

BUSTER and JANGLE ranges National Bureau of Standards 

Project 7.2, Long-range Light Measurements, was conducted at 

Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the 4925th Test Group 

(Atomic) and by EG8G. The objective was to study light 

transmission from a nuclear detonation and to obtain data for the 

design of long-range detection systems. At shot-time, project 

participants operated cameras at several stations in Nevada, 

Arizona, and New Mexico (24). 

Project 7.3, Radiochemical, Chemical, and Physical Analysis 

of Atomic Bomb Debris, was performed at all BUSTER shots by 

Headquarters, Air Force, in conjunction with sampling operations 

conducted by the 4925th Test Group (Atomic). Personnel made 

radiochemical analyses of nuclear weapon debris obtained close to 

the Nevada Proving Ground (103). Cloud-sampling operations are 

discussed in section 4.3 of this chapter. 

72 
Project 7.5, Seismic Waves from A-Bombs Detonated over a 

Land Mass, was conducted at all BUSTER shots by the 1009th 

Special Weapons Squadron, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Acoustics 

Research Division of the Wright Air Development Center, and Coast 

and Geodetic Survey. The objective was to study seismic waves 

propagated by nuclear detonations. Personnel obtained data from 

five onsite and a number of offsite stations (29). 

Project 7.6, Airborne Low-frequency Sound from the Atomic 

Explosions during Operations BUSTER and JANGLE, was conducted at 

Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the Naval Electronics 

Laboratory, Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories, and National 

Bureau of Standards. The objective was to determine the range 

and reliability of acoustic detection equipment for continental 

nuclear explosions of various yields. Project personnel worked 

at stations in Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, New 

Jersey, Texas, Washington, and Washington, D.C. (88). 

Program 8, Supporting Measurements, obtained data for use by 

other projects in evaluating test results. The program consisted 

of two projects at BUSTER. 

Project 8.2, Air Weather Service Participation in Operation 

BUSTER, was conducted at Shots ABLE, BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and 

EASY by the 2059th Air Weather Wing and one of its units, the 

2060th Mobile Weather Squadron, from Tinker AFB. The ob*jective 

was to gather and report information before each detonation 

regarding such weather factors as wind conditions, temperature, 

and humidity. Weather forecasts included estimates of the anticipated cloud cover, winds at the surface and up to 45,000 feet, 

and the precipitation projected within a radius of 500 kilometers 

of the target area. 

Project personnel worked from a weather station at the 

Control Point and from outlying upper air observation stations at 

73 
Tonopah, Warm Springs, Currant, Pioche, and Alamo, Nevada, and at 

St. George, Utah. Ninety personnel took part in Shots ABLE and 

BAKER, and 73 participated in each of the subsequent shots. 

Participants issued their first weather forecast on 15 October 

1951. Thereafter, they issued daily forecasts throughout 

Operation BUSTER. Project personnel gave weather briefings at 

the Control Point at 0800, 2000, and 2400 hours on the day 

preceding each detonation in addition to a final summary just 

before shot-time (55). 

Project 8.4, Technical Photography for IBDA Project, was 

conducted at Shots DOG and EASY by the Air Force Lookout Mountain 

Laboratory. The purpose was to provide technical and documentary 

photography of Project 6.5, Operational Tests of Techniques for 

Accomplishing Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment. Lookout Mountain 

Laboratory personnel took photographs from two B-50 and one B-29 

aircraft (55; 65). 

Program 9, Personnel Shelter Evaluation, tested the design 

of shelters for protection against the effects of an airburst 

detonation. The program consisted of two projects, both of which 

evaluated family-size and larger shelters. 

Project 9.la, FCDA Family Shelter Evaluation, was performed 

at Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, and DOG by the Federal Civil Defense 

Administration. The project was designed to determine the 

effects of nuclear blasts on small shelters for family use. 

Before each shot, project personnel assembled 29 prefabricated 

shelters made of metal, wood, and brick at eight-meter intervals 

along an arc 370 meters east of zero. Since the project was a 

late addition to the test program, there was not time to 

instrument the structures completely. Improvised methods, 

including gamma film badges, deflection devices, and land mine 

fuses, were used to measure pressure inside the shelters (41). 

74 
Project 9.lb, AEC Communal Shelter Evaluation, was conducted 

at Shots BAKER, CHARLIE, DOG, and EASY by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. The objective was to determine the effects of 

a nuclear detonation on a prototype shelter constructed of 

conventional materials and buried under about three feet of 

earth. In the days before the first detonation, project personnel constructed a shelter about 250 meters southeast of the 

airburst ground zeroes. Before each shot, they instrumented the 

structure with gauges and gamma film badges. They evaluated 

damage to the shelter and retrieved the gauges and film badges 

after recovery hour was declared (26). 

4.1.2 Operation JANGLE Programs and Projects 

During Operation JANGLE, the Weapons Effects Test Unit 

conducted projects that were part of seven programs fielded by 

various military and civilian DOD laboratories and contractors. 

Table 4-7 lists the programs and projects conducted at each 

JANGLE shot. This table is an index to project descriptions in 

this chapter and in the multi-shot volume, Shots SUGAR and UNCLE, 

the Final Tests of the BUSTER-JANGLE Series. The sources used to 

compile this table are the weapons test reports generated by each 

project (5). 

In addition to the projects listed in table 4-7, AFSWP 

personnel conducted ten Program 1 projects and one Program 2 

project associated with Operation JANGLE but not directly 

involving a nuclear detonation. Pro,ject 1(8)a, Geologic, 

Hydrologic, and Thermal Features of the Sites, and Project 

1(8)a-1, Seismic Refraction Survey for Nye County, Nevada, were 

geologic studies conducted outside the time frame of Operation 

JANGLE (90; 97). Four other Program 1 pro;jects were theoretical 

studies of the effects of nuclear explosions (49; 50; 80; 98): 

0 Project 1.9, Theoretical Studies of Underground Shock 

Waves 

75 
Table 4-7: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS CONDUCTED DURING 

OPERATION JANGLE 

Estimated 

DOD 

Program SUGAR UNCLE Personnel 

Program 1, 

Blast and Shock 1.1 1.1 16 

l.Za-1 1.2a-1 4 

1.2a-2 1.2a-2 4 

1.2b 2 

1.3a 1.3a 4 

1.3b 1.3b * 

1.3c 47 

1.4 1 .4 4 

1.5a 1.5a * 

1.5b * 

1.6 1.6 3c 

1.7 1 .7 * 

1(8)-b 1(8)-b * 

1(9)-a * 

1(9)-b + 

Program 2, 

Radiological Phenomena 2.la 2.la 7 

2.lb 2.lb * 

2.lc-1 2.lc-1 15 

2.lc-2 2.lc-2 * 

2.ld 2.ld * 

2.3-l 2.3-l 6 

2.3-2 2.3-2 6 

2.4a 2.4a 4 

2.4b 2.4b 4 

2.4~ 2.4~ 5 

2.5a-1 2.5a-1 25 

2.5a-2 2.5a-2 17 

2.5a-3 2.5a-3 * 

2.6a 2.6a 16 

2.6c-1 2.6c-1 + 

2.6c-2 2.6c-2 * 

2.6c-3 2.6c-3 

2.7 2.7 : 

2.8 2.8 * 

Program 3, 

Blast Effects 3.1 * 

3.2 * 

3.3 * 

3.28 t 

3.29 * 

*Unknown 

76 
Table 4-7: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS CONDUCTED DURING 

OPERATION JANGLE 

Program 

Program 4, 

Special Phenomena 

Program 6, 

Tests of Service Equipment and Operations 

Program 7, 

Long-range Detection 

Program 8, 

Supporting Measurements 

*Unknown 

(CONTINUED) 

SUGAR 

4.1 

4.1 a-l 

4.1 a-2 

4.2 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3-l 

6.3-2 

6.7 

6.8 

7.la 

7.lb 

7.2 

7.3 

Estimated 

DOD 

UNCLE Personnel 

4.1 )c 

4.1 a-l 2 

4.1 a-2 ,* 

4.2 + 

4.5 * 

6.1 * 

6.2 * 

6.3-l * 

6.3-2 * 

6.4 * 

6.7 * 

6.8 * 

7.la 10 

7.1 b 16 

7.2 * 

7.3 + 

8.4 * 

77 
Pro,ject 1.9-1, Application of the Kirtwood-Brinkley 

Method to the Theory of Underground Explosions 

0 

0 Project 1.9-2, Notes on Surface and Underground 

Explosions 

0 Pro,ject 1.9-3, Predictions for the Underground Shot. 

Other Program 1 projects were performed in conjunction with 

a series of high-explosive (HE) tests conducted between 25 August 

and 9 September 1951 (19; 20; 35; 116): 

0 Pro,ject 1(9)-l, Scaled HE Tests 

a Pro,ject l(9)-2, Composition of Clouds Formed by TNT 

Explosions 

0 Project l(9)-3, Some HE Tests and Observations on Craters 

and Base Surges 

0 Project-l(9)-4, Base Surge Analysis--HE Tests. 

The Program 2 experiment, Project 2.0, Predicted Scaling of 

Radiological Effects to Operational Weapons, lasted from March 

1952 to June 1952. Its purpose was to use data obtained from 

Operation JANGLE to predict the radiological contamination that 

might result from fission bombs detonated near the earth's 

surface (99). 

Program 1, Blast and Shock, was designed to: 

0 Measure blast pressures produced by surface and 

underground nuclear detonations and by high 

explosives 

0 Develop theories for predicting blast effects 

produced by surface and underground nuclear 

detonations 

Survey the geology of the NPG to determine its 

effect on the propagation of blast waves. 

0 

The program consisted of the projects indicated in table 4-8. 

78 
Table 4-8: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 1, OPERATION JANGLE 

Project 

1.1 

I .2a-1 

1.2a-2 

1.2b 

l&l 

1.3b 

1.3c 

1.4 

1.5a 

1.5b 

1.6 

1.7 

l(8)b 

119la 

119)b 

Title 

;round Acceleration 

neasurement 

‘eak Air Blast Pressures 

rom Shock Velocity 

fieasurements 

-ransient Ground Mechan-

:a1 Effects from High 

!xplosives (HE) and Nuclear 

Lxplosions 

Iose-in Ground Measurenents 

‘ree Air Shock Arrival Times 

‘eak Pressure versus 

Distance in Free Air Using 

Smoke and Rocket 

‘hotography 

The Measurement of Free 

Air Atomic Blast Pressures 

Free Air Pressure Measurements 

Transient Ground Displacement Measurement 

Detection of Time of Arrival 

of First Earth Motion 

Earth Displacement (Shear 

Shafts) 

Ground Acceleration (Shock 

Pins) 

Air Weather Service Participation in Operation 

JANGLE 

Ground Acceleration, Ground 

and Air Pressures for 

Underground Tests 

Base Surge Analysis for 

Nuclear Tests 

Objective 

.o measure ground accelertion from surface and 

rnderground detonations 

.o study air blast effects in 

elation to ground shock 

rffects 

-0 measure ground shock 

rom a nuclear detonation 

To determine blast phenom 

ma from an underground 

letonation 

To determine the time of 

arrival of the blast wave 

To determine peak pressure 

slang the ground and in 

:he air 

To measure blast pressures 

n free air 

To measure blast pressures 

at ground-level stations 

To measure the transient 

ground displacement caused 

by surface and underground 

detonations 

To determine the time of the 

first earth motion following 

an underground detonation 

To measure permanent earth 

displacement following 

surface or underground 

detonations 

To determine the amount of 

ground acceleration due to 

surface or underground 

detonations 

To provide weather predic 

qons prior to each 

detonation 

To measure basic blast 

phenomena for an underground detonation 

To analyze the base surge 

resulting from an underground detonation 

SUGAR, 

SUGAR, 

SUGAR, 

UNCLE 

SUGAR, 

SUGAR. 

SUGAR 

SUGAR, 

SUGAR, 

UNCLE 

SUGAR, 

SUGAR, 

SUGAR, 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

UNCLE 

Participants 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory 

Ballistics Research 

Laboratones 

Ballistics Research 

Laboratories 

Naval Special Weapons Unit 

Brookhaven National 

Laboratory 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory 

Air Force Cambridge 

Research Center; 

6531 st Flight Test 

Squadron 

Sandia Corporation 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory 

David Taylor Model Basin 

Ohio River Division 

Laboratories; 

Office, Chief of 

Engineers 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology; 

Office, Chief of 

Engineers 

2060th Mobile Weather 

Squadron 

Stanford Research Institute 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory 

79 
Project 1.1, Ground Acceleration Measurement, was conducted 

at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. The 

principal objective was to study the characteristics of ground 

acceleration resulting from a surface and an underground detonation. Project participants placed accelerometers and pressure 

gauges at an estimated 16 stations located 90 to 930 meters 

south-southwest of the SUGAR ground zero and 60 to 930 meters 

south-southwest of the UNCLE ground zero. A revetted trailer 

2,480 meters south-southwest of each ground zero recorded information registered by the instruments (81). 

Project 1.2a-1, Peak Air Blast Pressures from Shock Velocity 

Measurements, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the 

Ballistics Research Laboratories. The objective was to study 

airblast effects in relation to ground shock effects. Blast 

switches and microphones were placed along a blast line at 

stations located 90 to 910 meters south of the SUGAR ground zero 

and 90 to 470 meters south of the UNCLE ground zero (37). 

Pro,ject 1.2a-2, Transient Ground Mechanical Effects from 

HE and Nuclear Explosions, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE 

by the Ballistics Research Laboratories. Project 1.2a-1 

personnel also took part in this project. The ob,jective was to 

measure ground shock phenomena. One phase of the experiment was 

to measure ground acceleration using self-recording instruments. 

Another phase was to measure ground pressure as a function of 

time and distance from the detonation. To obtain preliminary 

measurements for the SUGAR and UNCLE detonations, participants 

performed the experiment at two high-explosive underground tests 

conducted on 25 August and 3 September. For each of the two 

nuclear detonations, participants placed gauges for measuring 

ground acceleration and pressure at 12 stations 90 to 910 meters 

south of ground zero (4). 

80 
Project 1.2b, Close-in Ground Measurements, was conducted at 

Shot UNCLE by the Naval Special Weapons Unit. The ob,jective was 

to measure, at close ranges, blast phenomena produced by an 

underground nuclear detonation. Pro;ject participants placed 

blast gauges and pressure switches in holes 17 feet deep, the 

same depth at which UNCLE was detonated. The instruments were 

at 31 stations located 1.5 to 100 meters from ground zero. 

Electrical cables transmitted data from each of these gauges to a 

recording station about 2,400 meters from ground zero (45). 

Project 1.3a, Free Air Shock Arrival Times, was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Brookhaven National Laboratory. The 

objective was to measure the time of arrival of the blast wave in 

free air resulting from surface and underground nuclear detonations. Project personnel took measurements with pressure 

gauges suspended from balloons. A telemetry system transmitted 

the pressure data from the gauges to a receiving station about 

eight kilometers from ground zero (92). 

Project 1.3b, Peak Pressure versus Distance in Free Air 

Using Smoke and Rocket Photography, was conducted at Shots SUGAR 

and UNCLE by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. The ob,jective was to 

determine the peak overpressure along the ground and in the air 

above a surface and an underground detonation. Project personnel 

used high-speed photographs of smoke rocket trail distortions to 

measure blast pressures. The night before the detonation, they 

placed smoke rocket launchers at various locations in the shot 

area and positioned cameras 3,750 meters from the UNCLE ground 

zero and 4,570 meters from the SUGAR ground zero (83). 

Pro,ject 1.3c, The Measurement of Free Air Atomic Blast 

Pressures, was conducted at Shot SUGAR by the Air Force Cambridge 

Research Center and the 6531st Flight Test Squadron. The ob.jective was to measure free-air blast pressures using instrumented 

canisters deployed from aircraft. The operation was a preliminary 

83 
test of equipment and techniques anticipated for use in future 

tests. Two B-29 aircraft provided by the 6531st Flight Test 

Squadron, Rome Air Development Center, each dropped four 

canisters. On the ground, radar guided the two B-29s to the 

proper drop point, a telemetry station received pressure data 

from the canisters, and a tracking system monitored the location 

of the canisters (54). 

Project 1.4, Free Air Pressure Measurements, was conducted 

at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Sandia Corporation. The objective was to record blast pressures at ground-level stations for 

both surface and underground detonations. Before Shot SUGAR, 

project participants placed gauges 150 to 1,280 meters from 

ground zero. Before Shot UNCLE, they positioned the gauges 100 

to 950 meters from ground zero (63). 

Pro.ject 1.5a, Transient Ground Displacement Measurement, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. The ob.jective was to measure the transient ground 

displacement caused by a surface and an underground nuclear detonation and to correlate this displacement with ground acceleration and damage to structures. 

Before each shot, project personnel placed markers in the 

ground at ten stations 90 to 580 meters south of ground zero. In 

addition, they oriented a camera station, located 1,530 meters 

east of ground zero, toward the markers. During the detonations, 

the camera filmed the markers' movement resulting from the shots. 

After the shot, participants retrieved the film and measured 

marker displacement (82). 

Pro,ject 1.5b, Detection of Time of Arrival of First Earth 

Motion, was conducted at Shot UNCLE by the David Taylor Model 

Basin. The ob,jective was to obtain information on the time of 

the first detectable earth motion at each of ten stations located 

82 
on a radial line 30 to 180 meters from ground zero. Before the 

detonation, project participants installed electric flash lamps 

at the ten stations and positioned a camera at a station 2,700 

meters east of ground zero. During the detonation, the camera 

recorded the first earth motion at each station as the flash lamp 

was triggered by the earth motion. After the declaration of 

recovery hour, participants retrieved film from the camera (25). 

Project 1.6, Earth Displacement (Shear Shafts), was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Ohio River Division 

Laboratories and the Office, Chief of Engineers. The objective 

was to determine the limits and amounts of permanent displacement 

in areas surrounding earth craters caused by surface and 

underground nuclear detonations. Project participants installed 

instruments in a series of deep shafts 230 meters east and west 

and 300 meters south of ground zero. Several weeks after the 

detonations, they retrieved the data to determine permanent earth 

displacement (87). 

Project 1.7, Ground Acceleration (Shock Pins), was conducted 

at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the Office, Chief of Engineers. The objective was to 

determine if shock pins would furnish reliable data regarding the 

magnitude of ground shock associated with nuclear detonations. 

Before each detonation, project personnel installed metal 

shock pins two feet into the ground at stations about 190 to 380 

meters east and west of ground zero and 170 to 560 meters south 

of ground zero. Participants reentered the shot area after the 

detonation to examine the exterior of each shock pin station. 

Excavating crews later uncovered the shelters, enabling personne 

to photograph the positions of the shock pins (52). 

Project 1(8)b, Air Weather Service Par.ticipation in 

Operation JANGLE, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the 

83 
2060th Mobile Weather Squadron of the Air Weather Service. The 

activity was a continuation of Project 8.2, Air Weather Service 

Participation in Operation BUSTER. The objective, like that of 

Project 8.2, was to gather and report information before each 

detonation regarding the weather, including wind conditions, 

temperature, and humidity. Project personnel worked from a 

weather station at the Control Point and from observation 

stations at Tonopah, Warm Springs, Currant, Pioche, and Alamo, 

Nevada, and at St. George, Utah (67). 

Project 1(9)a, Ground Acceleration, Ground and Air Pressures 

for Underground Tests, was conducted at Shot UNCLE by the 

Stanford Research Institute. The objectives were to: 

• Obtain data for comparing the phenomena 

underground nuclear detonation with the 

phenomena resulting from high-explosive 

of an 

tests 

0 Provide measurements 

and 1.4. 

for Projects 1.1, 1.2a-2, 

Before the detonation, project personnel installed accelerometers 

in the shot area to measure movements of the earth. Following 

the detonation, they retrieved data and compared the information 

with data obtained at the high-explosive tests conducted from 25 

August to 14 October 1951 (34). 

Project 1(9)b, Base Surge Analysis for Nuclear Tests, was 

conducted at Shot UNCLE by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. The 

objective was to compare base surge data from an underground 

nuclear detonation with base surge data from underground highexplosive tests. In conducting the experiment, project personnel 

analyzed photographs of both UNCLE and the high-explosive tests 

(117). 

84 
Program 2, Radiological Phenomena, was designed to determine 

the: 

• Physical, chemical, and radioactive characteristics of fallout 

0 Distribution of fallout at various ranges 

0 Biological hazards resulting from the radiological contamination produced by underground 

and surface detonations. 

Table 4-9 lists the Program 2 projects, all of which were 

conducted at both Shots SUGAR and UNCLE. 

Project 2.la, Gamma Radiation as a Function of Time and 

Distance, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Evans 

Signal Laboratory and the National Bureau of Standards. The 

objective was to measure gamma intensity in order to assess the 

radiation effects of underground and surface bursts. 

Prior to the detonations, project personnel placed radiation 

detecting instruments at various distances from each ground zero. 

The instruments were designed to measure residual gamma radiation 

in the shot area up to 48 hours after the detonation, At shottime, eight or nine project participants operated an instrument 

station five kilometers west of the SUGAR and UNCLE ground zeros. 

At various times after the detonation, pro,ject personnel entered 

the shot area to retrieve data from the instrument stations (27). 

Project 2.lb, Gamma Radiation as a Function of Time with 

Droppable Telemeters, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by 

the Naval Air Development Center. The objective was to measure 

the initial gamma intensity and subsequent fallout intensity from 

each detonation and to measure the gamma intensity in and around 

the SUGAR and UNCLE craters following the burst. The night 

before the detonation, personnel installed telemetering 

instruments at eight-meter intervals 310 to 920 meters northeast 

85 
Table 4-9: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 2, OPERATION JANGLE 

Project Title Objective Participants 

2.la Gamma 

Functron 

Distance 

Radration 

of Time 

as a 

and 

To measure 

Intensities 

gamma radiation Evans Signal Laboratory; 

National Bureau of Standards 

2.lb Gamma Radiation as a 

Functron of Ttme wrth 

Droppable Telemeters 

To measure gamma intensities with instrumented, 

droppable canisters 

Naval Air 

Center 

Development 

2.lc-1 Aerial Survey 

Contamrnated 

of Distant 

Terrain 

To use instrumented 

aircraft to measure 

distant fallout 

Headquarters, Air Force 

2.lc-2 Aenal Survey 

Contamrnated 

of Local 

Terrain 

To measure 

from arrcraft 

onsite fallout Bureau of Aeronautics; 

Air Research and Development Command; 

Wright Air Development 

Center 

2.ld Monitor Survey 

Contamination 

of Ground To determtne the extent and 

magnitude of the SUGAR 

and UNCLE radiation fields 

Naval Radiological Defense 

Laboraton/; 

Radiological Health and 

Safety Group of LASL; 

AFSWP 

2.3-l Total Gamma 

Dosage 

Radratton To determrne the gamma 

radiation exposure resulting 

from surface or underground 

detonatrons 

Evans Signal Laboratory 

2 3-2 Foxhole Shielding 

Radiation 

of Gamma To determine the protection 

afforded by foxholes against 

gamma radiation 

Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories 

2.4a Beta~ray and Gamma-ray 

Energy of Resrdual Con 

tamination 

To evaluate the biologrcal 

hazard of residual beta and 

gamma radiation 

Naval Radiological 

Laboratory 

Defense 

2.4b Gamma Depth Dose 

Measurement in Unit-density 

Material 

To evaluate the biological 

hazard of initial and residual 

radiation 

Naval Medical 

Institute 

Research 

2.4~ Gamma Ray Spectrum 

Measurements of Residual 

Radiatron 

To determine 

spectrum of 

radiation 

the energy 

residual gamma 

Brookhaven 

Laboratory 

National 

2.5a-1 Airborne Particle Studies To determine 

hazards 

airborne fallout Army Chemical Center 

2.5-2 Fallout Partrcle Studies To determine the physical 

and distribution characteristics of fallout 

Naval Radiological 

Laboratory 

Defense 

2.Sa3 Radiochemical 

Large Particles 

Studies of To study the chemical 

radiological composition 

fallout 

and 

of 

Army Medical Service 

Graduate School 

86 
Table 4-9: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 2, OPERATION 

JANGLE (CONTINUED) 

I 

Project Title Objective Participants 

2.6a Remotely Controlled To obtain samples of the Evans Signal Laboratory; 

Sampling Techniques crater lip shortly after each Coles Srgnal Laboratory 

detonation 

2.6c-1 Nature and Distribution of 

Residual Contamination I 

Nature and Distribution of 

Residual Contamination II 

Retnevable Missiles for 

Remote Ground Sampling 

2.7 Biological Injury from Particle 

Inhalation 

2.8 Analysis of Test Site and 

Fallout Material 

To determine the nature of 

contamination in soil following surface or underground 

detonations 

To determine the characteristics of radioactwe soil 

samples 

To evaluate a method of 

obtaining soil samples from 

contaminated areas 

To estimate the inhalation 

hazards assocrated with 

surface and underground 

detonations 

To evaluate potential agricultural hazards associated 

with fallout 

National Institutes of Health; 

Publrc Health Servtce 

Naval Radrological Defense 

Laboraton/; 

Evans Signal Laboraton/ 

National Institutes of Health, 

Pubk Health Serwce 

National Institutes of Health 

Depanment of Agriculture 

of ground zero. The instruments transmitted data to the Program 

1 station on shot-day. Project personnel entered this station 

several hours before the detonation and operated equipment during 

the detonation and for 15 to 25 minutes after the detonation. 

Two hours after the shot, a Navy P2V-2 aircraft dropped radiac 

telemetry units to monitor residual radiation in and around the 

craters. These instruments transmitted data to the aircraft and 

to a station at an unspecified location (21). 

Pro,ject 2.lc-1, Aerial Survey of Distant Contaminated 

Terrain, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by Headquarters, 

Air Force. The ob,jectives were to determine by instrumented 

aircraft the radiation levels of fallout from the cloud and to 

test the efficiency of various airborne instruments in detecting 

87 
radioactivity (53). The aircraft involved in the project were 

under the operational control of SWC and are discussed in section 

4.3. 

Pro,ject 2.lc-2, Aerial Survey of Local Contaminated Terrain, 

was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Navy Bureau of 

Aeronautics, Air Force Air Research and Development Command, and 

Wright Air Development Center. The objective was to test the 

ability of airborne radiac equipment to detect gamma-emitting 

radioactive contamination on the ground. 

For each detonation, two instrumented aircraft, a Navy P2V-2 

and an Air Force B-17, orbited about eight kilometers away at 

altitudes of 8,000 feet and 10,000 feet, respectively. From 

shot-time to about one hour later, participants aboard the aircraft monitored and recorded radiation levels. After that, the 

aircraft surveyed the shot area by making numerous runs at 

altitudes of 500 to 2,000 feet over the crater and its vicinity. 

Upon completing their mission, the aircraft returned to Kirtland 

AFB (108). 

Project 2.ld, Monitor Survey of Ground Contamination, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Radiological 

Defense Laboratory, the Radiological Health and Safety Group of 

LASL, and AFSWP. The objective was to determine the extent and 

magnitude of the radiation fields in the SUGAR and UNCLE areas as 

measured by survey teams. At various times up to one month after 

each detonation, the teams monitored radiation in the shot areas 

from Project 2.la and 2.ld stations (66). 

Project 2.3-1, Total Gamma Radiation Dosage, was conducted 

at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Evans Signal Laboratory. The 

objective was to use various types of dosimeters to determine 

gamma radiation exposure. Before each detonation, project 

88 
participants placed dosimeters at stations 300 meters to 15 

kilometers in various directions from each ground zero. Two days 

after each detonation, participants recovered the dosimeters, 

which were sent to the laboratory for analysis (43). 

Project 2.3-2, Foxhole Shielding of Gamma Radiation, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories. The ob,jective was to evaluate the 

protection afforded by foxholes against gamma radiation emitted 

from surface and underground nuclear detonations. Project 

personnel constructed one- and two-man foxholes 610 to 1,530 

meters northeast of each ground zero. They placed dosimeters at 

various locations inside the foxholes and recovered the 

dosimeters after the detonation (113). 

Pro,ject 2.4a, Beta-ray and Gamma-ray Energy of Residual 

Contamination, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the 

Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The objective was to 

determine the energy spectra of residual beta and gamma radiation. Project personnel used film packets, ionization chambers, 

and survey meters for the study. They placed these dosimeters at 

stations in the field before each detonation and retrieved them 

at various times up to four days after the detonation (111). 

Project 2.4b, Gamma Depth Dose Measurement in Unit-density 

Material, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval 

Medical Research Institute. The ob,jective was to determine dose 

caused by initial and residual gamma radiation. Project 

participants placed instrumented phantoms (mannequins made of 

material approximating the density of human tissue) at five 

locations in each shot area. Four participants retrieved the 

phantoms one hour after the announcement of recovery hour (22). 

Project 2.4c, Gamma Ray Spectrum Measurements of Residual 

Radiation, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by Brookhaven 

89 
National Laboratory. The objective was to determine the energy 

spectrum of residual gamma radiation resulting from an underground and a surface nuclear detonation. Project personnel drove 

a truck, containing a spectrometer and other supporting instrumentation, into a number of radiation areas at times ranging from 

two hours to four days after the detonation. Personnel remained 

at each location for about an hour taking measurements (5). 

Project 2.5a-1, Airborne Particle Studies, was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Army Chemical Center. The ob.jective 

was to determine fallout particle characteristics associated with 

surface and underground nuclear detonations. Project participants placed several types of instruments, including samplers and 

fallout trays, at 46 stations located out to 15 kilometers 

northeast of ground zero. After the announcement of recovery 

hour, they retrieved the samples, which were shipped for analysis 

to the Army Chemical Center (95). 

Project 2.5a-2, Fallout Particle Studies, was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The objective was to determine the chemical and physical 

properties and the distribution of fallout associated with 

surface and underground detonations. Project participants placed 

aerosol and fallout collectors at distances of 610 to 6,100 

meters northwest to northeast of ground zero. The instruments 

were activated by remote control five minutes before the 

detonation. Thirty minutes after the detonation, a helicopter 

flew to the instrument area to pick up fallout trays with 

grappling hooks. Project personnel then transported the trays 

from the helicopter transfer station to the Control Point. Other 

samples and trays were retrieved by ground parties after recovery 

hour. The samples were shipped for analysis to the Naval 

Radiological Defense Laboratory (91). 

90 
Project 2.5a-3, Radiochemical Studies of Large Particles, 

was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Army Medical 

Service Graduate School. The objective was to study the size, 

radioactivity, and chemical composition of fallout particles 

resulting from both underground and surface nuclear detonations. 

Project 2.5a-1 personnel collected samples in fallout trays 

located out to 23 kilometers northeast of ground zero. Project 

2.5a-3 personnel performed the analysis (75). 

Pro.ject 2.6a, Remotely Controlled Sampling Techniques, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by Evans Signal Laboratory and 

Coles Signal Laboratory. The objective was to obtain samples 

from the crater lip soon after each detonation for radiochemical 

studies and spectrometer measurements. Samples were taken from 

areas around the crater and from about five meters within the 

crater using remotely controlled weasels, vehicles resembling 

tractors. Project participants controlled the activity from a 

tower about 1,830 meters from each crater (44). 

Project 2.6c-1, Nature and Distribution of Residual Contamination I, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the National 

Institutes of Health and the Public Health Service. The objective was to determine the characteristics of radioactivity in the 

soil, as a function of soil depth and distance. After each 

detonation, project participants used remotely controlled weasels 

to collect soil samples from the crater lips and retrievable 

rockets to collect samples from within the craters (73). 

Project 2.6c-2, Nature and Distribution of Residual Contamination II, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval 

Radiological Defense Laboratory and Evan

experiment was performed in conjunction 

objective was to determine the following 

s 

w

Signal 

ith 

characte

Laboratory. 

Pro,ject 2.6a. 

ristics of 

The 

The 

radioactive soil samples: 

0 The relative amounts of neutron-i

fission product radionuclides 

nduced and 

91 
0 The beta and gamma energies

0 The gross decay rates 

0 The leaching behavior of radioactive elements.

After each detonation, Pro,ject 2.6c-2 participants analyzed the 

samples collected by Project 2.6a personnel (8). 

Project 2.6c-3, Retrievable Missiles for Remote Ground 

Sampling, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the National 

Institutes of Health and the Public Health Service. The objective was to develop and field-test an inexpensive method for 

obtaining soil samples from areas that personnel could not enter 

because of radiological conditions. The second day after each 

detonation, project participants went to a location about 320 

meters from ground zero and launched several rockets with 

attached lines into the crater areas. The rockets penetrated the 

soil in the crater and took samples on impact. Participants then 

dragged the rockets out of the area by the attached lines and 

returned the samples to the laboratory for analysis. They 

repeated this procedure on the third day after Shot UNCLE (74). 

Project 2.7, Biological Injury from Particle Inhalation, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the National Institutes of 

Health. The ob,jective was to estimate the inhalation of particles 

associated with surface and underground nuclear detonations. 

Project participants placed dogs and sheep at various distances 

from each detonation. To correlate internal with external 

exposure, they placed film badges with the animals. Following 

the detonation, personnel retrieved the animals. The animals 

were later studied to determine the amount of radioactivity 

inhaled (104). 

Project 2.8, Analysis of Test Site and Fallout Material, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Department of Agriculture, under contract to the AEC. The objective was to evaluate 

92 
potential agricultural problems related to the fallout from 

surface and underground nuclear detonations. Project personnel 

collected soil samples in the shot area before both shots and 

again 72 hours after Shot SUGAR and 48 hours after Shot UNCLE 

(5). 

Program 3, Blast Effects on Structures, studied blast 

effects on a variety of structures of interest to the Departments 

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. One of the pro,jects investigated the characteristics of soil in the vicinity of an underground nuclear detonation. Another project provided instrumentation for all of the structures so that project personnel 

could measure blast pressures for correlation with blast effects. 

Table 4-10 lists the Program 3 pro,jects, which were conducted 

only at Shot UNCLE. 

Table 4-10: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 3, OPERATION JANGLE 

Project Title Objective Participants 

3.1 Navy Underground and Sur- To determine the response Bureau of Yards and Docks 

face Structures of various structures to blast 

pressures from an underground detonation 

3.2 Army Structures Test To determine the response Office, Chief of Engtneers; 

of various structures to an Massachusetts lnstrtute of 

underground detonation Technology 

3.3 Air Force Structures To determine the response Air Materiel Command; 

of various structures to blast Armour Research Foundation 

pressures from an underground detonation 

3.28 Structure Instrumentation To install and instrument Sandra Corporation 

structures for Project5 3.1, 

3.2, and 3.3 

3.29 Engineer Soil Mechanics To determine soil character- Naval Civil Engineering 

Test istics in the vicinity of an Research and Evaluation 

underground detonation Laboratory 

93 
condu

Project 3.1, Navy Underground and Surface 

cted at Shot UNCLE by the Bureau of Yards 

Structures, 

and Docks. 

was 

The 

objectives were to: 

0 Determine 

concrete 

resulting 

the response of different precast 

structures to blast pressures 

from an underground detonation 

0 Determine the response 

building and two types 

to airblast 

of a light steel 

of communication towers 

0 Observe 

utility 

the effect of ground shock 

installations and sections 

on standard 

of pavement. 

Test structures, instrumented with gauges to document blast 

pressures, strain, and displacement, were located south to 

southwest of ground zero. Project personnel recorded the data 

supplied by the gauges, while LASL personnel photographed these 

structures before and after the detonation (56). 

Project 3.2, Army Structures Test, was conducted at Shot 

UNCLE by the Office, Chief of Engineers, and the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology. The experiment tested eight structures 

to determine the dynamic loads produced by the detonation and to 

obtain data for the design of structures that could resist the 

effects of such a detonation. Project participants built one 

underground structure 70 meters from ground zero and seven 

surface structures 130 to 270 meters from ground zero. They 

instrumented the structures to measure accelerations, pressures, 

displacements, and strains. LASL personnel photographed the 

structures both before and after the detonation (51). 

Project 3.3, Air Force Structures, was conducted at Shot 

UNCLE by the Air Materiel Command and the Armour Research 

Foundation. The objective was to determine the effectiveness of 

an underground detonation in destroying military, industrial, and 

commercial structures. The project tested 11 different structures, including reinforced concrete retaining walls and circular 

concrete cells. Project personnel erected the structures 100 to 

94 
320 meters from ground zero. They instrumented the structures 

with devices for measuring blast pressure and strain (6). 

Project 3.28, Structure Instrumentation, involved a crew of 

Sandia Corporation personnel who supported the structure projects 

conducted during Shot UNCLE. The crew installed instruments, 

operated the instruments by remote control during the detonation, 

and prepared records of the activities for other pro,ject teams. 

Before the detonation, project personnel laid cables between 

test structures and shelters, installed power equipment, mounted 

relay and timer panels, tested and installed components, and 

calibrated systems for electronic and recording instruments. 

They completed their work one day prior to the detonation. At 

shot-time, they were working from facilities located near the 

structures area and to the southwest of ground zero. After the 

declaration of recovery hour, participants collected data and 

retrieved test equipment (70). 

Pro,ject 3.29, Engineer Soil Mechanics Test, was conducted at 

Shot UNCLE by the Naval Civil Engineering Research and Evaluation 

Laboratory. The pro,ject was designed to determine the characteristics, properties, and behaviors of the soil types located in 

the vicinity of the detonation. Several weeks after the detonation, project personnel made 57 soil borings near ground zero. 

Fourteen of these borings were within 90 meters of ground zero. 

To obtain profiles of the soil, project personnel conducted 

laboratory analyses of the samples (12). 

Program 4, Special Phenomena, was to determine the visible 

phenomena resulting from underground and surface nuclear detonations. Program personnel relied extensively on photographs to 

evaluate these phenomena. Table 4-11 indicates the Program 4 

pro*jects conducted at JANGLE. 

95 
Table 4-11: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 4, OPERATION JANGLE 

4.la-1 

4.la-2 

4.2 

4.5 

me 

Aerial Technical Photography 

Ground Technical Photo 

graphy Material Operations 

Photographic Analysis 

Cratering Effects of 

Underground-surface 

Detonated Atomic Bombs 

and Influence of Soil 

Characteristics on Crater 

Characteristics of Missiles 

from Underground Nuclear 

Explosions 

Objective 

To provide technical and 

documentary films of 

phenomena during Operation 

JANGLE 

To document cloud 

formation, crater develop 

ment, and blast damage 

To analyze photographs 

taken for Project 4.la-1 

To determine the physical 

characteristics of craters and 

lips formed by surface and 

underground detonations 

To determine damage pro 

duced by debris projected 

from an underground 

detonation 

Shots 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

UNCLE 

Participants 

Wright Air Development 

Center 

Wright Air Development 

Center 

Wright Air Development 

Center 

Naval Civil Engineering 

Research and Evaluation 

Laboratorv 

Stanford Research Institute 

Project 4.1, Aerial Technical Photography, was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Technical Photographic Service 

Branch of the Wright Air Development Center. The objective was 

to provide technical and documentary films of physical phenomena 

associated with Operation JANGLE. Pro,ject personnel at WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio, outfitted three C-47 aircraft with special 

cameras and controls for the activity. The first aircraft was to 

photograph base surge and shock wave phenomena, the second was to 

cover the initial cloud growth and shock wave phenomena, and the 

third was to photograph the entire development of the cloud with 

respect to target layout. The aircraft staged from Indian 

Springs AFB (28). 

Pro,ject 4.la-1, Ground Technical Photography Material Operations, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Technical 

Photographic Service Branch of the Wright Air Development Center. 

The objective was to document basic physical phenomena associated 

96 
with the detonations. At Shot SUGAR, the specific purpose was to 

photograph the cloud formation. At Shot UNCLE, the purpose was 

to photograph blast damage phenomena and crater development. 

Personnel placed cameras in towers and on the surface at various 

ranges from ground zero (9). 

Project 4.la-2, Photographic Analysis, was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Technical Photographic Service 

Branch of the Wright Air Development Center. The objective was 

to analyze the photographs taken by Pro,ject 4.la-1 to determine 

the cloud and column dimensions and the time of disintegration, 

damage, or movement of structures. 

Pro,ject 4.2, Cratering Effects of Underground-surface 

Detonated Atomic Bombs and Influence of Soil Characteristics on 

Crater, was performed at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Civil 

Engineering Research and Evaluation Laboratory. The pro.ject was 

to determine the precise dimensions of the craters. Project 

personnel took soil samples 15, 30, 60, and 90 meters from ground 

zero at radii of 45 degrees (11). 

Project 4.5, Characteristics of Missiles from Underground 

Nuclear Explosions, was conducted at Shot UNCLE by the Stanford 

Research Institute. The ob,jective was to obtain data on the 

damage produced by debris e,jected by an underground nuclear 

detonation. At least 28 days before the test, pro,ject personnel 

constructed a group of concrete highway strips and an array of 

walls. The highway strips each contained a specific substance, 

such as aluminum nails or crushed red brick. Pro.ject participants laid out the highway slabs at distances of five to 

90 meters west of ground zero. They built the wall sections on a 

different line extending six to 16 meters from ground zero. 

After the detonation, they tracked down the fragmentary missiles 

and recorded the direction and distances traveled (112). 

97 
Program 6, Tests of Service Equipment and Operations, was to 

evaluate the operational suitability of techniques and equipment 

developed for use in conjunction with the military deployment of 

nuclear weapons. These techniques included indirect bomb damage 

assessment and decontamination methods, and the equipment 

included radiac instruments and air filtration systems. The 

pro.jects that were part of the program at JANGLE are shown in 

table 4-12. 

Project 6.1, Evaluation of Military Radiac Equipment, was 

conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Evans Signal Laboratory 

and the Bureau of Ships. The purpose was to field-test military 

radiac equipment. Project and radiological safety personnel used 

the radiac instruments in their operations and then prepared 

evaluation reports (42). 

Project 6.2, Protection and Decontamination of Land Targets 

and Vehicles, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval 

Radiological Defense Laboratory, the Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories, the Army Chemical Center, and the 

Office, Chief of Engineers. The project consisted of ten 

experiments designed generally to d(:cermine the effectiveness of 

various decontamination methods. These experiments, identified 

by titles and described in the next ten paragraphs, constituted 

the first extensive field test of decontamination procedures 

(36). 

Land Reclamation by Surface Techniques was conducted at Shot 

SUGAR by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The objectives were to determine the effectiveness of standard earthmoving techniques in reducing the radiation intensity in 

radioactively contaminated undeveloped land areas and to provide 

basic data for evaluating exposures of operating crews. 

Land Reclamation by Barrier Techniques was conducted at Shot 

SUGAR by the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories. 

98 
Table 4-12: WEAPONS 

Project Title 

6.1 Evaluation of Military Radiac 

Equipment 

6.2 Protection and Decontamination of Land Targets and 

Vehicles 

6.3-l Evaluation of Military Individual and Collective 

Protection Device and 

Clothing 

6.3-2 Evaluation of Potential Pespiratory Hazards Associated 

with Vehicular Operations in 

a Radioactively Contaminated Area 

6.4 Operational Tests of Techniques for Accomplishing 

IBDA 

6.7 Clothing Decontamination 

and Evaluation of Laundry 

Methods 

6.8 Evaluation of U.S. Army 

Field Water Supply Equip 

ment and Operations 

EFFECTS TESTS 

Objective 

To field-test military radiac 

equipment 

To field-test decontamination procedures 

To determine the adequacy 

of protective equipment 

To estimate the inhalation 

hazard for personnel in 

armored vehicles 

To field-test radar and 

photographic equipment for 

IBDA use 

To test the suitability of a 

laundry method for decontaminating clothing 

To determine blast, thermal, 

and radiation effects on 

water storage tanks 

OF PROGRAM 

Shots 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

SUGAR, UNCLE 

6, OPERATION JANGLE 

Participants 

Evans Signal Laboratory; 

Bureau of Ships 

Naval Radiological Defense 

Laboratory; 

Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories; 

Army Chemical Center; 

Office, Chief of Engineers 

Army Chemical Center 

Ballistics Research 

Laboratories; 

Army Field Forces Board 

Number 2 Test Team; 

Army Chemical Center 

Wright Air Development 

Center 

9135th Test Support Unit; 

Office of the Quartermaster General; 

Evans Signal Laboratory 

Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories 

99 
This test was to measure the reduction of radiation intensity 

within radioactively contaminated regions in areas protected by 

earth barriers. 

Flame Decontamination was conducted at Shot UNCLE by the 

Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. This experiment involved 

testing a flame decontamination unit on surfaces of wood, asphalt, 

and concrete contaminated by fallout from the detonation. 

Decontamination of Paved Areas was performed at Shots SUGAR 

and UNCLE by the Army Chemical Center. The ob,jective was to 

determine the merits of various decontamination methods and 

equipment in removing superficial contamination from paved roads. 

Figure 4-1 shows personnel measuring radiation intensities on 

asphalt. 

Decontamination of Test Structures was conducted at Shot 

UNCLE by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The test was 

designed to determine the effectiveness of three cleaning methods 

in decontaminating buildings: water washing with a fire hose; 

hot liquid cleaning with a mixture of steam, hot water, and 

detergent; and vacuum cleaning. 

Decontamination of Construction Materials was performed at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Office, Chief of Engineers. The 

test was designed to determine the decontaminability of coated 

and uncoated surfaces of construction materials used by the Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Contamination-Decontamination Phenomenology was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The ob,jective was to study the effects of structure orientation and surface condition on the amount of contamination 

deposited and subsequently removed in decontamination operations. 

100 

Test of Materials was conducted at Shot UNCLE by the 

Chemical and Radiological Laboratory of the Army Chemical Center. 

The purpose was to study the decontaminability of materials 

commonly used for military purposes. The Army Chemical Center, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the Signal Corps supplied materials 

for this test. 

Decontamination of Vehicles was conducted at Shots SUGAR and 

UNCLE by the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories. The 

purpose was to evaluate methods and techniques used to decontaminate military vehicles, including trucks and tanks. Another 

ob;iective was to study the amount of shielding afforded personnel 

by these vehicles. 

Measurement experiments were conducted at Shots SUGAR and 

UNCLE by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The ob.jective 

was to evaluate equipment and methods used to monitor the progress 

of decontamination operations (36). 

Pro,ject 6.3-1, Evaluation of Military Individual and Collective Protection Device and Clothing, was conducted at Shots SUGAR 

and UNCLE by the Army Chemical Center. The objective was to 

determine the adequacy of protective equipment for use in 

radioactive areas. Project participants positioned racks of 

protective clothing in the forward area. They also positioned 

two tanks with their hatches open and placed clothing in the 

personnel positions within the tanks (62). 

Project 6.3-2, Evaluation of Potential Respiratory Hazards 

Associated with Vehicular Operations in a Radioactively Contaminated Area, was performed at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the 

Ballistics Research Laboratories, the Army Field Forces Board 

Number 2 Test Team, and the Army Chemical Center. The objective 

was to gain data for estimating the potential inhalation hazard 

for personnel in armored vehicles exposed to a nuclear detonation 

or operating in areas contaminated with fission product fallout 

102 
from a nuclear detonation. Two M26 tanks and one M59 personnel 

carrier were positioned in the shot area (38). 

Project 6.4, Operational Tests of Techniques for Accomplishing Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment, was conducted at Shot UNCLE 

by the Wright Air Development Center. (The project was numbered 

6.5 for Operation BUSTER.) The objective was to test, under 

operational conditions, radar and photography equipment as a 

means of determining ground zero, height-of-burst, and yield of a 

nuclear detonation. With measurements gathered by strike aircraft, it would then be possible to assess the effect of the 

nuclear detonation on enemy installations. For this project, two 

B-50 and one B-29 aircraft, instrumented with radar equipment and 

cameras, took photographs and recorded data following the detonation. The aircraft were attached to Project 8.4 (55; 65). 

Project 6.7, Clothing Decontamination and Evaluation of 

Laundry Methods, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the 

following: 

a 12 participants from Detachment 7, 9135th Test 

Support Unit, Fort Lee, Virginia 

0 Two participants from the Office of the 

Quartermaster General 

0 One participant from the Evans Signal 

Laboratory. 

The main objective was to test the suitability of a laundry 

formula developed during Operation GREENHOUSE for the removal of 

radioactive contamination from clothing. A second objective was 

to field-test experimental survey instruments used to monitor 

levels of clothing contamination. Pro;ject personnel surveyed and 

washed the clothing used by personnel from Pro,iects 6.2 and 6.3 

(64). 

Project 6.8, Evaluation of U.S. Army Field Water Supply 

Equipment and Operations, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE 

by the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories. The 

103 
ob,jective was to determine the resistance of water storage tanks 

to the blast and thermal effects of a nuclear detonation. In 

addition, the pro,ject investigated the potential problem of 

radioactive contamination of field water supplies. 

For the first part of the pro,ject, participants placed 

filled water tanks at various distances from the SUGAR ground 

zero. The closest tank was 460 meters northeast of the shot. 

For the second part, participants monitored the water in the 

tanks for radioactive contamination. Because water tanks were 

not used at UNCLE, project personnel calculated the contamination 

that water in tanks would have received had tanks been located in 

the path of the fallout (72). 

Program 7, Long-range Detection, tested equipment used in 

detecting nuclear detonations at long ranges. The equipment 

included seismographs and acoustic sensors. As shown in table 

4-13, the program involved four pro,jects. Each of these projects 

was conducted at both Shots SUGAR and UNCLE. 

Table 4-13: WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS OF PROGRAM 7, OPERATION JANGLE 

Project Title Objective Participants 

7.la Transport of Radiation To determine the distribution Headquarters, Air Force; 

Debris of airborne radioactive Air Weather Service 

debris 

7.lb Radiochemical, Chemical, To analyze debris obtained Headquarters, Air Force; 

and Physical Analysis of in cloud-sampling missions 4925th Test Group 

Atomic Bomb Debris 

7.2 Seismic Waves from To study seismic wave prop- 1009th Special Weapons 

A-Bombs Detonated over a agation from nuclear Squadron; 

Land Mass detonations Naval Ordnance Laboraton 

Wright Air Development 

Center; 

Coast and Geodetic Survr 

7.3 Airborne Low-frequency To evaluate acoustic Naval Electronics Laboratol 

Sound from the Atomic detection equipment Signal Corps Engineering 

Explosions during Opera- Laboratories; 

tions BUSTER and JANGLE National Bureau of 

Standards 

104 
Project 7.la, Transport of Radiation Debris, was conducted 

at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by Headquarters, Air Force, and the Air 

Weather Service. The objective was to determine the distribution 

of airborne debris from a nuclear detonation. Aircraft tracked 

the debris at various distances from the Nevada Proving Ground 

(103). Cloud tracking is described in section 4.3 of this 

chapter, on Air Force support missions during Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE. 

Project 7.lb, Radiochemical, Chemical, and Physical Analysis 

of Atomic Bomb Debris, was performed at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE in 

conjunction with sampling operations conducted by Headquarters, 

Air Force, and the 4925th Test Group (Atomic) (103). Cloudsampling operations are discussed in section 4.3 of this chapter. 

Project 7.2, Seismic Waves from A-Bombs Detonated over a 

Land Mass, was conducted at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the 1009th 

Special Weapons Squadron, the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, the 

Acoustics Research Division of the Wright Air Development Center, 

and the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The objective was to study 

seismic waves propagated by nuclear detonations. Project 

personnel obtained data from six onsite stations, as well as from 

a number of offsite stations (29). 

Project 7.3, Airborne Low-frequency Sound from the Atomic 

Explosions during Operations BUSTER and JANGLE, was conducted at 

Shots SUGAR and UNCLE by the Naval Electronics Laboratory, Signal 

Corps Engineering Laboratories, and National Bureau of Standards. 

The objective was to determine the range and reliability of 

acoustic detection equipment for continental nuclear explosions 

of various yields (88). 

Program 8, Supporting Measurements, provided technical 

support to AFSWP personnel. This program included one project at 

Operation JANGLE. 

105 
Pro,iect 8.4, Technical Photography for IBDA Project, was 

conducted at Shot UNCLE by the Air Force Lookout Mountain Laboratory. The purpose was to provide technical and documentary 

photography for Pro,ject 6.4, Operational Tests of Techniques for 

Accomplishing Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment. Lookout Mountain 

Laboratory personnel took photographs from two B-50 and one B-29 

aircraft (55; 65). 

4.2 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INVOLVEMENT IN PROGRAMS OF THE WEAPONS 

DEVELOPMENT TEST UNIT 

The test organization coordinated the activities of the 

Weapons Development Test Unit, as well as those of the Weapons 

Effects Test Unit. The Weapons Development Test Unit experiments 

were primarily conducted by LASL. LASL fielded one program with 

an unknown number of projects during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 

Department of Defense participation was limited to Project 10.4, 

Radiochemical Results. 

Project 10.4 was conducted at all BUSTER-JANGLE shots. The 

project required the collection of cloud samples, performed by 

the 4925th Test Group (Atomic) (105). Cloud-sampling missions 

are discussed in the next section. 

4.3 AIR FORCE SUPPORT MISSIONS AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

The Air Force, particularly the Special Weapons Command, 

played a major operational and support role in many of the scientific and military test programs. Based at Kirtland AFB in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, SWC used Kirtland AFB and Indian Springs 

AFB in Nevada as its principal staging areas during the testing. 

Figure 4-2 presents a photograph of Indian Springs AFB in 1951. 

SWC provided most of the aircraft and personnel required for 

bomb-drop missions, cloud-sampling missions, cloud-tracking 

missions, aerial surveys, and other air support as requested by 

106 
the test organization. The principal SWC units involved in 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE were the 4925th Test Group (Atomic) and 

the 4901st Support Wing. SWC participation is summarized in 

table 4-14 (40; 47; 55; 107). 

Table 4-14: SWC MISSION SUPPORT AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

Bomb 

Drop 

Cloud 

Sampling •

Courier 

Service I 

. 0 

0 0 •

Aerial 

Survey I L 

The 4925th Test Group (Atomic) exercised operational control 

over all military aircraft participating in Operation BUSTERJANGLE. Stationed at the Control Point, an operations officer 

from the 4925th assumed control of the aircraft in NPG airspace. 

Specific duties of the 4925th included: 

0 Providing and operating the B-45 and B-50 bomb 

delivery aircraft and the spare aircraft for bomb 

delivery 

Assigning aircraft and crews for cloud-sampling, 

cloud-tracking, and aerial survey operations. 

0 

The 4901st Support Wing (Atomic), composed of the 4905th 

Maintenance and Supply Group, 4901st Air Base Group, and the 

4920th Medical Group, was responsible for most of the logistics 

107 

and maintenance activities required for air operations. 

Responsibilities of the 4901st included (55): 

a Providing and operating C-47 disaster aircraft to 

accompany bomb-drop aircraft 

0 Providing and operating courier aircraft.

In addition, the 4901st was responsible for decontamination 

operations at Indian Springs AFB, as discussed in chapter 5. A 

total of 307 personnel from the 4901st participated at BUSTERJANGLE (55). 

Bomb Drop 

A B-50 aircraft operated by personnel from the 4925th Test 

Group (Atomic) delivered the nuclear bombs for Shots BAKER, 

CHARLIE, and DOG. The aircraft, staging from Kirtland AFB, 

arrived over the NPG two hours before each shot. Flying at a 

height of 19,000 feet over Area 7, each aircraft made three 

practice bomb runs before releasing the bomb. The bomb runs 

were from east to west over the ground zero area. 

A B-45 manned by personnel from the 4925th Test Group 

(Atomic) delivered the nuclear device for EASY. Staging out of 

Kirtland AFB, it probably arrived over the NPG two hours before 

shot-time. It made two practice bomb runs. The bomb run was 

from east to west at a height of 24,000 feet over Area 7 (55). 

Each drop aircraft was accompanied by a C-47 disaster 

aircraft from the 4901st Support Wing (Atomic). Staging from 

Kirtland AFB, the C-47 maintained contact with the drop aircraft 

during its flight to the NPG. In the event that the drop 

aircraft crashed or was forced to jettison the bomb, the C-47 

would attempt to land or parachute its team of radiological 

safety, salvage, and security personnel as near as possible to 

the accident site. The disaster team would secure the area, 

provide first aid, and salvage the nuclear component of the 

weapon (55). 

109 
Cloud Sampling 

An important ob,jective of Operation BUSTER-JANGLE was to 

obtain samples of fission products from nuclear detonations so 

that the yield and efficiency of the nuclear devices could be 

determined. The 4925th Test Group (Atomic) assigned aircraft and 

personnel to collect samples of particulate debris from clouds 

following a detonation. The 57th Strategic Reconnaissance 

Squadron (Weather) of Hickam AFB, Hawaii, provided the B-29 

sampler aircraft, their crews, and their maintenance personnel. 

The Air Proving Ground of Eglin AFB, Florida, provided the T-33 

samplers, their crews, and their maintenance personnel. Cloud 

samples were collected for the Weapons Effects Test Unit Project 

7.3 of the BUSTER shots and Project 7.lb of the JANGLE events, 

Radiochemical, Chemical, and Physical Analysis of Atomic Bomb 

Debris. Samples were also obtained for the Weapons Development 

Test Unit Project 10.4, Radiochemical Results (55). 

The plan was to obtain the best possible samples with the 

lowest crew exposure. Since the allowable exposure for BUSTERJANGLE was 3.9 roentgens per individual, a maximum of 0.75 roentgen was allowed for participation at each shot. 

While B-29s were the primary cloud sampling aircraft, T-33 

aircraft were used experimentally. The T-33s, Jet aircraft, were 

considered more effective samplers for several reasons (40; 55): 

0 Fewer people were exposed to nuclear radiation 

because of the reduction in the size of the crew 

(eight to ten crew members in a B-29 versus a crew 

of two in a T-33). 

0 The higher speed resulted in quicker collection of 

the necessary samples with less radiation exposure 

to the aircrew, thus allowing a sampling team to 

accomplish more before it reached its maximum allowable radiation exposure. 

The higher altitude capability resulted in the 

collection of samples that formerly could not be 

obtained because of altitude limitations of the 

propeller-driven aircraft. 

0 

110 
a Fresher samples were available for analysis because 

of the shorter time necessary to return the samples 

to the landing strip for removal and subsequent air 

shipment to the research laboratory. 

0 It was easier to decontaminate the T-33 because it 

had only one engine to decontaminate instead of the 

four engines of the B-29. 

Procedures to ready the aircraft for cloud penetration were 

modified during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. For most of the BUSTER 

shots, the B-29 aircraft were depressurized before the initial 

cloud penetration. The depressurized condition caused the windshield to frost over, which limited visual reference to the 

cloud. The depressurized condition also allowed a rapid drop in 

temperature, which made the crew uncomfortable and reduced its 

efficiency. To resolve these problems, SWC personnel experimented with a filter pressurization system at Shot EASY. With 

this system, the B-29 sampler remained pressurized during its 

entire mission. After the mission, the crew space registered no 

contamination (40; 55). 

The standard procedures for cloud sampling are described in 

the following paragraphs, while shot-specific information on 

sampling is in the BUSTER-JANGLE multi-shot volumes. 

The B-29 and T-33 sampling crews received briefings about 

two hours before their flights. A radiological safety officer, 

who worked with the pilot in determining the flight pattern and 

altitude of the aircraft, flew on each sampling mission (40; 55). 

After reaching its altitude, each B-29 held a counterclockwise racetrack pattern eight kilometers wide and 48 kilometers long, with the south end of the pattern over Indian 

Springs. Each T-33 held a counterclockwise circular pattern 

above a point 16 kilometers west of Indian Springs AFB (40; 55). 

111 
From the Control Point, the Air Operations Officer vectored 

the B-29s toward the cloud. The T-33s left base after the B-29s 

had determined the location of the cloud. Because the T-33s had 

a limited flying range, it was necessary to direct them to the 

exact cloud location (40; 55). 

In general, the first pass at the cloud was tangential. If 

exposures, as read from pocket dosimeters, were less than 0.6 

roentgens, the samplers made a second pass through the center of 

the visible cloud. If the exposure readings on the first pass 

were between 0.6 and 1 roentgen, the aircraft delayed the second 

pass for 15 minutes. Samplers made successive passes through the 

cloud center until their pocket dosimeters read 1.2 roentgens. 

The pocket dosimeter readings, as indicated by past experience, 

were about twice as high as film badge readings. When the pocket 

dosimeters showed 1.2 roentgens per hour (R/h), the aircraft 

returned to Indian Springs AFB. At Indian Springs, sample 

removal teams used long-handled tongs to remove filters from the 

aircraft and to place them in lead containers for delivery to 

LASL and other laboratories for analysis (40; 47; 55; 107). 

Courier Service 

The purpose of the SWC courier service was to deliver cloud 

samples and experimental material from BUSTER-JANGLE research 

projects to laboratories for analysis. The 4901st Support Wing 

(Atomic) provided B-25 and C-47 aircraft for the flights. In 

addition, Carco, an AEC contractor, supplied a C-54 and two twinengine aircraft for the missions (40; 55; 61). 

Cloud Tracking 

Cloud tracking was another program conducted by the Special 

Weapons Command. Its objective was to record the path of the 

cloud and to monitor its radiation intensity in order to expedite 

airway clearance for commercial aircraft. The 57th Strategic 

Reconnaissance Squadron (Weather) provided the B-29 cloud 

112 
trackers, their crews, and their maintenance personnel. Each 

aircraft was fitted with standard radiological instruments and 

dosimeters, along with a B-21 air-conductivity ionization chamber 

and a B-35 scintillation counter. The Air Operations Officer 

issued flight instructions from the Control Point (40; 55). 

Cloud-tracking procedures were standard for every shot, with 

some modifications caused by differences between the estimated 

and actual yield of a detonation. Before the detonation, one 

B-29 orbited in a counter-clockwise pattern eight kilometers wide 

and 48 kilometers long, with the north end of the pattern over 

Indian Springs. Orbit altitude was 16,000 feet. Twenty minutes 

after the detonation, the B-29 was cleared to follow the cloud by 

visual means, staying away from the radioactive debris and 

approaching no closer than 32 kilometers to the cloud (40; 55). 

A second B-29 was at Indian Springs AFB at shot-time. Upon 

command from the Air Operations Center, this B-29 relieved the 

first B-29, which returned to Kirtland AFB (40; 55; 61). 

Another B-29 cloud tracker remained at Kirtland AFB on 

standby. It flew as a third cloud tracker if the first or second 

cloud tracker had to abort. Also, it conducted a cloud-tracking 

mission if the cloud was dissipating rapidly and had relatively 

high radiation intensities (40; 55; 61). 

The cloud trackers radioed information on cloud altitude and 

position to the Air Operations Officer. The data were plotted on 

a large plexiglass display board in the Air Operations Center. 

The board showed a map of the area surrounding the Nevada Proving 

Ground. The Test Manager, the Test Director, the Onsite Civil 

Aeronautics Administration representative, and the AEC Public 

Information Officer used this display to follow the movement of 

the cloud. Offsite radiological safety monitors were informed of 

the cloud movement so they could make ground readings (39). 

113 
Upon completion of their missions, the cloud trackers 

returned to Kirtland AFR and parked in the decontamination area. 

There, the crew members remained near their aircraft until they 

had been monitored for radiological contamination and released by 

the officer in charge of the decontamination crew (40; 47; 55; 

107). 

Aerial Survevs 

Following each nuclear event, several support aircraft made 

radiological surveys of the terrain in and around the Nevada 

Proving Ground. These surveys helped determine radiation levels 

along the path of the cloud for the test organization and for 

Project 2.lc-1, Aerial Survey of Distant and Contaminated 

Terrain, at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE. The 4901st Support Wing 

(Atomic) provided two C-47 aircraft for offsite surveying, and 

the 1099th Special Weapons Squadron from McClellan AFB, 

California, supplied a third C-47. Each aircrew consisted of a 

pilot and copilot and two aerial survey technicians, probably 

from the 57th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron (Weather) (40). 

Helicopters, based at Indian Springs AFB, surveyed the NPG, 

particularly the immediate area around ground zero. They 

reported their findings to the Air Operations Center, where the 

information was marked on a plexiglass map of the NPG. After the 

mission, the helicopters returned to Indian Springs AFB (39). 

The aerial survey began approximately two hours after the 

detonation, when the C-47 aircraft flew crosswind patterns over 

the path of the cloud at heights of about 600 feet. Using 

various instruments on board, the crew determined radiation 

levels and radioed the findings to the Control Point. After the 

mission, the aircraft returned to Indian Springs AFB (40; 102). 

114 
CHAPTER 5 

RADIATION PROTECTION AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

In addition to the thermal and blast phenomena associated 

with a conventional explosive device, a nuclear detonation also 

produces ionizing radiation. To protect BUSTER-JANGLE personnel 

from the radiation associated with the detonation of a nuclear 

device, the Atomic Energy Commission developed procedures to 

ensure the radiological safety of all participants. The purpose 

of the various radiation protection procedures was to minimize 

individual exposure to ionizing radiation while still allowing 

participants to accomplish their test objectives. 

The missions of Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III, the 

test units, and the Air Force Special Weapons Command required 

different types of participation. Despite those differences, 

many of the radiation protection procedures for these groups were 

similar. These procedures included (41; 57; 60; 101; 102): 

0 Orientation and training: preparing radiological 

monitors for their work and familiarizing other 

participants with radiological safety procedures 

0 Personnel dosimetry: issuing, exchanging, developing, and evaluating film badges to determine gamma 

exposure 

0 Use of protective equipment: providing clothing, 

respirators, and other protective equipment 

0 Monitoring: performing radiological surveys and 

controlling access to radiation areas 

0 Briefing: informing observers and project personnel 

of radiation characteristics and the current 

radiation intensities in the test area 

Decontamination: removing contaminated material 

from personnel, vehicles, and equipment. 

0 

115 
Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of this chapter discuss, respectively, the radiological safety plans of the Desert Rock 

exercises, the test organization, and SWC. Each section 

addresses maximum permissible levels of exposure, the structure 

of the radiological organization, and the procedures used by each 

organization to control individual exposure to ionizing radiation. 

5.1 RADIATION PROTECTION FOR EXERCISES DESERT ROCK I, II, AND III 

The Atomic Energy Commission established safety criteria to 

protect Exercise Desert Rock participants from the thermal, 

blast, and radiation effects of nuclear detonations at the Nevada 

Proving Ground. The AEC established a maximum radiation exposure 

limit of 1 roentgen for the participants in Desert Rock I and a 

total exposure of 3 roentgens for participants in Desert Rock II 

and III. Based on these limits, the AEC set minimum distance 

criteria for positioning troops and troop observers during 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. During the detonations, troops were 11 

kilometers from ground zero for Desert Rock I, 9.2 kilometers 

from ground zero for Desert Rock II, and 9.6 kilometers from 

ground zero for Desert Rock III (57; 60; 102). 

5.1.1 Organization and Responsibilities 

Desert Rock exercises were conducted so that the troop 

maneuvers did not interfere with the technical and diagnostic 

studies conducted by the test units. Subject to these limitations, the Joint Chiefs of Staff assigned to the Commanding 

General, SWC, the mission of coordinating military participation 

in BUSTER-JANGLE. To ensure the coordination of Desert Rock 

activities with technical test activities, and to ensure compliance with instructions issued by the Test Director, the Deputy 

Test Director supervised the plans and operations of the Exercise 

Director of Desert Rock I, II, and III (55; 57; 60; 101). 

116 
The Exercise Director was responsible for implementing 

radiological safety procedures for military participants in 

Desert Rock activities. The AEC Radiological Safety Technical 

Advisor assisted the Exercise Director in fulfilling this 

responsibility. The AEC also provided 16 trained monitors to the 

Exercise Director. For Desert Rock I, the Exercise Director 

provided 45 additional monitors to perform radiological safety 

surveys. The number of monitors provided for Desert Rock II and 

III is unknown (57; 60; 69). 

5.1.2 Orientation and Briefing 

The Armed Forces Special Weapons Project Advisory Group, 

which was attached to Camp Desert Rock, provided educational 

programs for observers and exercise and support troops, covering 

basic weapons characteristics and effects. In addition, the 

Advisory Group accompanied participating troops and observers on 

their tours of the shot area after the detonation. The general 

purpose of the orientation was to allay misconceptions about the 

effects of nuclear weapons (60). 

5.1.3 Personnel Dosimetry 

Desert Rock personnel entering the forward area wore film 

badges to record their exposure to ionizing radiation. The film 

badges were DuPont #533 with a range of 0.1 to 50 roentgens. The 

Radiological Safety Unit issued the badges, and an Army Signal 

Corps photography unit processed them, determining individual 

exposure to radiation (57; 60). 

Three Desert Rock personnel received gamma exposures 

exceeding 3 roentgens. These exposures ranged from 4 to 

6 roentgens. It is not known whether these individuals participated in Desert Rock I, II, or III (32; 93). 

117 
5.1.4 Monitoring 

After the monitors had completed an initial survey of the 

shot area, they accompanied Army Chemical, Biological, and Radiological monitors in advance of the troops to survey routes of 

approach to and through radiation areas. The monitors notified 

the Exercise Director by radio when it was safe for troops to 

advance toward ground zero. The forward limit for Desert Rock I 

personnel was 1 R/h (57; 60). 

5.1.5 Decontamination 

The objective of decontamination procedures at Exercises 

Desert Rock I, II, and III was to ensure that no participants or 

vehicles contaminated in excess of established limits left the 

forward area. For all shots, the established limit for gammaemitting contamination on personnel or vehicles was 0.02 R/h, as 

measured with the AN/PDR-27A survey meter (57; 60). 

An eight-man decontamination team, directed by the Camp 

Desert Rock Radiological Safety Officer, assisted AEC personnel 

in operating a decontamination facility in the vicinity of 

exercise activities. The initial decontamination procedure 

involved brushing clothing, equipment, and vehicles to remove 

contaminated dust and debris. If brushing failed to reduce radiation intensities to the established limit or lower, individuals 

showered and were provided with a change of clothing, and 

vehicles and equipment were either washed or isolated until 

radiation intensities decayed to permissible levels. No 

personnel or vehicles participating in Exercise Desert Rock I 

were found to be contaminated above the 0.02 R/h limit (57). 

Specific information on decontamination is not available for 

Exercises Desert Rock II and III. 

118 
5.2 RADIATION PROTECTION FOR THE TEST ORGANIZATION 

The Test Director was responsible for the radiological 

safety of all members of the test organization at the Nevada 

Proving Ground. The Radiological Health and Safety Group, 

composed of personnel from LASL, from the armed services, and 

from various civilian groups, performed onsite and offsite 

radiological safety operations. The Radiological Safety Officer, 

who was appointed by the Test Director, headed the group (102). 

The Radiological Health and Safety Group worked within 

guidelines set by the AEC, which established an exposure limit of 

3 roentgens of gamma radiation for all personnel involved in test 

organization activities except sampling pilots, who were 

permitted to receive up to 3.9 roentgens of gamma exposure. The 

operational responsibilities of the group were to (40; 55; 102): 

Provide training and guidance in radiological 

procedures and situations 

Provide radiac equipment and maintenance services 

Conduct radiological surveys and plot isointensity 

maps 

Provide monitors to projects as required 

Decontaminate personnel and vehicles 

Maintain dosimetry and records service for all 

organizations participating in activities 

coordinated by the test organization. 

5.2.1 Organization and Responsibilities 

The Radiological Health and Safety Group consisted of 187 

personnel, as indicated in the following listing (102): 

119 
LASL Health 

Division 

Administration 8 

Monitoring 9 

Fallout study 14 

Dosimetry and 10 

records 

SUPPlY 3 

First aid 5 

Safety 1 

Vehicle 

decontamination 

Meteorology 3 

Transportation 1 

Instrument repair 5 

Aerial survey 2 

Pilots 

Total 61 

Military Other Total 

2 10 

52 20 81 

1 17 32 

3 13 

2 5 

1 6 

1 

18 18 

3 

1 

4 9 

2 

4 2 6 

87 39 187 

The activities performed by the Radiological Health and 

Safety Group, the headquarters of which were at Nellis AFB, 

included (102): 

Furnishing ground and aerial monitoring both onsite 

and offsite 

Providing current radiological situation charts and 

maps showing on- and offsite data obtained by ground 

and aerial surveys 

Issuing, processing, and maintaining records of all 

personnel dosimeters 

Operating personnel, vehicle, and equipment 

decontamination facilities 

Tracking clouds resulting from the detonations to 

advise the Test Director on closing air lanes 

Packaging radioactive material for shipment offsite. 

120 
JANGLE Program 2, Radiological Phenomena, monitored fallout 

less than 16 kilometers from ground zero. The Fallout Study of 

the Radiological Health and Safety Group provided monitoring 16 

to 320 kilometers from ground zero. Study personnel were 

primarily interested in SUGAR and UNCLE; they regarded the BUSTER 

shots basically as training for the two JANGLE detonations. To 

obtain data, they used numerous air-sampling and dust-collecting 

instruments (102). 

5.2.2 Personnel Dosimetry 

Film badges and pocket dosimeters were issued to test organization personnel to record their exposure to ionizing radiation. 

During Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the Radiological Health ahd 

Safety Group issued 10,589 personnel film badges and processed 

9,623 of these badges. Group personnel distributed and collected 

the badges and dosimeters at the Control Point and Indian Springs 

AFB. SWC personnel issued and collected badges at Kirtland AFB 

(102). 

5.2.3 Protective Equipment 

Radiological Health and Safety Group personnel at the 

Control Point issued respirators to the radiological safety team 

making the initial survey. If radiation intensities in the shot 

area were 0.02 R/h or greater, as measured by the initial survey, 

they distributed respirators, cloth caps, coveralls, booties, and 

gloves to all participants entering the shot area. Participants 

were required to use masking tape to seal their booties and 

gloves to their coveralls (102). 

5.2.4 Monitoring 

Onsite and offsite monitoring operations were conducted 

after each shot. Onsite operations were officially based at 

121 
Indian Springs AFB, but the monitoring teams worked out of the 

Control Point. Members of various mobile offsite teams were 

based in outlying communities. 

Onsite monitors began the initial ground surveys soon after 

each detonation. The initial survey party at each shot probably 

consisted of three or four monitors, who radioed the intensity 

readings to the Control Point. Monitors resurveyed the shot area 

at various times after each detonation (102). 

Ten offsite teams, each consisting of two men in a radioequipped vehicle, surveyed out to a distance of 320 kilometers 

from each ground zero. They maintained radio and telephone 

contact with radiological safety personnel at the Control Point 

and LASL. The day before each detonation, the teams proceeded to 

small communities in the region where weather forecasts indicated 

the cloud from the detonation would pass. The teams determined 

preshot background radiation levels in each of these areas. 

After each shot, they continued to monitor radiation levels. 

In addition to the on- and offsite surveying activities, 

monitors accompanied recovery parties into the shot area. Entry 

into the forward area on shot-days required the approval of the 

Test Director. Each pro.ject requiring entry into the shot area 

submitted a list of names to the Test Director at least 24 hours 

before shot-time. Working from this list, the Test Director 

assigned a monitor to accompany each recovery party. The monitor 

was responsible for informing the party leader of the radiological 

conditions within the recovery area. When a predetermined 

radiation exposure was reached, the monitor informed the party 

leader, and the group left the area. The monitor was to allow 

for exposures anticipated during withdrawal from the area (102). 

122 
5.2.5 Decontamination 

The Radiological Health and Safety Group operated a 

decontamination station near the Control Point. At the station, 

personnel checked project participants and vehicles leaving the 

shot area for radioactive contamination. They began decontamination procedures if they detected gamma levels greater than 

0.007 R/h on the outer garments of participants or on the Surface 

of vehicles (102). 

Personnel 

To decontaminate test participants, Radiological Health and 

Safety Group personnel used brooms to brush dust and dirt from 

the surface of clothing. Participants then removed respirators 

and protective clothing and gave film badges and pocket 

dosimeters to radiological safety personnel. Group personnel 

then checked each individual for radioactive contamination. If 

0.007 R/h or more of gamma radiation was detected on the outer 

garments, the individual was required to remove all clothing and 

take a shower. After showering, the individual was reexamined, 

and when radiation readings were less than 0.002 R/h at the 

surface of the skin, he was issued clean clothing and released 

(102). 

Vehicles 

To decontaminate vehicles, Radiological Health and Safety 

Group personnel used vacuum cleaners to brush loose dust and dirt 

from all Gurfaces, including running boards, floorboards, and the 

under-surface of fenders. They then remonitored the vehicles. 

If still contaminated, the vehicles were rinsed with water, then 

spraved and washed with a liquid detergent. When radiation 

intensities were reduced to less than 0.002 R/h, the vehicles 

were returned to service. Records indicate that 275 vehicles 

were decontaminated during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE (102). 

123 
5.3 RADIATION PROTECTION FOR THE SPECIAL WEAPONS COMMAND 

During Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, SWC provided two tvpes of 

air support to the test units: test air operations and support 

air operations. The test air operations included all aircraft 

directly involved in test missions and projects, such as bomb 

drops, cloud sampling, cloud tracking, and terrain surveys. 

Support air operations included all other aircraft not directly 

involved in these test missions, such as sample couriers. 

The radiological safety of air and ground personnel involved 

in SWC test and support operations was the responsibility of the 

Test Director. Implementing radiological safety procedures was 

the responsibility of the SWC Radiological Safety Group. 

5.3.1 Organization and Responsibilities 

SWC was responsible for a number of tasks related to radiological safety at Indian Springs AFB and Kirtland AFB, including: 

0 Providing personnel trained in radiological safety 

for ground and air monitoring duties 

• Providing protective equipment, film badges, 

dosimeters, and radiac instruments 

• Operating decontamination areas for personnel, 

aircraft, and equipment. 

The 4925th Test Group (Atomic) implemented safety procedures at 

Indian Springs AFB, while the 4901st Support Wing (Atomic) 

performed these activities at Kirtland AFB (40; 47; 55; 61). 

5.3.2 Briefing 

Before each mission, ground and air crews at Kirtland AFB 

and Indian Springs AFB attended briefings concerning the weather, 

the mission, and precautions to minimize exposures to radiation 

while performing the mission. These briefings, given by the 

124 
4925th Test Group at Indian Springs and the 4901st Support Wing 

at Kirtland, were usually presented the day before each shot. At 

the time of the briefings, crews received film badges and pocket 

dosimeters (40; 55). 

5.3.3 Protective Equipment and Personnel Dosimetry 

The primary requirement of the SWC radiation protection 

program was to ensure the radiological safety of SWC personnel by 

minimizing their exposure to radiation. Because exposure to 

ionizing radiation may be from internal or external sources, SWC 

developed procedures to minimize both types of exposure. TO 

minimize internal exposure, which occurs primarily through inhalation of radioactive material, personnel wore respirators if they 

worked in enclosed spaces or in areas where there were high 

concentrations of radionuclides in the air, such as the area 

where cloud sample filters were removed from the aircraft. As 

described in chapter 4, procedures were tested during Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE for minimizing the possibility that sampling pilots 

would inhale contaminated air. 

To prevent the spread of contamination, participants wore 

protective clothing over their regulation clothing while in 

contaminated areas. Upon leaving these radiation areas, personnel removed this clothing. 

The SWC Radiological Safety Group issued film badges to all 

SWC personnel. During BUSTER-JANGLE, the group distributed 1,065 

film badges to SWC participants in the operation (40; 47; 84; 

102). 

5.3.4 Monitoring 

The 4901st Support Wing (Atomic) provided three C-47 aircraft to support the offsite ground monitoring teams. These 

125 
aircraft, which were airborne at the time of each detonation, 

were responsible for tracking the cloud and conducting aerial 

surveys. 

The Air Operations Officer, stationed at the Control Point, 

received information on the location of the cloud from the crews 

of the tracking aircraft. He then informed the Civil Aeronautics 

Administration of the cloud location so that commercial aircraft 

could be rerouted out of the path of the cloud. Information on 

the movement of the cloud was also used to guide ground monitoring teams to offsite fallout areas (40; 47; 102). 

5.3.5 Decontamination 

Radioactive contamination on personnel and aircraft at both 

Kirtland AFB and Indian Springs AFB was measured with portable 

radiation detection instruments. To prevent the spread of 

contamination, special control procedures were developed by SWC 

for aircrews, ground crews, and aircraft. These procedures are 

explained below. 

Personnel 

Ground personnel planning to enter radiation areas obtained 

protective clothing, film badges, and dosimeters from the 

Radiological Safety Group. Individuals with breaks in their skin 

could not enter radiation areas unless the breaks were covered. 

Proper wear of protective clothing included using masking tape to 

secure the cuffs of the coveralls to gloves and the legs to 

booties. Monitors accompanied individuals working in radiation 

areas. Personnel were monitored when departing these areas. If, 

after removing their protective clothing, personnel still 

registered radiation intensities greater than 0.007 R/h of gamma 

radiation, they showered and received clean clothing (40). 

126 
Aircraft 

After landing, aircraft taxied to designated areas where 

they were met by radiation monitors, who surveyed the aircraft to 

determine the level of radioactive contamination. Figure 5-1 

shows monitors checking radiation levels on a B-29 aircraft. 

After the preliminary survey, aircraft with radiation intensities 

greater than 0.01 R/h were decontaminated by repeated washings 

with detergent and water or were parked in designated areas, 

marked with radiation signs, and the radiation allowed to decay. 

Radiation monitors were present during all phases of the decontamination, and decontamination crews wore protective clothing, 

film badges, and pocket dosimeters. 

T-33 aircraft used for cloud sampling posed a special decontamination problem since radioactive particles became impacted on 

the impeller blades of the jet engine. Washing the engines while 

they were still running with detergent and rinsing water from a 

high-pressure hose removed much of the contamination. Normal 

decay further reduced the level of radioactivity on the aircraft 

prior to their return to service (39; 40; 47). 

Special procedures were developed to remove cloud sample 

filters from sampling aircraft. To prevent direct contact with 

the cloud samples, the filter removal team used long-handled 

tools to remove the particulate sample filters from the sample 

chambers. Radiological Safety Group personnel monitored the 

intensity of the samples, which were then placed in lead 

containers. The samples were taken by courier aircraft to 

laboratories for analysis. All samples were packaged in lead 

shielding sufficient to ensure that neither passengers nor crew 

in the courier aircraft would be exposed to radiation intensities 

exceeding 0.02 R/h (40; 47). 

127 

CHAPTER 6 

DOSIMETRY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

PERSONNEL AT OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

This chapter summarizes the data available as of June 1982 

regarding the radiation doses received by Department of Defense 

personnel during their participation in various military and 

scientific activities during Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. It is 

based on research that identified the participants, their unit of 

assignment, and their doses. 

6.1 PARTICIPATION DATA 

The identity of participants was determined from Several 

sources: 

Final Report of Operations of the Exercise Director, 

Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III provided 

information on unit participation and activities of 

Desert Rock organizations (57; 60). 

Weapons test reports for AFSWP and other scientific 

projects often identified personnel, units, and 

organizations that participated in the operation. 

After-action reports, security rosters, and vehicle 

loading rosters related to the military exercises 

identified some participants. 

Morning reports, unit diaries, and muster rolls 

provided identification data on personnel assigned 

to participating units, absent from their home unit, 

or in transit for the purpose of participating in a 

nuclear weapons test. 

Official travel or reassignment orders provided 

information on the identity of transient or assigned 

personnel participating in the nuclear weapons 

tests. 

Discharge records, maintained by all services, aided 

in identification. 

129 
0 The services' reserve personnel record centers 

provided information on participants still carried 

on inactive reserve rolls. 

0 A widely publicized national call-in campaign

sponsored by the Department of Defense has 

identified many of the participants in the nuclear 

weapons tests. 

6.2 SOURCES OF DOSIMETRY DATA 

Most of the dosimetry data for Operation BUSTER-JANGLE were 

derived from film badge records. As stated in chapter 5, 

dosimetry records for Desert Rock and test organization personnel 

were maintained by the Radiological Health and Safety Unit. 

During Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, the film badge was the 

primary device used to measure the radiation dose received by 

individual participants. A film badge was apparently issued to 

each test organization and Desert Rock participant (57; 60; 102). 

The film badge, normally worn at chest level on the outside of 

clothing, was designed to measure the wearer's exposure to gamma 

radiation from external sources. The film badges were insensitive to neutron radiation, however, and did not measure the 

amount of radioactive material, if any, that might have been 

inhaled or ingested. 

Both the test organization and Exercises Desert Rock I, II, 

and III had their own radiological safety personnel who issued, 

received, developed, and interpreted film badges during Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE. The Dosimetry and Records Section of the Radiological Health and Safety Unit handled the film badges for test 

organization personnel. The film badge program for Desert Rock I 

participants was administered by the Desert Rock Radiological 

Safety Unit and the Army Signal Corps Photographic Unit. The 

Chemical Section and the Army Signal Corps Photographic Unit 

administered the film badge program for Desert Rock II and III 

130 
participants. Film badge records for both test organization and 

Desert Rock participants were maintained by the Radiological 

Health and Safety Unit (57; 60; 102). 

Film badge records were compiled into several documents 

after Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. These records were the basis for 

the aggregate exposure data included in the Exercise Desert Rock 

I Final Report (57), Report of Test Exercises Desert Rock II and 

III (60), Report of Radiological Safety, Indian Springs AFB (84), 

and Radiological Safety, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE (102). The film 

badge data summarized in this chapter were obtained from these 

reports and two other sources: 

• Historical files of the Reynolds Electrical and 

Engineering Company (REECo), the prime support 

contractor to the Department of Energy (and 

previously to the AEC Nevada Operations Office). 

REECo has provided support at the Nevada Proving 

Ground since 1952. REECo assumed responsibility for 

onsite radiological safety in July 1955 and 

subsequently collected available dosimetry records 

for nuclear test participants at all nuclear testing 

operations from 1945 to the present. REECo has the 

available exposure records for individuals working 

under the test organization at Operation BUSTERJANGLE (93; 94). 

0 Military medical records, maintained at the National 

Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri, for 

troops separated from military service, or at the 

Veterans Administration for individuals who have 

filed for disability compensation or health 

benefits. Unfortunately, many records were 

destroyed in a fire at the St. Louis repository in 

July 1973. That fire destroyed 13 to 17 million 

Army records for personnel discharged through 31 

December 1959, and for members of the Army Air 

Corps/Air Force discharged through 31 December 1963. 

6.3 DOSIMETRY DATA FOR OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE PARTICIPANTS 

This section presents data on the external gamma radiation 

exposures received by test organization and Desert Rock personnel 

by military service and unit. 

131 
6.3.1 External Gamma Exposure Data 

Tables 6-l through 6-6* present the gamma exposure data 

available from film badge records for DOD participants at 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. The tables indicate the following 

information by service or unit (32; 93): 

0 The number of personnel identified by name 

0 The number of personnel identified by both name and film 

badge 

0 The average gamma exposure in roentgens 

a The distribution of these exposures. 

Table 6-1 summarizes all exposures for each service affiliation. In addition to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 

designations, the table includes data for scientific personnel, 

contractors, affiliates, and participants whose service 

affiliation is unknown. Tables 6-2 through 6-6 provide 

information about the gamma exposures received by the various 

participants. In these tables, distributions and averages are 

given by unit. For a unit to be represented in the table, it 

must meet at least one of the following criteria: 

0 Records are available for ten or more individuals from 

the unit. 

0 At least one individual in the unit had a gamma exposure 

of 1 roentgen or more. 

Units not meeting these criteria are consolidated in tables 6-2 

through 6-6 in the "other" category, and a distribution of 

cumulative and average exposures is provided for them. Tables 

6-2a through 6-6a list the individual units constituting the 

"other" category in tables 6-2 through 6-6. 

*All tables can be found at the end of the chapter. 

132 
6.3.2 Instances of Gamma Exposure Exceeding Prescribed Limits 

As stated in chapter 5, the gamma exposure limit for 

most BUSTER-JANGLE participants was 3 roentgens. Participants in 

Desert Rock I, however, were limited to 1 roentgen. Cloudsampling pilots and crews at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE were 

authorized to receive exposures of 3.9 roentgens (55; 57; 60; 

102). Inconsistent and inconclusive information in the 

Radiological Safety Report indicates that from 50 to 67 

individuals at the operation received gamma exposures in excess 

of the established limits. The exposures of 2S of these 

individuals have been found in the film badge records. Table 6-7 

lists these exposures and the units or organizations of the 

individuals (32; 93; 102). The 3 roentgen limit is used for 

Desert Rock units since it is not possible to determine whether 

an individual participated specifically in Desert Rock I, II, or 

III. 

Several of the overexposed personnel listed in table 6-7 

participated in Weapons Effects Test Unit pro,jects and entered 

radiation areas to retrieve instruments and data. These 

participants were from the following units and organizations (32; 

93; 94): 

0 Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

• Bureau of Medicine 

0 Bureau of Ships 

0 Engineer Research and Development Laboratories 

0 Evans Signal Laboratory 

0 Naval Research Laboratory. 

Personnel from the Engineer Research and Development 

Laboratories participated in project activities studying blast 

effects on various water tanks and the extent of radioactive 

contamination of the water in these tanks. Personnel entered tIle 

shot area soon after the detonation to examine the water tanks 

and obtain water samples. These personnel could have received 

133 
overexposures, since some of the water tanks were within 700 

meters of ground zero (71; 72). The activities of the 

individuals from AFSWP, the Bureau of Medicine, the Bureau of 

Ships, the Evans Signal Laboratory, and the Naval Research 

Laboratory are not known. 

Members of the Radiological Health and Safety Unit provided 

radiological safety monitors for all shots. These monitors 

accompanied AFSWP project personnel on many of the recovery 

missions. In addition, radiological safety personnel surveyed 

the shot area after each detonation. Members of the radiological 

safety group spent more time in or near radiation areas than 

other personnel, especially because they repeated their 

activities during several shots (102). 

The 4925th Test Group gathered radioactive samples from 

clouds for analysis by personnel from various test projects. 

Because this task required the crews to fly near or through the 

clouds formed by the detonations, the potential for exposure was 

increased (40; 47). 

Documentation has not been found for the activities of 

representatives from Desert Rock, Lackland AFB, Special Weapons 

Command at Kirtland AFB, the Technical Operations Squadron, the 

3200th Target Drone Squadron, and the 97th Bombardment Wing. 

134 
Table 6-l: DISTRIBUTION OF GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURES FOR 

OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE PARTICIPANTS BY AFFILIATION 

Personnel Average Gamma Exposure (Roentgens) Personnel Identified Gamma 

Identified by Name and Exposure 

Service by Name by Film Badge (Roentgensl <O.l 0.1-l .o 1 .o-3.0 3.050 5.0+ 

Army 5443 1836 0.251 1343 358 117 16 2 

Navy 203 181 0.729 33 97 48 3 0 

Marine Corps 115 90 0.041 88 0 2 0 0 

Air Force 863 329 0.539 156 115 41 17 0 

Scientific Personnel, 185 185 0.261 93 80 12 0 0 

Contractors, and Observers 

Service Unknown* 21 21 0.116 13 8 0 0 0 

Total 6830 2642 0.312 1726 658 220 36 2 

• Film badge data are available, but service affiliation is not known. 

135 
Table 6-2: DISTRIBUTION OF GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURES 

ARMY PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

FOR 

Units 

Personnel 

Identified 

by Name 

PerBonnel 

Identified 

by Name and 

by Film Badge 

Average 

Gamma 

Exposure 

(Roentgen.4 CO.1 

Gamma 

0.1-1.0 

Exposure (Roentgen4 

1 .o-3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0+ 

AP-36 Isic)’ 1 1 2.480 0 0 1 0 0 

Army Chemical Center, 

Edgewood, MD 

Edgewood Arsenal 45 45 1.213 5 17 23 0 0 

Ballistic Research Laboratories, 

Ground, Aberdeen, MD 

Aberdeen Proving 15 15 0.511 2 11 2 0 0 

Buster-Jangle (sic)’ 2 2 4.140 0 0 0 2 0 

Camp Desert Rock, NV 4084 1535 0.114 1263 257 12 2 1 

Camp Gordon Observer Unit 20 0 

Engineer Research 

Fort Belvoir, VA 

and Development Laboratories 29 29 1.251 3 14 9 3 0 

Evans Signal Laboratory, Fort Monmouth, NJ 31 31 1.437 1 8 21 0 1 

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 1 1 3.190 0 0 0 1 0 

Observers 18 18 0.122 4 14 0 0 0 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 5 5 0.660 1 0 4 0 0 

PRF Sens R-S (sic)’ 1 1 2.270 0 0 1 0 0 

Provisional Company 329 21 0.023 21 0 0 0 0 

Radiological Safety and Health Unit 27 27 2.038 1 5 14 7 0 

Stanford Research Institute 9 9 0.799 1 5 3 0 0 

U.S. Army, Effects Test Group 12 12 1.122 1 4 7 0 0 

U.S. Army Detachment, 

Project 10.9 

Naval Research Laboratory 1 1 1.210 0 0 1 0 0 

US. Army Detachment, 

Kirtland AFB, NM 

Special Weapons Command 3 3 2.233 0 1 1 1 0 

U.S. Army Program Personnel 35 35 0.558 14 12 9 0 0 

U.S. Army, Vehicle Decontamination 11 11 1.292 0 2 9 0 0 

Ill Corps Artillery, Fort Lewis, WA 10 0 

Ill Corps Headquarters, Camp Roberts, CA 10 0 

1 lth Airborne Division, 188th Airborne Infantry 

Regiment, 1 st Battalion, Camp Campbell, KY 

26 0 

231 st Engineer Combat Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA 34 0 

• “Sic” indicates that the unit appears in the table just as it was entered in the source documentation. 
Table 6-2: DISTRIBUTION 

PARTICIPANTS, 

OF GAMMA 

OPERATION 

RADIATION EXPOSURES FOR ARMY 

BUSTER-JANGLE (CONTINUED) 

Units 

Personnel 

Identified 

by Name 

Personnel 

Identified 

by Name and 

by Film Badge 

Averege 

Gamma 

Exposure 

IRoentgens) < 0.1 

Gamma 

0.1-1.0 

Exposure (Roentgen4 

1 .o-3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0+ 

303rd Signal 

Headquarters 

Cooke, CA 

Service Battalion Detachment 

and Headquarters Company, Camp 

19 0 

314th Signal Construction Battalion (Detachment) 

Headquarters and Headquarters Company and 

Company “B”, Camp Cooke, CA 

10 0 

369th Engineer 

Worden, WA 

Amphibious Support Regiment, Fort 19 0 

505th Military Police Battalion, Camp Roberts, CA 13 0 

Other”* 304 7 0.234 0 7 0 0 0 

Unit Unknown*** 319 27 0.038 26 1 0 0 0 

Total 5443 1836 0.251 1343 358 117 16 2 

••* For list of units in this category, 

••I* Unit information unavailable. 

see table 6-2a. 

1117 
Table 6-2a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, ARMY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

NUMBERED UNITS 

Second Army (G-2 Section), Fort Meade, MD 

Second Army, Headquarters, Fort Meade, MD 

Third Army, Deputy Surgeon 

Third Army, Headquarters, Fort McPherson, GA 

Fifth Army Team 

Sixth Army, Corps of Engineers (sic)* 

Sixth Army, Headquarters (G-3 Section), Presidio of 

San Francisco, CA 

Sixth Army, Headquarters, Presidio of San Francisco, CA 

Sixth Army, 452nd Transportation Company (sic) [Inactivated 1950, 

per Adjutant General's letter, dated 4 October 1950]** 

III Corps, Chemical Section 

V Corps, Fort Lewis, TDY (sic) [V Corps, Bad Nauheim, Germany]*** 

1st Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX 

1st Helicopter Company (sic) [13th Transportation Helicopter 

Company, Fort Sill, OK] 

1st Technical Squad, Army Chemical Center, Baltimore, MD (sic) 

2nd Armored Division [Sandhofen, Germany]

2nd Armored Division, 41st Armored Infantry, Company "C" 

[Mannheim, Germany] 

2nd Armored Division, 82nd Reconnaissance [Company, 

Idar, Germany] 

2nd Signal Battalion (sic) 

2nd Signal Photographic (sic) 

3rd Armored Division, 23rd Engineer Battalion [Fort Knox, KY] 

3rd Infantry Regiment, Fort Myer, VA 

4th Armored Division, 22nd Field Artillery, Battery "A" (sic) 

[22nd Antiaircraft Artillery Battalion, Okinawa] 

4th Transportation Truck Company, Camp Stoneman, CA 

5th Infantry Division, 10th Infantry Regiment, Company "D" 

[Indiantown Gap, PA] 

5th Transportation Truck Battalion, Headquarters Company [Fort

Story, VA] 

*“sic” indicates that table entry for the unit and/or home 

station could not be verified. 

**Unit files in Organizational History Branch, Office Chief of 

Military History. 

***Unit and/or home station verification based on the "Directory 

and Station List of the US Army" for November 1951. 

Additional information from the Station List is provided in 

brackets. 

138 
Table 6-2a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, ARMY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

(Continued) 

6th Armored Division, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

6th Infantry Division, Fort Ord, CA 

11th Armored Cavalry Regiment [Camp Carson, CO] 

13th Antiaircraft Artillery Group (sic) 

16th Signal Operation Battalion [Camp Cooke, CA] 

23rd Transportation Truck Company (sic) 

29th Regimental Combat Team, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. 

30th Engineer Helicopter Unit (sic)

30th Ordnance [Battalion, 30th Ordnance Company, Taegu, Korea] 

30th Tank Battalion, Fort Knox, KY 

31st Infantry Division [Camp Mackall, NC, to return to 

Fort Jackson, SC, on or about 3 November 19511 

36th Engineer Construction Combat Brigade [36th Engineer 

Comhat Group, Pusan, Korea] 

42nd Medium Tank Battalion [Camp Breckinridge, KY] 

46th Engineer Construction Battalion [Fort Sill, OK1 

47th Infantry Division, 136th Infantry [Regiment, 

Camp Rucker, AL] 

50th Chemical Service Platoon (sic) 

53rd Quartermaster Base Depot Company, Ogden, UT 

63rd Sec/Engr TKA/Fort Leonard Wood (sic) 

76th Field Artillery, Fort Knox, KY 

76th Signal Service Battalion (sic) 

82nd Airborne Division [Fort Bragg, NC] 

82nd Airborne Division, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment 

[Fort Bragg, NC] 

82nd Airborne Division, 504th Airborne Infantry Regiment 

[Fort Bragg, NC1 

82nd Airborne Division, 505th Airborne Infantry Regiment 

[Fort Bragg, NC] 

90th Engineer Water Supply Company [Fort Lewis, WA] 

92nd Transportation Car Company, 2nd Platoon, Camp Roberts, CA 

94th Veterinary Food Inspection Service, Detachment, 

Fort Lewis, WA 

95th Infantry Battalion, Fort Campbell, KY 

96th Engineer Combat Battalion (sic) [95th Engineer Combat 

Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA, to Camp Desert Rock] 

1Olst Signal Corps [Battalion, Chunchon, Korea] 

115th Counterintelligence Detachment [Presidio of 

San Francisco, CA] 

122nd Special Weapons Unit [Sandia Base, NM] 

127th Airborne Engineer, Company "A" [Fort Campbell, KY] 

139 
Table 6-2a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, ARMY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

(Continued) 

144th Transportation Truck Company [Camp Rucker, AL] 

161st Ordnance Depot Company [Camp Cooke, CA] 

164th Infantry [Regiment] Company "I" [Camp Rucker, AL] 

169th Amphibious Company, Fort Story, VA 

179th Antiaircraft [Artillery Detachment, Fort Bliss, TX] 

194th Tank Battalion, Company "A" [Camp Rucker, AL] 

195th Field Artillery [Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA] 

226th [Antiaircraft] Artillery Group [Fort Bliss, TX] 

237th Engineer Combat Battalion (sic) [231st Engineer Combat 

Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA, to Exercise Desert Rock] 

278th Regimental Combat Team (National Guard) 

3Olst Logistics Command [Camp Rucker, AL] 

307th Military Police Battalion [Fort Sam Houston, TX] 

317th Signal Construction Battalion [Camp Cooke, CA] 

325th Transportation Staging Area Company (sic) 

359th Engineer Utility Detachment, Camp Roberts, CA 

369th Signal Detachment, Fort Flagler, WA (sic) 

371st Evacuation Hospital, Fort Lewis, WA 

374th Convalescent Center, Fort Lewis, WA 

375th Military Police Battalion [Company, Camp Cooke, CA]

390th Chemical Laboratory [Army Chemical Center, MD] 

393rd Ordnance Battalion, HQS and HQS Detachment, Camp Cooke, CA 

412th Engineer Construction Battalion [Yuma Test Station, AZ] 

449th Field Artillery (Observation) [Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC1 

504th Military Police Battalion, Detachment [Camp Gordon, GA] 

504th Signal Base Maintenance Company, Detachment [Sacramento 

Signal Depot, CA] 

508th Airborne Regimental Combat Team [Fort Benning, GA] 

523rd Quartermaster Subsistence Depot Company, 

1st Platoon, Ogden, UT 

539th Quartermaster Laundry Company, 1st Platoon [Fort Lewis, WA] 

540th Field Artillery Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA 

546th Field Artillery Battalion, Battery "C," Fort Lewis, WA 

562nd Transportation Staging Area Company [Camp Stoneman, CA1 

597th Engineer Light Equipment Company, Detachment, 

Fort Huachuca, AZ 

621st Quartermaster Subsistence Company, Fort Lewis, WA 

631st Ordnance Depot Company (sic)

631st Quartermaster Subsistence Company, Fort Devens, MA 

653rd Field Artillery Battalion (Observation) [Fort Sill, OK1 

685th Field Artillery [Battalion], Battery "C" [Camp Edwards, MA] 

690th Field Artillery [Battalion], Battery [Fort Campbell, KY] 

140 
Table 6-2a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, ARMY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

(Continued) 

701st Armored Infantry Battalion, Fort Hood, TX 

701st Engineer Maintenance Company Detachment (sic) 

705th Engineer Maintenance Company, Maintenance Platoon, 

Fort Huachuca, AZ 

708th [Antiaircraft] Gun Battalion [Camp Stewart, GA] 

747th Amphibious Tank Battalion [Camp Cooke, CA] 

806th Army Postal Unit [Fort Lewis, WA] 

836th Signal Radio Relay Outfit [Company, Fort Lewis, WA] 

900th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital [Camp Atterbury, IN] 

2101st Area Service Unit, Fort Meade, MD 

2114th Area Service Unit, Company "E" [Camp Pickett, VA] 

2128th Area Service Unit, Fort Knox, KY 

2151st Area Service Unit [Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD] 

3069th Engineer Amphibious Support Replacement 1Jnit (sic) 

3623rd Ordnance Medium Maintenance Company, Camp Cooke, CA 

4004th Area Service Unit, Fort Sam Houston, TX 

4052nd Area Service Unit, Fort Hood, TX 

5021st Area Service Unit, Station Complement [Fort Riley, KS]

6020th Area Service Unit, Camp Desert Rock (sic)

8287th Area Service Unit, Station Complement (sic) 

9135th Technical Service Unit, Fort Lee, VA 

9710th Technical Service Unit, Army Chemical Center, MD 

9778th Rad-Safe Unit, Fort McClellan, AL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Headquarters, Department of the Army 

Judge Advocate General Corps 

OCA/SG.l Set D/A (sic) 

Office, Chief of Information 

Office, Chief Signal Officer 

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2 

Office, Quartermaster General, Program 2 

Surgeon General's Office, Program 4; Project 4.2 

COMMANDS 

Headquarters, Army Antiaircraft Artillery Command, Ent AFB, CO 

Headquarters, Western Area Antiaircraft Artillery Command 

141 
Table 6-2a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, ARMY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

(Continued) 

SCHOOLS AND TRAINING CENTERS 

Antiaircraft Artillery Replacement Training Center, 

Fort Bliss, TX 

The Armored School and Training Center, Fort Knox, KY 

Army General Staff School, Fort Riley, KA 

Aviation Training School, Fort Sill, OK (sic) [6th and 13th 

Transportation Helicopter Companies, Fort Sill, OK] 

Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KA 

Training Center 6.3 (sic) 

Transportation School, Fort Eustis, VA 

LOCATIONS 

Camp Cooke, CA 

Camp Roberts, CA 

Fort Benning, GA 

Fort Bliss, TX 

Fort Campbell, KY 

Fort Chaffee, Ark 

Fort Eustis, VA 

Fort Hood, TX 

Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

Fort Tilden, NY 

Fort Worden, WA 

Indian Springs Air Force Base, NV 

Sandia Base, NM 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade [47th], Fort MacArthur, CA 

Arlington Hall Station, Army Security Agency, Detachment 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

Armored Engineer Battalion (sic) 

Army Pictorial Center, Long Island, NY 

Chemical Corps Atomic Monitoring (sic) 

Chemical Corps, Fort Benning, GA (sic) 

Chemical Corps, Fort Carson, CO (sic) 

Chem Corps Radiological Survey (sic) 

Dispersing 6001 (sic) 

Explosive Disposal Center (sic) 

Firing Party (sic) 

Hampton Roads Virginia, Port of Embarkation [OCAFF] 

Headquarters, Ivy Flats, CA (sic) 

Headquarters, Military District of Washington 

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 

Military Police Detachment, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 

Washington, D.C. 

142 
Table 6-2a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, ARMY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

(Continued) 

National Guard Unit, Buffalo, NY 

Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, Program 2 

Naval Research Laboratory, Program 5 

New York Port of Embarkation 

Radiological Survey Team 

Research and Development Board, Washington, D.C. 

Sandia Base, AFSWP, Project 3.28 

Signal Corps (sic) 

Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories, Fort Monmouth, NJ 

Task Group 3.2 

143 
Table 6-3: DISTRIBUTION OF GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURES FOR 

NAVY PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

Personnel 

Personnel 

Identified 

Average 

Gamma 

Gamma Exposure (Roentgensl 

Identified by Name and Exposure 

Units by Name by Film Badge (Roentgensl < 0.1 0.1-1.0 1 .o-3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0+ 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 8 7 1.430 1 1 5 0 0 

Bureau of Medicine 5 5 2.032 1 0 3 1 0 

Bureau of Ships 4 4 1.227 2 0 1 1 0 

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 6 6 0.828 0 5 1 0 0 

Naval Attachment, Kirtland AFB 18 17 0.684 2 11 4 0 0 

Naval Attachment, Sandia Base 2 2 1.145 0 1 1 0 0 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory 28 23 0.463 4 16 3 0 0 

Naval Research and Development Laboratory 112 103 0.690 16 57 30 0 0 

Naval Research Laboratory 3 2 1.965 0 1 0 1 0 

Others* 11 6 0.289 3 3 0 0 0 

Unit Unknown** 6 6 0.100 4 2 0 0 0 

Total 203 181 0.729 33 97 48 3 0 

• For list of units in this category, see table 6-3a. 

••* Unit information unavailable. 

144 
Table 6-3a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, NAVY 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD 

Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Bureau of Docks, Washington, D.C. 

Commander Amphibious Group 3 

David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D.C. 

Directorate Weapons Effects Test 

Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C. 

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA 

145 
Table 6-4: DISTRIBUTION OF GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURES FOR MARINE CORPS 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

Personnel Average Gamma Exposure (Roentgens~ Personnel Identified Gamma 

Identified by Name and Exposure I I 

Units by Name by Film Badge (Roentgensl < 0.1 0.1-1.0 1 .Q-3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0+ 

I ~ 

Marine Corps Recruitment Depot, Parris Island, SC - 16 14 0.001 14 0 0 0 

Observers 

Marine Corps Recruitment Depot, San Diego, CA- 14 12 0.001 12 0 0 

Observers 

Others* 36 27 0.001 27 0 0 

Unit Unknown-Observers”” 49 37 0.100 35 0 0 

Total I 115 I 90 I 0.041 I 88 I 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 

• For list of units in this category, see table 6-5~1. 

••* Unit information unavailable. 

146 
Table 6-4a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, 

MARINE CORPS PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION 

BUSTER-JANGLE 

1st Amphibious Tractor Battalion, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific 

1st Signal Operations Company, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific--

Observers 

Headquarters and Service Company, Supply School Battalion 

155 mm Gun Battalion, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific--Observers 

Company A, Headquarters Battalion, Marine Corps Schools, 

Quantico, VA--Observers 

Headquarters and Maintenance Squadron 13, Marine Aircraft Group 

13, Aircraft, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific--Observers 

Headquarters Company, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic, Norfolk, VA--

Observers 

Headquarters Company, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific--Observers 

Headquarters Company, Headquarters Battal'ion, Marine Corps 

Schools, Quantico, VA--Observers 

Headquarters, Field Command, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

Headquarters, Marine Base, Camp Pendleton, CA--Observers 

Headquarters, Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.--Observers 

Marine Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 15, Marine Aircraft Group 

15--Observers 

Marine All-Weather Fighter Squadron 235, Marine Aircraft Group 

25--Observers 

Marine All-Weather Fighter Squadron 451, Marine Aircraft Group 13 

Marine Corps Schools, Quantico, VA--Observers 

Marine Attack Squadron 261, Marine Aircraft Group 13, Aircraft, 

Fleet Marine Force, Pacific--Observers 

Marine Night Fighter Squadron 542, Marine Aircraft Group 15--

Observers 

Marine Observation Squadron 2, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific--

Observers 

Marine Training Squadron 2, Aircraft, Fleet Marine Force, 

Pacific--Observers 

Marine Tactical Air Control Squadron 3, Marine Aircraft Control 

Group 3, Aircraft, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific 

Station Maintenance Squadron 1, Marine Corps Air Station, 

El Tore, CA 

147 
Table 6-5: DISTRIBUTION OF GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURES FOR 

AIR FORCE PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

Personnel 

Personnel 

Identified 

Average 

Gamma Gamma Exposure (Roentgensl 

Identified by Name and Exposure 

Units by Name by Film Badge (Roentgens) <O.l 0.1-1.0 1.0-3.0 3.05.0 5.0+ 

Air Force Special Weapons Command 61 39 0.566 12 19 8 0 0 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 12 6 1.470 2 1 2 1 0 

Cambridge Research Center 24 24 0.070 19 5 0 0 0 

Headquarters, U.S. Air Force 10 8 0.295 5 2 1 0 0 

Headquarters, Wright Air Development Center 100 10 0.393 4 5 1 0 0 

Headquarters, 1090th Special Reporting Group 19 11 0.009 11 0 0 0 0 

Headquarters, 4901 st Support Wing 40 1 0.001 1 0 0 0 0 

Lackland AFB, Texas 1 1 3.570 0 0 0 1 0 

Technical Operations Squadron IProvisional) 11 4 2.120 0 1 2 1 0 

7th Bombardment Wing 16 0 

57th Reconnaissance Squadron 60 2 0.085 1 1 0 0 0 

97th Bombardment Wing 1 1 3.140 0 0 0 1 0 

136th Communication Security Squadron 17 0 

338th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron 32 0 

1090th Special Reporting Squadron 17 11 0.001 11 0 0 0 0 

1131 st Special Activity Squadron 4 3 1.064 1 0 2 0 0 

2060th Mobile Weather Squadron 5 1 1.230 0 0 1 0 0 

3200th Target Drone Squadron 7 5 0.698 2 2 0 1 0 

4901st Support Wing 19 13 0.149 3 10 0 0 0 

4909th Organizational Maintenance Squadron 46 7 0.380 2 4 1 0 0 

4911 th Air Police Squadron 26 1 0.180 0 1 0 0 0 

4925th Test Group 104 67 1.207 16 26 13 12 0 

6531 st Test Squadron 22 1 0.050 1 0 0 0 0 

Other” 88 30 0.155 13 17 0 0 0 

Unit Unknown” 121 83 0.299 52 21 10 0 0 

Total 863 329 0.539 156 115 41 17 0 

* For list of units rn this catagory, see table 64a. 

••* Unit information unavailable. 

14s 
Table 6-5a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY, AIR FORCE 

PARTICIPANTS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

1st Tactical Support Squadron

3rd Aviation Field Squadron 

27th Fighter Wing 

35th Food Service Squadron 

42nd Bombardment Squadron 

49th Bombardment Squadron 

53rd Fighter Bomber Squadron 

97th Aviation Squadron 

140th Maintenance and Supply Squadron 

187th Fighter Bomber Squadron 

545th Aviation Squadron 

561st Fighter Escort Squadron 

1009th Special Weapons Squadron 

1083rd Special Reporting Squadron 

1095th Special Reporting Squadron 

1096th Special Reporting Squadron 

1352nd Motion Picture Squadron 

3061st Support Squadron 

3595th Medical Group 

3596th Air Base Squadron 

3599th Training Group 

4905th Maintenance and Supply Group, Headquarters 

4906th Field Maintenance Squadron

4907th Supply Squadron 

4908th Motor Vehicle Squadron 

4909th Support Squadron 

4910th Air Base Group 

4910th Air Base Group Headquarters 

4914th Flight Operations Squadron 

4915th Installation Squadron 

4920th Medical Group 

Armament Test Division 

Headquarters Squadron, 4910th Air Base Group

Headquarters, Air Proving Ground 

Headquarters, Air Research Development Command 

Headquarters, Air Weather Service 

Headquarters, School of Aviation Medicine 

Headquarters, Strategic Air Command 

Headquarters, Tactical Air Command 

Headquarters, Technical Training Detachment 8407th AAU 

Lookout Mountain Laboratory, Hollywood, CA 

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. 

Radiological Defense School 

149 
Table 6-6: DISTRIBUTION 

PERSONNEL, 

JANGLE 

Units 

Headquarters, Weapons Effects Test Unit 

Radiological Safety 

Stanford Research Institute 

Test Director’s Panel (Staff) 

University of Rochester, NY 

Weapons Effects Test Unit 

Other* 

Total 

• For list of units in this category, see table 

OF GAMMA 

CONTRACTORS, 

Personnel 

Identified 

by Name 

10 

79 

26 

6 

16 

33 

15 

185 

66a 

RADIATION EXPOSURES FOR SCIENTIFIC 

AND OBSERVERS, OPERATION BUSTERPersonnel 

Identified 

Average 

Gamma 

Gamma Exposure fRoentgens1 

by Name and Exposure 

by Film Badge (Roentgensf <O.l 0.1-1.0 1.0-3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0+ 

10 0.589 5 2 3 0 0 

79 0.309 27 47 5 0 0 

26 0.204 11 14 1 0 0 

6 0.318 3 2 1 0 0 

16 0.232 12 3 1 0 0 

33 0.124 28 4 1 0 0 

15 0.202 7 8 0 0 0 

185 0.261 93 80 12 0 0 

150 
Table 6-6a: DETAILED LISTING OF "OTHER" CATEGORY 

FOR SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL, CONTRACTORS, 

AND OBSERVERS, OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE 

North American Aviation 

Observers 

151 
Table 6-7: FILM BADGE READINGS EXCEEDING ESTABLISHED 

LIMITS FOR PARTICIPANTS IN OPERATION BUSTERJANGLE 

Number of Total 

Unit Personnel Exposures tRoentgen.9’ 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 1 3.8 

Bureau of Medicine 1 3.1 

Bureau of Ships 1 3.2 

Buster-Jangle (sic)“” 2 3.6, 4.7 

Desert Rock 3 4.7. 4.9, 5.8 

Engineer Research and Development 3 3.3, 4.9, 4.9 

Laboratories 

Evans Signal Laboratory 1 5.7 

Lackland AFB, TX 1 3.6 

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 1 3.2 

Naval Research Laboratory 1 3.5 

Radiological Safety and Health 7 3.0, 3.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2, 

3.5, 3.5 

Technical Operations Squadron 1 5.0 

United States Army, Special Weapons 1 3.5 

Command, Kirtland AFB 

97th Bombardment Wing 1 3.1 

3200th Target Drone Squadron 1 3.1 

4925th Test Group*** 2 4.0, 4.4 

TOTAL 28 

••Exposures rounded to nearest tenth of a roentgen. 

••* “Sic” indicates that this unit appears just as it was entered 

in the source documentation. 

••** Subject to 3.9 roentgen exposure limit. 

152 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following bibliography represents the 

documents cited in the Operation BUSTERJANGLE volumes. When a DASA-WT or DNA-WT 

document is followed by an EX, the latest 

version has been cited. 

153 
AVAILABILITY INFORMATION 

An availability statement has been included at the end of 

the reference citation for those readers who wish to read or 

obtain copies of source documents. Availability statements were 

correct at the time the bibliography was prepared. It is 

anticipated that many of the documents marked unavailable may 

become available during the declassification review process. The 

Coordination and Information Center (CIC) and the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS) will be provided future 

DNA-WT documents bearing an EX after the report number. 

Source documents bearing an availability statement of CIC 

may be reviewed at the following address: 

Department of Energy 

Coordination and Information Center 

(Operated by Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc.) 

ATTN: Mr. Richard V. Nutley 

2753 S. Highland 

P.O. Box 14100 Phone: (702) 734-3194 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 FTS: 598-3194 

Source documents bearing an availability statement of NTIS 

may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service. 

When ordering by mail or phone, please include both the price 

code and the NTIS number. The price code appears in parentheses 

before the NTIS order number. 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road Phone: (703) 487-4650 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 (Sales Office) 

Additional ordering information or assistance may be obtained by 

writing to the NTIS, Attention: Customer Service, or by calling 

(703) 487-4660. 

154 
OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. 79th Congress of the United States, 2nd Session. Public 

Law 585: Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Washington, 

D. C.: GPO. August 1946. 24 Pages. 

2. Alexander, L. T.; et al. "Analysis of Test Site and 

Fallout Material, JANGLE Project 2.8." (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Particle Studies, WT-371-EX, 

417 pages.) Department of Agriculture. Washington, 

D. C.: DNA. WT-335. October 1979. 35 Pages. 

(A15) AD/A995 072.* 

3. Allen, P. W.; et al. Transport of Radioactive Debris from 

Operation BUSTER and JANGLE, Project 7.1. 

Headquarters, Air Force. Washington, D. C.: DNA. 

WT-308-EX. October 1979. 187 Pages. CA091 

AD/B951 736.* 

4. Andrews, T. J.; et al. "Transient Ground Mechanical 

Effects from HE and Nuclear Explosions, JANGLE 

Project 1.2a-2." Ballistic Research Laboratories. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-385. June 1952. 

67 Pages.*** 

5. Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. Summary Report: 

Weapons Effects Tests, Operation JANGLE. Washington, 

D. C.: DNA. WT-414-EX. October 1979. 

153 Pages. (A08) AD/A995 OOO.* 

6. Armour Research Foundation. Air Force Structures Test, 

JANGLE Project 3.3. Armour Research Foundation. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-405. November 

1952. 636 Pages.*** 

7. Atomic Energy, Commission, Director of Military 

Applications. [Correspondence File, Subject: Troop 

Participation in Atomic Exercises, July - November 

1951.1 Washington, D. C. 1951. 9 Pages.** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

155 
8. Ballou, N. E.; Bunney, L. R. "Nature and Distribution of 

Residual Contamination II, JANGLE Project 2.6c-2." 

(In: Operation JANGLE, Radiochemical Measurements 

and Sampling Techniques, WT-373-EX, 263 pages.) 

Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. Washington, 

D. C.: DNA. WT-397. October 1979. 75 Pages. 

(A12) AD/A995 013.* 

9. Barr, H. C. "Ground Technical Photography Material 

Operations, JANGLE Project 4.la-1." Sandia 

Corporation. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-398. 

November 1951. 29 Pages.*** 

10. Beach, D. E., Col., USA. "Observer's Report on Operation 

Desert Rock III," w/o incls. [Carlisle, PA.: Army 

War College.] December 1951. 5 Pages.** 

11. Bishop, J. A.; Lowance, F. E. "Physical Characteristics 

of Crater and Lip, JANGLE Project 4.2." Naval Civil 

Engineering Research and Evaluation Laboratory. 

Washington, D.C.: AFSWP. WT-399. May 1952. 

37 Pages.*** 

12. Bishop, J. A.; et al. "Engineer Soil Mechanics Tests, 

JANGLE Project 3.29." Naval Civil Engineering 

Research and Evaluation Laboratory. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-336. February 1952. 53 Pages. 

(A04) AD 801 300.* 

13. Bordes, P. A.; Finan, J. L.; Hochstim, J. R.; et al. 

Desert Rock I: A Psychological Study of Troop 

Reactions to an Atomic Explosion. George Washington 

Univ., Human Resources Research Office. Washington, 

D. C.: HumRRO. TR-1. 1953. 152 Pages. (A08)

AD 006 092.* 

14. Boyer, M. W., General Manager, AEC. Memorandum for C. L. 

Tyler, Mngr., SFOO, Sub.ject: Designation of 

Authority as AEC Test Director for BUSTER-JANGLE. 

AEC. Washington, D. C. September 20, 1951. 

1 Page.** 

15. Broido, A.; et al. Basic Thermal Radiation Measurements, 

BUSTER Project 2.4-l. Naval Radiological Defense 

Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-409. 

June 1952. 100 Pages.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests sub,ject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

156 
16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

Brooks, J. W.; et al. Thermal Effects on Animals (Dogs), 

BUSTER Project 4.2. Medical College of Virginia and 

Office of the Surgeon General. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-362. June 1952. 81 Pages.** * 

Brown, A. A.; et al. "Thermal and Blast Effects on 

Idealized Forest Fuels, BUSTER Project 2.2." Forest 

Service. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-309. 

April 1952. 51 Pages. (A04).* 

Bgrnes, V. A. "Flash Blindness, BUSTER Project 4.3." 

School of Aviation Medicine. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-341. March 1952. 22 Pages.*** 

Cadle, R. D.; Wilder, A. G. "Composition of Cloud Formed 

by TNT Explosions, JANGLE Project l(9)-2." Stanford 

Research Institute. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-349. October 1951. 25 Pages.*** 

Campbell, D. C. "Some HE Tests and Observations on 

Craters and Base Surges, JANGLE Project l(9)-3." 

AFSWP. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-410. 

November 1951. 71 Pages.*** 

Caris, E. J.; Terry, J. H. "Gamma Radiation as a Function 

of Time with Droppable Telemeters, JANGLE 2.lb." 

Naval Air Development Center. 

AFSWP. WT-392. April 1952. 

AD/A078 575.* 

Washington, 

55 Pages. 

D. C.: 

(A04) 

Chambers, F. W. "Gamma Depth Dose Measurements in UnitDensity Material, JANGLE Project 2.4b." (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Biological Hazards, WT-372, 241 

pages.) Naval Medical Research Institute. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-332. May 1952. 

36 Pages. (All) AD 611 250.' 

Clark, J. C., Deputy Test Director. Memorandum for 

Record, Subject: Minutes of Meeting with MGEN. Kean, 

1 October 1951, at NTS. AEC. Nevada Test Site, 

NV. J-8511. October 2, 1951. 2 Pages.** 

Colson, E. A.; Grier, H. E. "Long-Range Light 

Measurements, BUSTER Project 7.2." Edgerton, 

Germeshausen and Grier. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-379. January 1952. 65 Pages.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

157 
25. Cook, G. W.; Kiley, W. P. "Detection of Time of Arrival 

First Earth Motion, JANGLE Project 1.5b." David 

Taylor Model Basin. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-326. April 1952. 25 Pages.** * 

26. Corsbie, R. L. AEC Communal Shelter Evaluation, BUSTER 

Project 9.lb. Atomic Energy Commission. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-360. March 1952. 

83 Pages. (A05) PB 163 429.* 

27. Costrell, L. "Gamma Radiation as a Function of Time and 

Distance, JANGLE 2.la.l' (In: Operation JANGLE, 

Gamma Radiation Measurements, WT-3'10 339 pages.) 

National Bureau of Standards. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-329. April 1952. 107 Pages. 

(A06) AD/A078 575.* 

28. Crawford, F. M. "Aerial Technical Photography, JANGLE 

Project 4.1." Wright Air Development Center. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-354. March 1952. 

23 Pages.*** 

29. Cracker, J. A. Seismic Waves from A-Bombs Detonated over 

a Land Mass, BUSTER Project 7.5, JANGLE Project 7 2. 

Headquarters, Air Force. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-321. March 1952. 123 Pages. (AO6).* 

30. Cryden, J.; Gibson, F. P. "Evaluation of Dosimetric 

Materials, BUSTER Project 6.lb." Signal Corps 

Engineering Laboratories and Navy, Bureau of Ships. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-317. March 1952. 

42 Pages. (A03) AD/A077 496.* 

31. Davis, J. M.; Parthum, A. H. Protective Value and 

Ignition Hazards of Textile Materials Exposed to 

Thermal Radiation, BUSTER Project 2.4a. Office of 

the Quartermaster General. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-312. June 1952. 96 Pages. 

(A05) AD/A995 133.* 

32. Defense Nuclear Agency. "Personnel Exposed to Radiation 

from Atmospheric Nuclear Tests (File C)." Computer 

Magnetic Tape: Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. 

Washington, D. C.: DNA. HDNA 609-03. February 

1982.**** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

158 
33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

Doll, E. B. "HE Tests Operation JANGLE Project l(9)." 

Stanford Research Institute. Menlo Park, CA.: SRI. 

SRI-424. October 1951. 12 Pages.** * 

Doll, E. B.; Salmon, V. Ground Acceleration, Ground and 

Air Pressures for Underground Test, JANGLE Project 

l(9)a. Stanford Research Institute. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-380. April 1952. 99 Pages. 

(A05) AD/A995 076.* 

Doll, E. B.; Salmon, V. Scaled HE Tests, JANGLE Project 

1(9)-l. Stanford Research Institute. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-377. April 1952. 

131 Pages.*** 

Earl, J. R.; et al. Protection and Decontamination of 

Land Targets and Vehicles, JANGLE Project 6.2. 

Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP: WT-400. June 1952. 229 Pages.*** 

Eberhard, R. A.; et al. "Peak Air Blast Pressures from 

Shock Velocity Measurements along the Ground, JANGLE 

Project 1.2a-1." Ballistic Research Laboratories. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-323. 1951. 

65 Pages.*** 

Emmquist, E. H. "Evaluation of the Potential Respiratory 

Hazard to Tank Crews Required to Operate in 

Contaminated Areas, JANGLE Project 6.3-2." Army

Chemical Center. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-402. July 1952. 55 Pages.*** 

Fackler, P. H. Interview with Col. Paul H. Fackler, USAF 

(Ret.), Sub,ject: CONLJS Tests. McLean, VA. April 

22, 1981.*** 

Fackler, P. H., Lt. Col., USAF. Technical Air Operations. 

Air Force Special Weapons Command. Kirtland AFB, 

NM.: swc. WT-422. January 1952. 87 Pages.*** 

Flynn, A. P. "FCDA Family Shelter Evaluation, BUSTER 

Project 9.la." Federal Civil Defense 

Administration. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-359, March 1952.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

159 
42. Forbes, M. B., LTC, USA. "Evaluation of Military Radiac 

Equipment, JANGLE Project 6.1." Army Electronics 

Laboratory and Navy, Bureau of Ships. Washington,

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-337. May 1952. 61 Pages.** * 

43. Forbes, M. B., LTC, USA. "Total Dosage, JANGLE Project 

2.3-l." (In: Operation JANGLE, Gamma Radiation 

Measurements, WT-370, 339 pages.) Signal Corps 

Engineering Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-331. March 1952. 49 Pages. 

(A15) AD/A078 575.* 

44. Forbes, M. B., LTC, USA; et al. "Remotely Controlled 

Sampling Techniques, JANGLE Project 2.6a." (In:

Operation JANGLE, Radiochemical Measurements and 

Sampling Techniques, WT-373-EX, 263 pages.) Signal 

Corps Engineering Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. -WT-334.- January l_979. 49 Pages. (A12)

AD/A995 013.* 

45. Gannon, W. F. "Close in Ground Measurements, JANGLE 

Project 1.2b." (In: Operation JANGLE, Blast and 

Shock Measurements II, WT-367, 231 pages.) Sandia 

Corporation and AFSWP. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-364. March 1952. 39 Pages. 

(All) AD/A078 577.* 

46. General Electric Company--TEMPO. Compilation of Local 

Fallout Data from Test Detonations 1945-1962. 

Vol. 1: "Continental US Tests." Washington, D. C.: 

Defense Nuclear Agency. DNA 1251-l(EX.). 1979. 

612 Pages. (A99) AD/A079 309.* 

47. Gerster, Max. The Special Weapons Center and Atomic 

Testing. Air Force Special Weapons Center. 

Kirtland AFB, NM.: AFSWC. K242.04. January 1957. 

305 Pages.*** 

48. Gilbert, H. K.; Wilson, R. Q. "Operation BUSTER, Final 

Report." Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-412. July 1952. 

33 Pages.*** 

49. Gilvarry, J. J.; McMillan, W. G. "Application of the 

Kirtwood-Brinkley Method to the Theory of Underground 

Explosions, JANGLE Project 1.9-1." RAND 

Corporation. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-328. 

October 1952. 17 Pages.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

160 
50. Griggs, D. T. "Notes on Surface and Underground Bursts, 

JANGLE 1.9-2." Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-378. 

1951. 21 Pages.** * 

51. Hansen, R. J.; Archer, J. S. "Army Structures Test, 

JANGLE Project 3.2." Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-387. 

October 1952. 477 Pages.*** 

52. Hansen, R. J.; Saxe, H. C. Ground Acceleration (Shock 

Pins), JANGLE Project 1.7. Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-357. 

June 1952. 79 Pages.*** 

53. Harlan, W. E. "Aerial Survey of Distant Contaminated 

Terrain, JANGLE Project 2.1C-1." (In: Operation 

JANGLE, Gamma Radiation Measurements, WT-370, 339 

pages.) Headquarters, Air Force. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-330. June 1952. 27 Pages. 

(A15) AD/A078 575.* 

54. Haskell, N. A.; Vann, J. D. "The Measurement of Free Air 

Atomic Blast Pressure, JANGLE Project 1.3c." (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Blast and Shock Measurements II, 

WT-367, 231 pages.) Air Force Cambridge Research 

Center. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-325. 

April 1952. 67 Pages. (All) AD/A078 577.* 

55. Hatlem, J. C., Lt. Col., USAF. Special Weapons Command 

Participation in Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. Air 

Force, Special Weapons Command. Kirtland AFB, NM.: 

swc. 1951. 139_Pages.*** 

56. Hazzard, L. B.; McEleney, P. J. Navy Underground and 

Surface Structures, JANGLE Project 3.1. Bureau of 

Yards and Docks. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-404. May 1953. 255_Pages.*** 

57. Headquarters, III Corps. Exercise Desert Rock I. Sixth 

U. S. Army. Fort MacArthur, CA.: HQS III Corps. 

26 June 1952. 125 Pages. (A06) AD/A078 556.* 

58. Headquarters, Camp Desert Rock. Memorandum for Carroll L. 

Tyler, Test Manager, Subject: Desert Rock III 

Schedule. Camp Desert Rock, NV. 25 November 1951. 

2 Pages.** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

161 
59. 

60. 

61. 

62. 

63. 

64. 

65. 

66. 

67. 

Headquarters, Camp Desert Rock. [Memorandum, Subject: 

Selected Officers and Enlisted Men to Participate as 

Observers in Exercise Desert Rock III.] Camp Desert 

Rock, NV. 27 November 1951. 3 Pages.**  

[Headquarters, Camp Desert Rock.] Report of Test 

Exercises Desert Rock II and III. [Sixth Army.] 

Camp Desert Rock, NV.: HQS. Camp Desert Rock. 

15 December 1951. 274 Pages. (A12) AD/B951 583.* 

Headquarters, Special Weapons Command. "Operations Plan., 

Serial 6-51, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE." Air Force, 

Special Weapons Command. Kirtland AFB, NM.: swc. 

15 September 1951.*** 

Hend.ri.ckson, J. R. Evaluation of Military Individual and 

Collective Protection Devices and Clothing, JANGLE 

Project 6.3-l. Army Chemical Center. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-401. July 1952. 77 Pages.*** 

Howard, W. J.; Jones, R. D. "Free Air Pressure 

Measurements, JANGLE Project 1.4." (In: Operation 

JANGLE, Blast and Shock Measurements II, WT-367, 231 

pages.) Sandia Corporation. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-306. February 1952. 39 Pages. 

(All) AD/A078 577.* 

Hughes, D. C.; et al. Clothing Decontamination and 

Evaluation of Laundry Methods, JANGLE Project 6.7. 

Office of the Quartermaster General. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-347. April 1952. 85 Pages.*** 

James, F. E. "Operational Tests of Techniques for 

Accomplishing Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment, BUSTER 

Project 6.5, JANGLE Project 6.4." Wright Air 

Development Center. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-344. March 1952. 56 Pages. (AO4) 

AD/A995 164.* 

Johnson, G. W. "Monitor Survey of Ground Contamination, 

JANGLE Project 2.ld." AFSWP. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-381. May 1952. 33 Pages. 

(A03) AD 454 866.* 

Karstens, E. H. Air Weather Service Participation in 

Operation JANGLE, Project l(8)b. Air Weather 

Service. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-361. 

December 1951. 120 Pages.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

162 
68. Karstens, E. H. Air Weather Service Participation in 

Operation BUSTER, BUSTER Project 8.2. Air Weather 

Service. Washington. D. C.: AFSWP. WT-342. 

December 1951. 263 Pages. (A12) AD/A995 159.* 

69. Kean, W. B., MGEN., USA; Tyler, C. L., Manager, SFOO. 

Memo of Agreement: Agreement Reached between General 

Kean and C. L. Tyler at a Conference Held at Camp 

Desert Rock, Nevada, 16 October 1951. III US Corps 

and AEC. [Camp Desert Rock, NV.: HQS., Camp Desert 

Rock.] 16 October 1951. 2 Pages.** 

70. Lenander, H. E. "Structure Instrumentation, JANGLE 

Project 3.28." Sandia Corporation. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-406. October 1952. 

25 Pages.*** 

71. Lindsten, D. C.; Hansen, C. E. "Effects on Selected Water 

Supply Equipment, BUSTER Project 3.9." Engineer 

Research and Development Laboratories. Washington, 

D. C .: AFSWP. WT-314. April 1952. 36 Pages. 

(A03) AD 482 983.* 

72. Lindsten, D. C.; Lowe, H. N., Jr. "Evaluation of U. S. 

Army Field Water Supply Equipment and Operations, 

JANGLE Project 6.8." Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-340. May 1952. 25 Pages. (AG2)

AD 633 639.* 

73. Maxwell, C. R. Nature and Distribution of Residual 

Contamination I, JANGLE Project 2.6c-1. (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Radiochemical Measurements and 

Sampling Techniques, WT-373-EX, 263 pages.) 

National Institutes of Health. Washington. D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-386. October 1979. 97 Pages.. (A12) 

AD/A995 013.* 

74. Maxwell, C. R.'; et al. "Retrievable Missiles for Remote 

Ground Sampling, JANGLE Project 2.6c-3." (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Radiochemical Measurements and 

Sampling Techniques, WT-373-EX, 263 pages.) 

National Institutes of Health. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-363. June 1952. 33 Pages. (Al2)

AD/A995 013.* 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

163 
75. Maxwell, R. D. "Radiochemical Studies of Large Particles, 

JANGLE Project 2.5a-3." (In: Operation JANGLE, 

Particle Studies, WT-371-EX, 417 pages.) Army 

Medical Service Graduate School. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-333. April 1952. 31 Pages. (A18)

AD/A995 072.* 

76. Military Liaison Committee. Memorandum for the Chairman, 

Atomic Energy Committee, Subject: Attendance of 

Military Personnel at Atomic Weapons Tests. 

Washington, D. C. MLC 31.4. 16 July 1951. 

2 Pages.** 

77. Miller, H. Thermal Radiation Effects on Paints, Plastics, 

and Coated Fabrics, BUSTER Project 2.4b. Engineer 

Research and Development Laboratories. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-407. July 1952. 118 Pages.*** 

78. Miller, J. J. "Photographic Analysis, JANGLE Project 

4.la-2." Sandia Corporation. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-346. March 1952. 43 Pages. (A03)

AD/A995 156.* 

79. Monahan, T. I. The Effect of Thermal Radiation on 

Materials, BUSTER Project 2.4-2. New York Naval 

Shipyard. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-311. 

1951. 110 Pages. (A06) AD 483 460.* 

80. Morrey, C. B.; et al. Theoretical Studies of Underground 

Shock Waves, JANGLE Project 1.9. University of 

California at Berkeley. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-358. April 1952. 131 Pages.*** 

81. Morris, W. E. Ground Acceleration Measurements, JANGLE 

Project 1.1. Naval Ordnance Laboratory. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-388. June 1952. 

289 Pages.*** 

82. Morris, W. E. "Transient Ground Displacement Measurement, 

JANGLE Project 1.5a.l' Naval Ordnance Laboratory. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-382. 1952. 

21 Pages.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

164 
83. Moulton, J. F.; et al. "Peak Pressure vs. Distance in 

Free Air Using Smoke Rocket Photography, JANGLE 

Project 1.3b." (In: Operation JANGLE, Blast and 

Shock Measurements II, WT-367, 231 pages.) Naval 

Ordnance Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-389. June 1952. 59 Pages. (All)

AD/A078 577.* 

84. Nadler, M. R., Capt., USAF. "Report of Radiological 

Safety, Indian Springs AFB, Nevada, Project 

BUSTER/JANGLE." Air Force, Special Weapons Command. 

Kirtland AFB, NM: swc. 5 December 1951. 

52 Pages.*** 

85. Office, Chief of Army Field Forces, [Ltr., OCAFF, 

ATTNG-43, 12 May 1953, Subject: Troop Participation, 

Exercise Desert Rock VI, to: CMDT CTGSC. wo/incl.] 

U. S. Army: OCAFF. Fort Monroe, VA. ATTNG-43 

354(C). 12 May 1953. 5 Pages.** 

86. Office of the Test Director, J-Division. Operation Order 

No. l-51 (BUSTER-JANGLE). Los Alamos, NM.: LASL. 

J-8000. August 1951. 223 Pages.** 

87. Ohio River Division Laboratories. "Earth Displacement 

(Shear Shafts), JANGLE Project 1.6." Ohio River 

Division Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-353. April 1952. 41 Pages.*** 

88. Olmst ed. G. B. Detection of Airborne Low-Freauencv Sound 

from the Atomic Explosions of Operations BUSTER and 

JANGLE, BUSTER Project 7.6, JANGLE Project 7.3. 

Headauarters. Air Force. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-322. March 1952. 147 Pages: (A07) 

AD/A995 156.* 

89. Peters. R. E. Effects of an Atomic Detonation on Aircraft 

Structures on the Ground, BUSTER Project 3.8. 

Wright Air Development Center. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-384. January 1952. 101 Pages.*** 

90. Piper, A. M. Geologic, Hydrologic, and Thermal Features 

of the Sites, JANGLE Project l(8)a. U. S. 

Geological Survey. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-343. May 1952. 79 Pages. (A05) AD/A995 158.* 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

165 
91. Popoff, I. G.; et al. "Fallout Particle Studies, JANGLE 

Project 2.5a-2." (In: Operation JANGLE, Particle 

Studies, WT-371-EX, 417 pages.) Naval Radiological 

Defense Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-395. April 1952. 149 Pages. (Al8)

AD/A995 072.* 

92. Rankowitz, S.; et al. "Free Air Shock Arrival Times, 

JANGLE Project 1.3a.l' (In: Operation JANGLE, 

Blast and Shock Measurements II, WT-367, 231 pages.) 

Brookhaven National Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-324. May 1952. -41 Pages. - (All) 

AD/A078 577.* 

93. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. 

Exposure Data Master File--BUSTER-JANGLE. Mercury, 

NV. REECo. Report 838-00. February 1981. 

Computer Printout.**** 

94. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, All Personnel at Nevada Test 

Site with Exposures of 2.0 r. or Over. Microfilm. 

Mercury, NV. 1951.**** 

95. Robbins, Charles; et al. "Airborne Particle Studies, 

JANGLE Project 2.5a-1." (In: Operation JANGLE, 

Particle Studies, WT-371-EX, 417 pages.) Army

Chemical Center. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-394-EX. October 1979. 198 Pages. (Alf3) 

AD/A995 072.* 

96. Robertson, A. F. "Effects of Geometry on Flash Thermal 

Damage, BUSTER Project 2.3." National Bureau of 

Standards. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-310. 

March 1952. 33 Pages. (A03).* 

97. Rugg, A. M. "Seismic Refraction Survey for Nye County, 

Nevada, JANGLE Project 1(8)a-1." United Geophysical 

Company, Inc. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-327. 

July 1951. 55 Pages. (A04).* 

98. Salmon, V. "Predictions for Underground Test, 

JANGLE 1.9-3." Stanford Research Institute. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-350. November 1951. 

30 Pages.*** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

166 
99. 

100. 

101. 

102. 

103. 

104. 

105. 

106. 

Schorr, M. G.; Gilfillan, E. S. Predicted Scaling of 

Radiological Effects to Operational Weapons, JANGLE 

Project 2.0. Technical Operations,

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-391. 

Inc. 

June 1952. 

131 Pages.** * 

Sheline, G. E.; et al. "Thermal Effects on Animals 

(Rats), BUSTER Project 4.2a." Naval Radiological 

Defense Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-316. February 1952. 53 Pages. (A04) 

AD/A995 134.* 

Shipman, Thomas, M.D., Rad Safe and Health Director. 

Memorandum for J. C. Clark, Subject: Policy and 

Procedure for Rad Safe Organization in Conjunction 

with Operation Desert Rock. AEC, Rad Safe and 

Health Unit. Las Vegas, NV. October 4, 1951. 

2 Pages.** 

Shipman, Thomas, M.D. "Radiological Safety, Operation 

BUSTER-JANGLE." Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.

Los Alamos, NM.: LASL. WT-425-EX. October 1979. 

64 Pages. (A04) AD/B951 743.* 

Singlevich, W.; Douthett, E. M. "Radiochemical, Chemical 

and Physical Analysis of Atomic Bomb Debris, BUSTER 

Project 7.3, JANGLE Project 7.1." Headquarters, Air 

Force. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-320-EX. 

January 1979. 23 Pages. (A02) AD/A995 009.* 

Smith, Falconer; et al. "Biological Injury from Particle 

Inhalation, JANGLE Project 2.7." (In: Operation 

JANGLE, Biological Hazards, WT-372, 241 pages.) 

National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: 

AFSWP. WT-396. June 1952. 69 Pages. (All)

AD 611 250.* 

Spence, R. W.; Knight, J. D. "Radiochemical Results, 

BUSTER-JANGLE Project 10.4." Los Alamos Scientific 

Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-413. 

Februarv 1952. 42 Pages.*** 

Stanford, L. H. "Effects of Atomic Detonations on Radio 

Propagation, BUSTER Pro;ject 6.9." Signal Corps 

Engineering Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-319. February 1952. 71 Pages. 

(A04).* 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

 Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

167 
107. Taylor, L. B. History of the Air Force Atomic Cloud 

Sampling. Vol. 1: "Narrative"; Vol. 2: 

"Appendix." Air Force Special Weapons Center. 

Kirtland AFB, NM.: AFSWC. 61-142-l. 

January 1963. 330 Pages.** * 

108. Terry, J. H.; Robertson, G. D. "Aerial Survey of Local 

Contaminated Terrain, JANGLE Project 2.lc-2." (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Gamma Radiation Measurements, 

WT-370, 339 pages.) Navy, Bureau of Aeronautics, 

and Wright Air Development Center. Washington, 

D. C.: AFSWP. WT-351. 1951. 59 Pages. 

(A15) AD/A078 575.* 

109. Terry, J. H .; Robertson, G. D. "Airborne Radiac 

Evaluation, BUSTER Project 6.4." Bureau of 

Aeronautics. Washington, D.-C.: AFSWP. WT-318. 

May 1952. 32 Pages. (A03) AD/A077 497.* 

110. Thurston, R. D.; Bardeen, T. Minefield Clearance, BUSTER 

Project 3.5. Engineer Research and Development 

Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-313. 

March 1952. 101 Pages. (A06) AD 374 623.* 

111. Tochilin, E.; et al. "Beta-Ray and Gamma-Ray Energy of 

Residual Contamination, JANGLE Project 2.4a." (In: 

Operation JANGLE, Biological Hazards, WT-372, 241 

pages.) Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. 

Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. WT-345. April 1952. 

101 Pages. (All) AD 611 250.* 

112. Vaile, R. B., Jr.; Salmon, V. "Evaluation of Missile 

Hazard, Underground Shot, JANGLE Project 4.5." 

Stanford Research Institute. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-338. May 1952. 53 Pages. (A04)

AD 629 883.* 

113. Walsh, T. G. "Foxhole Shielding of Gamma Radiation, 

JANGLE Project 2.3-2." Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-393. June 1952. 21 Pages. (AC2)

AD 482 985.* 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

168 
114. Walsh, T. G. The Protective Effects of Field 

Fortifications against Neutron and Gamma Ray Flux, 

BUSTER Project 2.6. Engineer Research and 

Development Laboratories. Washington, D. C.: 

AFSWP. WT-383. May 1952. 77 Pages. (A05)

AD 370 259.* 

115. Warren, Shields, M. D., Director, Div. of Biology and 

Medicine. Memorandum for Carroll Tyler, Manager 

SFOO, Subject: Permissible Levels of Radiation 

Exposure for Test Personnel. AEC. Washington, 

D. C. October 11, 1951. 2 Pages.** 

116. Young, G. A. Base Surge Analysis -- HE Tests, JANGLE 

Project l(9)-4. Naval Ordnance Laboratory. 

Washington, D,. C.: AFSWP. WT-339. May 1952. 

105 Pages.*** 

117. Young, G. A.; Milligan, M. L. "Base Surge Analysis for 

Nuclear Tests, JANGLE Project l(9)b." Naval 

Ordnance Laboratory. Washington, D. C.: AFSWP. 

WT-390. June 1952. 35 Pages.*** 

118. Goodyear, Mark V., 1st LT, USA. Letter to E. Tochilin, 

Subject: Gamma Dosage Film Readings from Project 

2.4a Stations during the JANGLE Tests. Office of 

Director, Effects Tests. Washington, D. C. 

9 January 1952. 2 Pages.** 

*Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk. 

**Available at CIC. 

***Not available, see Availability Information page. 

****Requests subject to Privacy Act restrictions. 

169 

DISTRIBUTION 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ~_____ 

Armed Forces Staff College 

ATTN: Library 

Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs 

ATTN: PA0 

Defense Nuclear Agency 

ATTN: PA0 

ATTN: GC 

ATTli: BA 

5 cy ATTN: NTPR 

25 cy ATTN: TITL 

Defense Technical information Center 

17 cy ATTN: DD 

Field Command 

Defense Huclear Agency 

ATTN. FCLS 

ATTN: FCTT, W. Summa 

ATTN. FCLS, J. Stinson 

ATTN. FCTT, 6. Ganong 

Interservice Nuclear '!eapons School 

ATTN: TTV 

National Defense University 

ATTN: ICAF Tech Library 

Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 

Atomic Energy 

ATTN: Military Applications 

ATTN: Executive nssistant 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Army Library 

ATTN: Military Dot Set 

Army Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

2 cy ATTN: DAAG-AMR-R TAG0 

U.S. Ariiiy Center of Military History 

ATTN: DAMH-HSO 

U.S. Army Chemical School 

ATTN: ATZN-CM-CS 

ATTN: ATZN-CM-AL 

U.S. Army Comd R General Stdff College 

ATTN: Library 

U.S. Army War College 

ATTN: Library 

U.S. Army Nuclear & Chemical Agency 

ATTN: Library 

DE_PAF?JFIENTOF THE NAVY 

Aviation History Unit 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Library 

Bureau of Medicine and Surgery 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Asst for Med Surgery 

LIST 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVxContinuedl .__- __ -_-_-

James Carson Breckinridge Library 

Department of the Navy 

ATT;{: Library Div 

Marine Carps Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

ATTN: Code MSRB-60 

Merchant Marine Academy 

ATTN: Director of Libraries 

Marine Corps Dev & Education Comrriand 

ATTN: J. C. Breckinridge Lib 

Naval Hospital Corps School 

ATTN: Library 

Naval Ocean Systems Center 

ATT% Library 

Naval Oceanographic Office 

ATTIC: Code 325, Historian 

Naval Postgraduate School 

ATTN: Code 1424, Library 

Naval Research Laboratory 

ATTN: Library 

Naval School 

Naval Construction Battalion Center 

ATTN: Commanding Officer 

Naval Sea Systems Command 

ATTN: Nuclear Technology Div 

Naval Surface Weapons Center 

ATTN: Library 

riaval War College 

ATTN: Professor B Libraries 

Naval Weapons Center 

ATT:J: Code 233 

Naval Weapons Evaluation Facility 

ATTN: Library 

Navy Dept Library 

ATTN: Llbrn 

Navy Nuclear Fewer School 

ATTN: Library 

Navy Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

2 cy ATTN: W. Loeffler 

U.S. Naval Academy 

llimitz Library 

ATTN: Documents R Reports Dept 

Marine Corps Base 

ATTN: Document Custodian 

171 
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (Continued) 

Office of the Judge Adv Gen 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Code 73 

Marine Corps tiistorical Center 

2 cy ATTN: Code HDH-2 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 

ATTN: Librn 

U.S. Naval Air Station Library 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Library. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

Academy Library DFSELD 

U.S. Air Force Academy 

ATTN: Library 

Aerospace Defense Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Communications Command 

ATTK Historian 

Air Force Institute of Technology 

ATTN: Library 

Air Force Logistics Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

ATTN: HQ USAF/SGES 

Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine 

ATTN: Strughold Library 

Air Force Systems Connnand 

ATT!4: Historian 

Air Force Technical Applications Center 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Weapons Laboratory 

Air Force Systems Command 

ATTN: Tech Library 

Air National Guard 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Training Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Air University Library 

Department of the Air Force 

ATTN: AUL-LSE 

Military Air Lift Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Cornnander-in-Chief 

Pacific Air Forces 

ATTN: Historian 

Tactical Air Command 

Department of the Air Force 

ATTN: Historian 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (Continued1 

Strategic Air Comnand 

Department of the Air Force 

ATTN: NRI-STINFO Library 

ATTN: Historian 

U.S. Air Force Occupational & Env Health Lab 

ATTN: NTPR 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY _I_ 

Department of Energy 

ATTN: OMA 

Department of Energy 

Nevada Operations Office 

ATTN: Health Physics Div 

2 cy ATTN: R. Nutley 

Department of Energy 

Human Health & Assessments Division 

ATTN: EV-31 

OTHER GOVERNMEIJT AGENCIES - _~__ 

Centers for Disease Control 

U.S. Public Health Service 

ATTN: G. Caldwell 

Central Intelligence Agency 

ATTN: Office of Medical Services 

Department of Health 8; Human Svcs 

ATTN: Office of General Counsel 

Exec Oft of The President 

Management & Budget Off Lib 

ATTN: Librn 

Library of Congress 

ATTN: Library Service Division 

ATTN: Science & Technology Div 

ATTN: Serial & Govt Publication 

National Atomic Museum 

ATTN: Historian 

Department of Commerce 

National Bureau of Standards 

ATTN: Librn 

Occupational Safety & Health Admin 

ATTN: Library 

Office of Health & Disability (ASPER) 

ATTN: R. Copeland 

Oft of Workers Compensation Program 

Department of Labor 

ATTN: R. Larson 

U.S. Coast Guard Academy Library 

ATTN: Librn 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2 cy ATTN: Committee on Armed Svcs 

172 
9THER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce 

ATTN: Subcommittee on Health & Envir 

U.S. Military Academy 

ATTN: Director of Libraries 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Armed Services 

ATTN: Corrmittce on Veterans Affairs 

U.S. Senate 

ATTN: Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Providence, RI 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Montgomery, AL 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Anchorage, AK 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Phoenix, AZ 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Little Rock, AR 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Los Angeles, CA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

San Francisco, CA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Denver, CO 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Hartford, CT 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Wilmington, DE 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-OFC Central 

Washington, D. C. 

ATTN: Dept Veterans Benefit, Central OfC 

ATTN: Director 

ATTN: Board of Veteran Appeal 

Veterans Administration-R0 

St. Petersburg, FL 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Atlanta, GA 

ATTN: Director 

OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Honolulu, HI 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-RD 

Chicago, IL 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Seattle, WA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Indianapolis, IN 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Des Moines, IA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Wichita, KS 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Louisville, KY 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

New Orleans, LA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Togus, ME 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Baltimore, MD 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Boston, MA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

St. Paul. MN 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Jackson, MS 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Huntington, WV 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

St. Louis, MO 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Ft. Harrison, MT 

ATTN: Director 

National Archives 

ATTN: Librn 

173 
OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued1 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Lincoln, NE 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Reno, NV 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Manchester, NH 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Newark, NJ 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Milwaukee, WI 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Albuquerque, NM 

ATTN: Pirector 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Buffalo,'NY 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

New York, NY 

ATTN: Uirector 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Winston-Salem, NC 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Fargo, ND 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Cleveland, OH 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Muskogee, OK 

ATTf4: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Portland, OR 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Pittsburgh, PA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Philadelphia, PA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

San Francisco, CA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

ATTli: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Columbia, SC 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Sioux Falls, SD 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Houston, TX 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Waco, TX 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Salt Lake City, UT 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administraiton-RO 

White River Junction, VT 

ATTIC: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Roanoke, VA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Cheyenne, WY 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

San Diego, CA 

ATT'I: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Boise, ID 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Detroit, 1.11 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Nashville, TN 

ATTN: Director 

The White House 

ATTN: Domestic Policy Staff 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONTRACTORS -._____ 

Lawrence Livennore National Lab' 

ATTN: Tech Info Dept Library 

Los Alamos National Lab 

ATTN: Library 

2 cY ATTN: ADPA MMS 195 

Sandia National Lab 

ATTN: W. Hereford 

ATTN: Central Library 

Reynolds Electrical & Engr Co., Ire 

ATTN: CIC 

ATTN: W. Brady 

174 
OTHER ~--

Adams State Colleoe 

ATTN: GOV Pubs Library 

Akron Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Library 

Alabama State Dept of Archives & History 

ATTN: Military Records Div 

University of Alabama 

ATTN: Reference Dept/Documents 

University of Alaska Library at Anchorage 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Library 

University of Alaska 

RTTN: Dir of Libraries 

Albany Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Alexander City State Jr College 

ATTN: Librn 

Allegheny College 

ATTN: Librn 

Allen County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Altoona Area Public Library 

ATTIC: Librn 

American Statistics Index 

Congressional Info Service, Inc 

ATTN: Cathy ,Jarvey 

Anaheim Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

College of Wooster 

ATTN: Gov Dots 

Angelo State Universi?y Library 

ATTIC: Librn 

Angelo Iacoboni Public Library 

ATThl: Librn 

Anoka County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Appalachian State University 

ATTN: Library Dots 

Arizona State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Arizona 

ATTIC: Gov Dot Dept/C. Bower 

Arkansas College Library 

ATTN: Library 

Brooklyn College 

ATTN: Dot Civ 

DTtiER_iContinuedj 

Arkansas Library Comm 

ATTN: Library 

Arkansas State University 

ATTN: Library 

University of Arkansas 

ATTN: Gov Dots Div 

Austin College 

ATTN: Librn 

Atlanta Public Library 

ATTN: Ivan Allen Dept 

Atlanta University 

ATTN: Librn 

Auburn University Library at Mongomery (Reg) 

ATTN: Librn 

C. W. Post Ctr Long Island University 

ATTN: Librn 

Bangor Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Bates College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Baylor University Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Beloit College Libraries 

ATTN: Serials Dots Dept 

Bemidji State College 

ATTN: Library 

State University College 

ATTN: Gov Dots 

Akron University 

ATTN: Gov Dots 

Boston Public Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Bowdoin College 

ATTN: Librn 

Bowling Green State University 

ATTN: Lib Gov Dots Services 

Bradley University 

ATTN: Librn 

Brandeis University Library 

ATTN: Dots Section 

Brigham Young University 

ATTN: Librn 

Brigham Young University 

ATTN: Dots Collection 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

ATTN: Tech Library 

175 
Broward County Library Sys 

ATTN: Librn 

Brown University 

ATTN: Librn 

Bucknell University 

ATTN: Reference Dept 

Buffalo & Erie Co Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

State University Library of California at Fresno 

ATTfJ: Library 

University Library of California at Los Angeles 

ATTN: Pub Affairs Serv U.S. Dots 

University of California at San Diego 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

State College Library of California at Stanislaus 

ATTN: Library 

California State Polytechnic University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

California State University at Northridge 

ATTll: Gov Dot 

California State Library (Reg) 

ATTV: Librn 

California State University at Long Beach Library 

ATT'I: Librn 

California State University 

ATTN: Librn 

California State University 

ATTN: Librn 

California University Library 

ATTN: Gov Pub Dept 

California University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

California University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Dept 

California University Library 

ATTN: Dots Set 

University of California 

ATTN: Gov Dots Dept 

Calvin College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Kearney State College 

ATTEl: Gov Dots Dept 

Carleton College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHERlContinuedJ 

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh 

ATTN: Librn 

Carnegie Mellon University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Carson Regional Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Unit 

Case Western Reserve University 

ATlN: Librn 

University cf Central Florida 

ATTN: Library Dots Dept 

Central Michigan University 

ATTN: Library Dots Set 

Central I~issouri State Univ 

ATTN: Gov Dots 

Central State University 

ATTN: Lib Dots Dept 

Central Washington University 

ATTN: Lib Dots Set 

Central Wyoming College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Charleston County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Charlotte & flechlenburg County Public Library 

ATTN: E. Correll 

Chattanooga Hamilton County, Bicentennial Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Chesapeake Public Library System 

ATTN: Librn 

Chicago Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Pub5 Dept 

State University of Chicago 

ATTN: Librn 

Chicago University Library 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

ATTN: Dots Processing 

Cincinnati University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Claremont College5 Libraries 

ATTN: Dot Collection 

Clemson University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

176 
OTHER (Continuedj __. 

Cleveland Public Library 

ATTN: Dots Collection 

Cleveland State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Coe Library 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Colgate University Library 

ATTN: Ref Lib 

Colorado State University Libraries 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Colorado Libraries 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Columbia University Library 

ATTN: Dots Svc Ctr 

Columbus & Franklin Cty Public Library 

ATTN: Gen Ret Div 

Compton Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Connecticut State Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Connecticut 

ATTN: Gov't of Connecticut 

University of Connecticut 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Cornell.University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Corpus Christi State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Culver City Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Curry College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dallas County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dallas Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dalton Junior College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dartmouth College 

ATTN: Librn 

Davenport Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Davidson College 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

Dayton & Montgomery City Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Dayton 

ATTN: Librn 

Decatur Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dekalb Community College So Cpus 

ATTN: Librn 

Delaware Pauw University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Delaware 

ATTN: Librn 

Delta College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Delta State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Denison University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Denver Public Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Dept of Library & Archives (Reg) 

ATTN: Librn 

Detroit Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Burlington Library 

ATTN. Lihrn 

Dickinson State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Alabama Agricultural Mechanical University & Co11 

ATTN: Librn 

Drake University 

ATTN: Cowles Library 

Drew University 

ATTN: Librn 

Duke University 

ATTN: Pub Dots Dept 

Duluth Public Library 

ATTN: Dots Set 

East Carolina University 

ATTN: Lib Dots Dept 

East Central University 

ATTN: Librn 

East lslip Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

177 
OTHER wnued 

East Orange Public Library 

ATTN: U.S. Gov't Depository 

East Tennessee State University Sherrod Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

East Texas State University 

ATTN: Library 

Monmouth County Library Eastern Branch 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Illinois University 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Kentucky University 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Michigan University Library 

ATTN: Library 

Eastern Montana College Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Eastern New Mexico Uriiversity 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Oregon College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern 'Washington University 

ATTN: Librn 

El Paso Public Library 

ATTN: Dots & Geneology DePt 

Elko County Library 

ATT:{: Librn 

Elmira College 

ATTN: Librn 

Elon College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Enoch Pratt Free Library 

ATTN: Dots Oft 

Emory University 

ATTb': Librn 

Evansville & Vanderburgh Cty Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Everett Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Fairleigh Dickinson University 

ATTN: Depository Dept 

Florida A & M University 

ATTN: Librn 

Florida Atlantic University Library 

AT%: Div of Pub Dots 

OTHER (Continued) 

Florida Institute of Technology 

ATTN: Library 

Florida International University Library 

ATTN: Dots Set 

Florida State Library 

ATTN: Dots Set 

Florida State University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Florida 

ATTN: Dots Dept/D-103 

Fond Du Lac Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Ft Hays State University 

Ft Hays Kansas State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Ft Worth Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Free Public Library of Elizabeth 

ATTN: Librn 

Free Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Freeport Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Fresno Cty Free Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Gadsden Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Garden Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Gardner Webb College 

ATTN: Dots Library 

Gary Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Georgetown University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Room 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

ATTN: Librn 

Georgia Southern College 

ATTN: Librn 

Georgia Southwestern College 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Georgia State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

178 
OTHER (Continued) 

University of Georgia 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Glassboro State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Gleeson Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Graceland College 

ATTN: Librrr 

Grand Forks Public City-County Library 

ATT!: Librn 

Grand Rapids Public Library 

ATTN: Dir of Lib 

Greenville County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Guam RFK Memorial University Library 

ATTN: Fed Depository Co11 

University of Guam 

ATTN: Librn 

Gustavus Adolphus College 

ATTN: Librn 

South Dakota University 

ATTN: Librn 

Hardin-Sirnnons University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Hartford Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Harvard College Library 

ATTN: Dir of Lib 

Harvard College Library 

ATTN: Serials Ret Div 

University of Hawaii Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Co11 

Hawaii State Library 

ATTN: Fed Dots Unit 

University of ilawaii at flonoa 

ATT!&: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

University of Hawaii 

Hilo Campus Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Haydon Burns Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Hennepin County Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots 

Henry Ford Community College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

Herbert H. Lehman College 

ATTN: Lib Dots Div 

Hofstra University Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Hollins College 

ATTN: Librn 

Hopkinsville Comnunity College 

ATTN: Librn 

Wagner Colleqe 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Houston Library 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Houston Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Tulane University 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Hoyt Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Humboldt State College Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Huntington Park Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Hutchinson Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Idaho Public Library & Information Center 

ATTN: Librn 

Idaho State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Idaho State University Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

University of Idaho 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

ATTN: Dots Set 

University of Illinois Library 

ATTN: Dots Set 

Illinois State Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Gov Dots Br 

Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign 

ATTN: P. Watson Dots Lib 

Illinois 'Valley Community College 

ATTN: Library 

Illinois State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Indiana State Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Serial Set 

Indiana State University 

ATTN: Dots Library 

179 
_ 

OitliK (Continued) 

Indiana University Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Indianapolis Marion County Public Library 

ATTN: Social Science Oiv 

Iowa State University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Dept 

!owa University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Dept 

Butler University 

ATTN: Libtn 

Isaac Delchdo College 

ATTil: Librn 

James ?tadison University 

ATTN : Librn 

Jefferson County Public Library 

Lakewood Regional Library 

ATTiI: Librn 

Jersey City State College 

ATTtj: F. A. Irwin Library Periodicals 

Dot Set 

Johns Hookins University 

ATT:I: Dots Library 

La Roche College 

ATTPJ: Librn 

Johnson Free Public Library 

ATTIC: Librn 

Kalamazoo Public Library 

ATT?{: Librn 

Kansas City Public Library 

ATIll: Dots Div 

Kansas State Library 

ATTIC: Librn 

Kansas State University Library 

ATTfi: Dots Dept 

University of Kansas 

ATTN: Dir of Library (Reg) 

University of Texas 

ATTN: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public 

Affairs Library 

Maine Maritime Academy 

ATTY: Librn 

University of Maine 

ATiN: Librn 

Kent State University Library 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Kentucky Dept of Library & Archives 

ATTN: Dots Set 

University of Kentucky 

ATTN: tiov Pub Dept 

ATTN: Dir of Lib (Reg) 

Kenyon College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lake Forest College 

ATTN: Librn 

Lake Sumter Community College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lakeland Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lancaster Regional Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lawrence University 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Brigham Young University 

ATTX: Dots & Map Set 

Library and Statutory Dist & Svc 

2 cy ATTN: Librn 

Earlham College 

ATTN: Librn 

Little Rock Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Long Beach Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Los Angeles Public Library 

ATTN: Serials Div U.S. Dots 

Louisiana State University 

ATTN: Gov Dot Dept 

,4TTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Louisville Free Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Louisville University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Hoover- Institution 

ATTIC: J. Gingham 

180 
OTHER~._&mtinued_) _ _ .~ 

Manchester City Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Mankato State College 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

University of Maine at Farmington 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Marathon County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Principia College 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Maryland 

ATT:{: McKeldin Library Dots Div 

University of Maryland 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Massachusetts 

FTT:I: Gov Dots Co11 

Maui Public Library 

Kahul'li Branch 

ATTN: Librn 

McNeese State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Memphis h Shelby County Public Library & 

Information Center 

ATTN: Librn 

Memphis State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Mercer University 

ATTN: Librn 

:.lesa County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Miami Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

Miami Public Library 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Miami University Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

University of Santa Clara 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Michigan State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Michigan State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Murray State University Library 

ATTN: Lib 

OTtiER icontinued) _.~_ _~~_ 

Michigan Tech University 

ATTN: Lib Dots Dept 

University of Michigan 

ATTN: Acq Set Dots Unit 

Middlebury College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Millersville State College ’ 

ATTN: Librn 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Dots Librn 

Milwaukee Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Minneapolis Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Minnesota 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Minot State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Mississippi State University 

ATTPI: Librn 

University of Mississippi 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Missouri University at Kansas City General 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Missouri Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots 

M.I.T. Libraries 

ATTN: Librn 

Mobile Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Info Div 

Midwestern University 

ATTN: Librn 

Montana State Library 

ATTN: Cibrn 

Montana State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Montana 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Montebello Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Moorhead State College 

ATTll: Library 

Mt Prospect Public Library 

ATTN: Gov't Info Ctr 

181 
llassau Library System 

ATTtr: Librn 

t~dtrona County Public Library 

ATTll: Librn 

Xebrdska Library Conimunity 

Iiebraska f'ublic Clearinghouse 

ATTN: Librn 

Uniters Ity of 'Nebraska at Omaha 

A J :I; : Liniv Lib Doci 

I;ebraika 'ilester-n College I ibrary 

ATT:{: LlDrn 

University of tlebraska 

ATltJ: Dir of Libraries (Rcq) 

'Jnivers~tv of I;ebraska Library 

ATT'I: Acquisitions Dept 

Univel'sity of 'levada Library 

AT;?1: Gov Pubs I)e}:t 

University of tjevada at Ldi Vegas 

Ail'l: I!II-of L~hrd~.ies 

I;ei, !i~1111[12111 nlverslty I Ibral-y I-e :1 

ATT'I: Librn 

:irvrYork. Fhlblic Library 

ATTN : iibrn 

f;ew York State Library 

ATW: Llocs Control [ultur-31 Ed Ctr 

Stdte Ilnlversity of 'lew Yorh at Stony Brook 

ATTI.: Xdl” Lib D0c.sset 

'-tote ;Jn~vk,~.ilty of ii~w 1ol.k Co1 Yemor.i.~l Lib 

&It !‘ortldrld 

Arrfr: I lbr.n 

State Ilnivrrslty of :lew 'York 

ATT'l: Lib 30~s Set 

I(rirth Tpxac State University Library 

ATTII: Llbrn 

DTt!ER_ (Contin_ue_d) 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Librn 

New York State University 

ATTN: Uocs Ltr 

State University of Xew York 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Plew York University Library 

ATTt;: Dots Dept 

Newark Free Library 

ATTIC: Llbrn 

Yewarl, Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Niagara Falls Public Library 

ATTil: Librn 

Nicholls itate University Library 

ATTN: Dots Div 

EIieves Fl. / lores Memorid Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Plorfolk PUL tl ic I ibrary 

ATT'I: R. Parker 

Ijorth Carolina Agricultural P, Tech State 

University 

ATTN Librn 

University of ilorth Carolina at Charlotte 

ATTIC: Atkins Lib Dot Dept 

University Library of "iorth Cdrollna at Creensbot‘o 

ATTll: Lihrn 

University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

ATT:!: Librn 

florth Carolina Central University 

ATT!I: Librn 

North Carolina State University 

ATTll: Librn 

University of North Carolina 

ATTrl: BA SS Div Dots 

North Dakota State University Library 

ATTIJ: Oocs Librn 

University of tiorth Dakota 

ATTPI: Librn 

North Leorcid College 

ATTN: Librn 

Minnesota Div cf Emergency Svcs 

ATTN: Librn 

182 
OTHER (Continued) 

Northeast Missouri State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Northeastern Oklahoma State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Northeastern University 

ATTN: Dodge Library 

Northern Arizona University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Dept 

Northern Illinois University 

ATTN: Librn 

Ilorthern Michigan University 

ATTN: Dots 

Northern Montana College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Northwestern Michigan College 

ATTN: Librn 

Northwestern State University 

ATTIC: Librn 

Northwestern State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Northwestern University Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Dept 

llorwalk Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Northeastern Illinois University 

ATTN: Library 

University of Notre Dame 

ATTIC: Dot Ctr 

Oakland Community College 

ATTN: Librn 

Oakland Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Oberlin College Library 

ATT:I: Librn 

Ocean County College 

ATTN: Librn 

Ohio State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Ohio State University 

ATTI;: Lib Dots Div 

Ohio University Library 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Oklahoma City University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Oklahoma City University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER jcontinued) 

Oklahoma Department of Libraries 

ATTN: U.S. Gov Dots 

University of Oklahoma 

ATTN: Dots Div 

Old Dominion University 

ATTIC: Dot Dept Univ Lib 

Olivet College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Omaha Public Library Clark Branch 

ATTN: Librn 

Onondaga County Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Dots Set 

Oregon State Library 

ATTIC: Librn 

University of Oregon 

ATTN: Dots Set 

Ouachita Baptist University 

ATT;I: Librn 

Pan American University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Passaic Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Queens College 

ATTN: Dots Dept 

Pennsylvania State Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Set 

Pennsylvania State University 

ATTN: Lib Dot Set 

University of Pennsylvania 

ATTN: Dir of Lib,-aries 

University of Denver 

ATTN: Penrose Library 

Peoria Public Library 

ATTN: Business, Science & Tech Dept 

Free Library of Philadelphia 

ATT?]: Gov Pubs Dept 

Philipsburg Free Public Library 

ATTN: Library 

Phoenix Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Pittsburgh 

ATTN: Dots Office, GB 

Plainfield Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

183