ANALYSIS OF RADIATION EXPOSURE FOR 

TASK FORCE BIG BANG, SHOT GALILEO 

Exercise Desert Rock Operation 

Science Applications, Inc. 

8400 Drive 

McLean, Virginia 22102 

9 April 1980 

Final Report for Period 27 February 1978-19 July 1979 

CONTRACT No. DNA 001-78-C-0186 

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; 

DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. 

THIS WORK SPONSORED BY THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY 

UNDER RMSS CODE 8325078404 

Prepared for 

RECEIVED Director 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY 

Washington, D. C. 20305 
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 

READ INSTRUCTIONS 

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 

REPORT NUMBER 

DNA 4772F 

ACCESS ION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMB ER 

4. T T E (and Subtitle 

OF EXPOSURE FOR TASK FORCE BIG

BANG, SHOT GALILEO 

Exercise Desert Rock VII-VIII Operation 

TYPE OF REPORT COVERED 

Final Report for Period 

27 Feb 78-19 Jul 79 

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NU M B ER 

SAI-79-844-MA 

7. AUTHOR(s) 

J. L. Goetz J. T. 

D. Kaul K. 

J. Klemm 

CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) 

DNA 001-78-C-0186 

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 

Science Applications, Inc. 

8400 Drive 

McLean, Virginia 22102 

PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK 

AREA WORK UNIT NUMBERS 

CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 

Director 

Defense Nuclear Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20305 

REPORT DATE 

9 April 1980 

OF PAGES 

94 

MONITORING AGENCY NAME Office) 15 SECURITY CLASS 

UNCLASSIFIED 

DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADING 

SCHEDULE 

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Report) 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20. if different Report) 

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

This work sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency under RDT&E RMSS Code 

B325078404 

9. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side necessary identify by block number) 

GALILEO 82nd Airborne Div. (Prov. Co.) 

SMOKY NTPR Internal Dose 

Fallout Task Force BIG BANG Resuspension 

Desert Rock Beta Dose 

Radiation Exposure Project 50.1 

‘0. ABSTRACT on side II necessary and identify by block number) 

The radiation doses to Task Force BIG BANG troops who participated in Shot 

GALILEO are determined and compared with film badge data gathered during 

Exercise Desert Rock VII-VIII. Fallout contours and decay rates are established and used to calculate total external beta and gamma doses, based on 

estimated stay time for various troop activities. Uncertainties are calculated for each parameter. Radiation dose from internal emitters, due to 

inhalation of resuspended contaminated particles, is calculated. Total 

DD , 1473 OF is O B SOLETE UNCLASSIFIED 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE nlcreo, 
- - --

UNCLASSIFIED 

CLASSIFICATION OF THIS Entered) 

ABSTRACT (Continued) 

gamma dose is estimated to be mrem as compared with a mean 

badge reading of 1900 mrem. 50-year bone dose, due to 1 emitters, 

estimated to be mrem. 

UNCLASSIFIED 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS Entered) 
- - -

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Paqe 

1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

2 OPERATIONS ........................... 7 

2.1 GALILEO SHOT DATA ..................... 7 

2.2 PARTICIPANTS ........................ 7 

2.3 TROOPPLAN ......................... 7 

2.4 PRE-SHOT OPERATIONS .................... 14 

2.5 SHOT SCENARIO ....................... 18 

3 INITIAL RADIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

4 RESIDUAL RADIATION ....................... 25 

4.1 RESIDUAL GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURE. ............. 25 

4.2 EXTERNAL BETA RADIATION EXPOSURE .............. 29 

4.3 INTERNAL RADIATION EXPOSURE. ................ 31 

5 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF 

TOTAL FILM BADGE GAMMA DOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 

6 FILM BADGE DOSIMETRY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

6.1 FILM BADGE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

6.2 COMPARISON OF DOSE CALCULATIONS WITH FILM BADGE DATA . . . . 46 

7 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

8 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

APPENDICES 

I FALLOUT PLOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 

II FALLOUT DECAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

III GAMMA INTENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE SMOKY FALLOUT FIELD. . . . . 81 

IV GROUND CONCENTRATION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN THE HUMRRO AREA. . . . . 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•••••••

•••••••

- -

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

SMOKY Trenches and HumRRO Test Area 12 

Northern Portion of Yucca Flat. 13 

Rehearsing the Rifle Test in the HumRRO Test Area ••••••• 15 

Rehearsing the Minefield Test in the HumRRO Test Area 16 

HumRRO Infiltration Course. •••••• • 21 

Grenade Throw During the HumRRO Test. •••••• • 22 

Distribution of Film Badge Readings, Task Force BIG BANG. 44 

Cross Plot of Gamma and Beta Film Badge Readings. •••••• • 45 

Comparison of the Distribution of Calculated and Actual 

Film Badge Doses. 47 

I-l BOLTZMANN Fallout 60 

I-2 FRANKLIN Fallout. 61 

I-3 WILSON Fallout. 62 

I-4 DIABLO Fallout. 63 

I-5 KEPLER Fallout. 64 

I-6 PASCAL "A" Fallout. 65 

I-7 SHASTA Fallout. 66 

I-8 FRANKLIN PRIME Fallout. 67 

I-9 SMOKY Fallout 68 

I-10 GALILEO Fallout 69 

I I-l Fallout Decay Comparison. 78 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 HUMRRO TEST REHEARSALS. ..................... 17 

I-l OPERATION FALLOUT DETERMINATION, 28 MAY TO 

II-6 FACTORS TO CONVERT INTENSITIES 

IV-l SURFACE CONCENTRATIONS OF BETA/GAMMA EMITTERS FOR THE HUMRRO 

IV-2 MEASURED AND CALCULATED PERCENT OF BETA ACTIVITY FOR SELECTED 

2 ESTIMATED 50-YEAR BONE DOSE ................... 40 

3 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND ACTUAL FILM BADGE DOSES 

FOR TASK FORCE BIG BANG ..................... 49 

2 SEPTEMBER 1957. ........................ 

II-1 BOLTZMANN FALLOUT DECAY ..................... 72 

II-2 DIABLO FALLOUT DECAY. ...................... 73 

II-3 SHASTA FALLOUT DECAY. ...................... 74 

II-4 SMOKY FALLOUT DECAY ....................... 75 

II-5 COMPOSITE FALLOUT DECAY. ................ 76 

TO INTENSITIES ON SPECIFIC DATES. ................ 

REHEARSALS AND TEST. ...................... 87 

NUCLIDES AT HOURS ..................... 88 

3 
•••

KEPLER I BOLTZMANN . 

PA&CAL A 

I 

GAL FRANKLIN 

N EV A DA 

News Nob, 2 4 6 8 

CONTROL 

SITE 

Nevada Test Site 

LLA 
-- - -

Section 1 

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 

This report focuses on the external and internal radiation doses to 

members of Task Force BIG BANG resulting from their activities at the Nevada 

Test Site during Operation in 1957. Task Force BIG BANG, a provisional 

company from the 82nd Airborne Division, participated in an exercise conducted 

by the Human Resources Research Office Department of the Army, in 

conjunction with Shot GALILEO on 2 September 1957. The exercise and two 

rehearsals took place in an area that had been contaminated by fallout from 

several shots in the series prior to GALILEO, in particular Shot 

SMOKY, which occurred only 2 days earlier. 

Task Force activities are traced from training in mid-August through 

the exercise on September to provide the time-dependent position data 

required for the reconstruction of personnel dose. The application of decay 

rates to residual radiation intensity data (from SMOKY and other pertinent 

shots) permits the intensity at any position and time to be determined. 

Radiation transport models for neutrons and radiation are used to 

determine the initial radiation dose from GALILEO (fallout from GALILEO was 

not a factor due to prevailing wind conditions). The calculated external dose 

(in terms of the dose a film badge, as worn, would record) is compared with 

film badge records. An uncertainty analysis establishes confidence limits for 

the film badge dose estimates. The dose from internal emitters is 

determined from reconstructed ground contamination levels, predicted 

isotopic composition of fallout, estimated resuspension of fallout particles 

and standard inhalation/dose models. Bone dose is emphasized because of the 

current interest in leukemia risk assessment. 

5 
Major findings presented in this report are: 

Virtually all external radiation dose received by Task Force 

BIG BANG resulted from operations in the SMOKY fallout field. 

Film badge gamma doses calculated for the task force ranged 

from 1070 to 1780 mrem, which is consistent with the mean film 

badge reading of 1900 mrem. Within 90 percent confidence 

limits, the calculated film badge dose range for all troops 

was 610 to 3420 mrem. All film badge readings were within 

this range. 

The calculated skin dose from external beta radiation was as 

high as 7 rem on the lower leg. Fewer than one percent of the beta 

particles penetrated to radiation-sensitive internal organs, however. 

Internal radiation dose resulted primarily from inhalation of 

resuspended fallout in the SMOKY and BOLTZMANN fields. 

The internal bone dose from alpha, beta and gamma radiation was 

approximately 10 to mrem for a period. The dose from 

neutron-activated tower material was negligible. 

The dose estimates for Task Force BIG BANG were derived, for the 

most part, from data provided in the references. Some troop activities, 

however, are uncorroborated and were therefore inferred from the limited data 

to establish a logical scenario. 

6 
- - --

Section 2 

OPEKATIONS 

2.1 GALILEO SHOT DATA 

Date. 2 September 1957, hours (Scheduled date 1 September 1957) 

Location. Area 1, Coordinates Nevada Test Site 

Yield: 11 kt 

500' (steel tower) 

PARTICIPANTS* 

Personnel 

Task Force BIG BANG 

Provisional Company, Airborne Division 

Research team (civilian) 

Human Resources Research Office 

TROOP PLAN 

The participation of TF BIG BANG was not part of the original troop 

test plan. That plan called for Task Force WARRIOR, a different unit composed 

from the 1st Battle Group, 12th Infantry, to participate in both the Human 

Resources Research Office sponsored test and the tactical exercise of 

infantry troop operations and maneuvers on an atomic battlefield. The objective 

Note: As explained subsequently, not all these personnel participated in 

all activities, particularly the events on GALILEO shot day. Moreover, 

support personnel (e.g., rad-safe monitors from Camp Desert Rock) are not 

included in these figures. 
- -

of the test was to determine whether any degradation of troop 

performance resulted from witnessing a nuclear shot for the first time. 

Pre-shot performance standards were developed for the following 

activities, shown with their planned relationship to the shot for the tests: 

a. Ability to disassemble immediately after the 

and reassemble a rifle shot 

b. Ability to clear a immediately after the 

minefield rifle test 

C. Ability to negotiate a on a later date in 

combat course contaminated terrain 

The shot chosen for the test was Shot SMOKY, scheduled for August 

After several revisions, the general plan was for the test troops to 

observe their first nuclear detonation from trenches located yards from 

ground zero. after the shot, they were to exit the trenches and 

move to a cleared area for the rifle disassembly-reassembly test. From that 

point they would clear a minefield by probing with bayonets. Finally, 

they would negotiate an infiltration course, perceived to be contaminated with 

fallout, and throw grenades at a target. 

Because of a late July decision to permit Task Force WARRIOR to 

observe SHOT SHASTA, scheduled for 16 August, these troops could not be used 

for the test without seriously affecting the entire research plan, the 

essence of which was to determine if performance was altered after witnessing 

a nuclear explosion for the first time. Therefore, the decision was made to 

employ a provisional company from the Airborne Division, scheduled 

to arrive at Camp Desert Rock on 30 July, for the test. Subsequently, 

this provisional company was designated Task Force BIG BANG and was oriented 

solely to the test to be conducted at shot SMOKY. Task Force WARRIOR 

continued to train for the SMOKY troop maneuver. 
Task Force BIG BANG consisted of 167 men (7 officers + 160 enlisted 

men). Approximately 100 of the 160 enlisted men were equipped with rifles, 

the remainder carried carbines. Because about 100 troops were needed for the 

experiment, those having rifles were selected. Some of the excess were 

used to assist the research team in the experiment. There is little 

information available on what specific tasks the extra troops were assigned, 

but it is reasonable to assume that some were used as spares for the 

test group, while others would have been used to support the experiment in 

various ways. 

The plans for the troop tests were revised considerably due to shot 

postponements. Because of the possibility of further postponements due to 

unfavorable winds, contingency plans were developed so that the experiment 

could be conducted before the 5 September troop departure deadline. One of 

these plans included participation in Shot GALILEO, scheduled for early 

September. New test areas were designated, but before construction could be 

initiated, the plan was terminated when it became evident that GALILEO was 

sensitive to the same adverse winds that were delaying SMOKY. It can be 

assumed that minor preparations would have been made, to include the designation of an observer area with a rifle disassembly-reassembly area and a 

vehicle parking area nearby. Because there would be no trenches, the GALILEO 

observer area would have been at least 4200 yards from ground zero, the minimum 

safe distance for troops in the open for that weapon yield (Reference 3). 

During the SMOKY shot delays, the research team observed Shot 

SHASTA, and at least one memeber of the team observed Shot DOPPLER on 23 August 

(Reference 2). When it was evident that SMOKY could not be fired on 28 August 

due to adverse weather, it was agreed that some (perhaps 67) of the task force 

who were not part of the experiment could observe FRANKLIN PRIME on 

30 August. The planned experiment, although delayed, would still retain its 

validity--the test troops would remain uninitiated to nuclear explosions. 
On 30 August, planning continued for shot SMOKY to be fired the 

following day. The forecast winds were favorable from a public safety 

viewpoint, but the chances were extremely slim that the SMOKY trenches or 

research area could be occupied or used immediately thereafter due to fallout. Task Force BIG BANG, in order to be assured of observing a shot before 

departing, was scheduled to watch SMOKY from News Nob. The test, its 

validity considerably jeopardized by not having uninitiated troops for the 

performance comparisons, could still be conducted two or three days later 

(in conjunction with a subsequent shot) at the original site when SMOKY 

contamination levels had sufficiently decayed. 

As events ultimately proved, the concern that the test troops possibly 

would not see a shot was unnecessary. After the entire task force observed 

SHOT SMOKY on 31 August, GALILEO was rescheduled for 2 September and the 

experiment was placed back on the GALILEO calendar. With insufficient 

time to construct trenches or clear test areas, it was decided that the troops 

would observe GALILEO in the open, approximately 4500 yards from ground zero. 

The rifle test would be conducted thereafter in the same location. 

The infiltration course test would be conducted at the original SMOKY test 

area, contingent upon a favorable radiological survey of the area 

beforehand. The minefield clearing exercise was scrubbed altogether. Thus, 

less than 24 hours before the shot, and with many of the test troops on 

weekend pass, the test plan was finalized to go with Shot GALILEO. 

There has been some uncertainty regarding the actual locations of the 

SMOKY trenches, the test area, and the point from which Task Force BIG 

observed the GALILEC shot. The SMOKY trenches have reported to be 

generally SSE of the GZ at distances ranging from 3500 meters to 4750 

yards. Op Order 17 (Reference 6) describes the trench area as being 4750 

yards from GZ. This is verified by inspection of a detailed USGS topographic 

map (Oak Spring, which shows a well-defined system of seven trenches, 
oriented precisely at right angles to the SMOKY shot point azimuth. The 

closest trench line is 4350 meters distant (or yards). This is considered 

to be the most reliable location (coordinates 849120) and will be used for the 

remainder of this analysis. Other descriptions of the trench area (References 

3 and 4) coincide with this location if the distance from GZ is stated in 

meters rather than yards. 

The test area location is described in Reference 2 as being 

adjacent to the SMOKY trenches. Specifications call for a strip yards 

wide by 1200 yards long, oriented approximately north-south (it was actually 

oriented toward GZ), with its eastern edge 50 yards from the trenches and its 

southern edge 4500 yards SSE of GZ. The rifle disassembly-reassembly test 

would be administered in the southern sector, the minefield would occupy the 

central area, and the infiltration course would be located at the northern 

edge, 3200 yards from GZ. If these distances were in meters rather than 

yards, all descriptions of the area would be compatible. 

This area, as well as the SMOKY trench area, is shown in Figure 1. 

The infiltration course is at coordinates 840129, approximately 3200 meters 

from GZ. 

The exact location where Task Force BIG BANG observed Shot GALILEO is 

not specified in any official report of Desert Rock operations. The 

memorandum (Reference 2) states that the troops would be stationed in the open 

approximately 4500 yards from the tower. It is reasonable to assume that any 

observation point would be south of a line drawn generally east from GZ to 

allow a safe withdrawal route should the fallout drift unexpectedly toward the 

task force. Using this rationale, there are two general areas that are likely 

candidates. The first is the Tippipah Road/Mine Mountain area of GZ, 

the second is a 2 km stretch of Mercury Highway east of GZ. Because the 

observation point would have been readily accessible to the infiltration 

course, which was to be used as soon as possible after the shot, the most 

likely location would have been along the Mercury Highway at or near the 

Buster-Jangle or (Figure 2). This is 4500 meters from the tower. 

11 
- --

:hes 

Test Area 

-7 

I 
YARDS 

13 
The memorandum (Reference 2) places the task force in the 

WHEELER area (see Figure 2) prior to its exercise at the SMOKY infiltration 

course. It is not likely that the task force observed Shot GALILEO from that 

location due to the rationale (safe withdrawal route) stated above and the 

fact that it is considerably further than 4500 yards from GZ. It is reasonable 

to assume that the task force may have rendezvoused in the WHEELER area with 

the Rad-Safe monitors who had surveyed the SMOKY infiltration course. Such a 

meeting would have saved time and provided a suitable location to brief the 

task force on the conditions at the SMOKY site. (NOTE: Shot WHEELER was fired 

on 6 September, after the task force had departed the test site.) 

2.4 PRE-SHOT OPERATIONS 

Task Force BIG BANG arrived at Camp Desert Rock at 12 August 1957. 

Preliminary training and briefings were conducted for the remainder of that 

week, in preparation for a final dry run on 18 August and shot participation 

the following day. When it was learned that SMOKY could not be scheduled 

sooner than 10 days after SHASTA, baseline testing was extended. This provided an opportunity to establish a better baseline, but increased the planning 

uncertainties which could have led to troop morale problems. On 23 August, 

the task force went to the forward area for the first time (Reference 2) to 

familiarize the troops with the test area. They located the SMOKY trenches, 

practiced the countdown, and conducted the rifle test, the minefield test, and 

the infiltration test. Figures 3 and 4 show the rifle test and the minefield 

test as conducted on that day. It should be noted that the test troops wore 

protective masks for the rifle test but not for the minefield or infiltration 

course test. 

After a weekend pass, the task force returned to the forward area for 

baseline testing on 26 August. This would have been the final rehearsal, in 

anticipation of a 28 August SMOKY shot. The sequence of activities for both 

rehearsals is shown in Table 1. 

When the 28 August SMOKY test was postponed, the opportunity arose 

for some of the task force, namely those troops who were not test subjects 

in the experiment, to observe a shot. This would enhance the morale 

14 


TABLE 1 

HUMRRO TEST REHEARSALS 

Date 

23 August 26 

Depart Camp Desert Rock 0830" 

Arrive SMOKY trench area 

Orientation of trench area 1110 

Assign and enter trenches 1120 0525" 

Don protective masks and 

practice countdown 

to rifle test area 1140 

Rifle test 1145 

Move to minefield 1155 

Mine clearing test 1205 

Move to infiltration course 1215 

First group begins course 1230 

Last group departs course 1330 

Field mess at trench area 1345 

Load and return to Camp 1430 0845 

Desert Rock 

* Reference 2. All other times are inferred from those referenced. 

17 
of approximately 70 men without affecting the HumRRO experimental objectives. 

Accordingly, most of the officers, the carbine-equipped troops, and the HumRRO 

team witnessed Shot FRANKLIN PRIME on 30 August, presumably from News Nob. The 

remainder of the troops continued to train and develop baseline data for participation in conjunction with a subsequent shot, as discussed previously. 

When the decision was made to fire SMOKY, it was believed that the test course 

would be contaminated and could not be used for several days after the shot. 

With little assurance that there would be another shot in which the task force 

could participate before returning home, the entire task force witnessed Shot 

SMOKY on 31 August from News Nob, 17 miles from ground zero. The test troops 

now having seen a nuclear burst, a significant parameter in the experiment was 

thereby negated. This seemed of little importance, however, because it was 

unlikely that the test troops would have an opportunity to observe a nuclear 

shot at or near the minimum safe distance and be tested immediately thereafter. 

The task force observed SMOKY, the test area was indeed contaminated by the 

fallout, and the troops were given the rest of the weekend off. 

On 1 September (Sunday), the HumRRO experiment was placed back on 

the GALILEO calendar for an early 2 September (Monday) firing. There was a 

chance that the SMOKY fallout would have decayed sufficiently to permit some 

of the test to be performed. In the hope that part of the experiment could 

still be salvaged, the task force was reorganized around those present for 

duty, new baseline test measurements were established at the Desert Rock 

course, and a GALILEO observer area was designated and reconnoitered. Final 

plans were drawn up to depart Camp Desert Rock shortly after midnight, to 

observe the shot from the open area previously chosen, to conduct the rifle 

test immediately thereafter, and to be prepared to run the infiltration course 

test near the SMOKY trench area, contingent upon rad-safe clearance. 

2.5 SHOT SCENARIO 

Task Force BIG BANG, accompanied by the HumRRO team, departed Camp 

Desert Rock at 0130 hours on 2 September 1957. They arrived at the GALILEO 

18 
-- - -

observer area at 0245, where they remained until after the shot. At this 

point they were 4500 meters from ground zero. Neither the task force nor 

the team was at full strength. The team had been reduced from ten to 

three by early departures from Nevada Test Site, TF BIG BANG was lacking personnel who failed to return from weekend pass (Reference 2). Of 110 BIG BANG' 

personnel whose film badge dose levels indicate that they participated in 

GALILEO, 80 were test troops, 6 were officers, and 7 were troop monitors (out 

of 9 originally chosen to assist the team). The additional troops 

would have been required to replace the absent civilian and troop monitors. 

GALILEO was detonated at 0540 hours, 2 September 1957. Task Force 

BIG BANG observed the shot in the open, south of BJY. The troops 

began the rifle disassembly-reassembly test. They would have worn their protective masks as they had for the baseline tests (see Figure 3). 

NOTE: The GALILEO fallout was to the northwest*. However, the 

blast wave caused momentary winds of about 42 mph** at the observation area, and thus raised considerable dust. At 4500 meters from 

GZ, initial radiation was less than 10 mrem (see Section 3). Moreover, contamination from initial radiation (soil activation by 

neutrons) and, south of BJY, from the residual radiation of previous 

shots was negligible on the order of a thousandth of the levels 

in the test area (which are discussed in Section 4.1). 

After the rifle test, the rad-safe monitors and one member of the 

team departed for the SMOKY area in order to determine if 

the infiltration course residual radiation levels were low enough to permit 

troop entry. During this period, the troops breakfasted on assault rations 

and then moved by truck toward the trench area. By 0710 hours, the rad-safe 

monitors had returned from the SMOKY trench area, where the measured gamma 

intensity (not recorded) at the infiltration course was deemed to be safe for 

a one-hour stay time (Reference 2). They met the task force and briefed them 

on the site conditions. The task force was given clearance to remain at the 

infiltration course for one hour. They then proceeded to the SMOKY trench 

area, where they arrived at about 0740 at the parking area. After unloading, 

they formed up to proceed on foot to the infiltration course, about 1400 

meters to the northwest. 

*Figure I-10 

**Derived from Reference 7 

19 
- ---

At 0805, the first segment of the task force began the timed 

infiltration test. A diagram of the course is shown in Figure 5. All the 

troops were assembled near the start line, where they grouped in fours or 

fives, moved to the start line, and began the 80-yard course on signal from 

the monitor. At the signal, each soldier would walk 10 yards, crawl 

under a barbed wire barrier, continue crawling for 15 yards and under a 

second barbed wire barrier. After clearing the second barrier, he would 

sprint about 6 yards to a foxhole and remain there for about 10 seconds. He 

would then sprint 8 more yards to a third barrier, crawl under it, and 

sprint another 15 yards to the "wall" (actually, a smooth wire barrier), where 

he would throw two practice grenades at a square pit (see Figure 

12 yards away, give his name to the assistant monitor, and exit the course to 

the right. When the course was clear, the signal was given for the next 

group, waiting at the start line, to begin the timed course. Groups were 

started at about 3-minute intervals. 

As each group completed the course, it withdrew to the truck parking 

area. The last group completed the course at 0855. By 0915, the last of the 

test troops and the monitors should have returned to the truck parking area. 

The trucks would have departed shortly thereafter for Camp Desert Rock, with a

stop at the decontamination station near Yucca Pass, approximately 15 miles to 

the south. They would have arrived there at about 1000 hours. At this point, 

vehicles and personnel would be monitored and decontaminated, if necessary by 

brushing, washing, and confiscation/exchange. A 1030 departure would have 

placed Task Force BIG BANG at Camp Desert Rock by 1130. Film badges would be 

turned in upon departure for home station. No further activities in the 

forward area were required. 

20 


-

-

-

-

Inferred times for activities in the Smoky trench area are summarized 

as follows: 

0740 Convoy arrives in parking area 

0740-0745 Unload and assemble 

0745-0800 Walk to infiltration course (1400 meters) 

0800-0805 Break and final instructions 

Conduct exercise 

0855-0900 Police area (look for lost film badges, etc.) 

0900-0915 Return to truck parking area 

0915-0920 Assemble and load 

0920 Convoy departs 

It should be noted that there is a strong likelihood that several 

film badges were lost by the troops who participated in this test. Depending 

on how and where the film badge was worn by each soldier, crawling, as well as 

other acts such as brushing off clothing, could have caused the film badge to 

slip off (Reference 3 makes a specific note of this characteristic). Even if 

some were noted as missing, it is not likely that time would have permitted 

more than a cursory search at the conclusion of the infiltration test. 

* Reference 2 

23 
- - _

Section 3 

INITIAL RADIATION 

Task Force BIG BANG witnessed Shot GALILEO in the open from 4500 

meters away. By using the computer codes ATR 4 and 4.1 (References and 

with the shot data of Reference 9, the initial dose from neutrons and 

radiation is calculated to have been less than 10 mrem. Observers of Shots 

FRANKLIN PRIME and SMOKY from News Nob received no detectable initial radiation. 

Therefore, initial radiation may be discounted as a significant source of 

exposure to TF BIG BANG. 

24 
Section 4 

RESIDUAL RADIATION 

This section examines residual radiation from three aspects--external 

radiation, external beta radiation (skin dose), and internal radiation 

from inhaled particles. 

4.1 RESIDUAL GAMMA RADIATION EXPOSURE 

doses are determined for Task Force BIG BANG, based on its 

activities in the fallout fields of several shots of Operation Plumbbob. 

Despite the penetrating ability of rays from fission products, the 

human body affords some shielding, hence, the gamma dose to any organ depends 

on the geometry of the radiation source and the body position. In order that 

dose calculations may be compared to film badge readings, gamna doses are 

calculated for the surface of the chest, where a film badge is normally worn. 

The calculated film badge dose rate is related to the free-field 

intensity (I) through the conversion factor developed in Reference 5. 

1 0.7 This conversion is applicable to an erect 

individual wearing a film badge on his chest, and standing in a uniform, plane 

fallout field. These conditions are met adequately in the scenario 

except for the crawl in the infiltration course and other, briefer variations 

in posture. The calculated film badge dose is identical to the "film badge 

equivalent dose" of Reference 5. 

The GALILEO fallout impacted on an area that stretched NNW from ground 

zero (see Figure I-10). Consequently, GALILEO contributed no residual radiation dose to the exercise participants. Task Force BIG BANG and 

personnel were exposed to residual radiation, however, from some of the 

earlier shots of Operation during their activities in Yucca Flat. 

The following activities are analyzed: 

25 
 Rehearsal in area, 23 August 

Rehearsal in area, 26 August 

Observation of Shot FRANKLIN PRIME, 30 August 

Observation of Shot SMOKY, 31 August 

Observation of Shot GALILEO, 2 September 

Conduct of exercise in area, 2 September 

A. The two on-site rehearsals of 23 and 26 August were conducted 

in the Smoky trench area and adjoining test area. From the fallout plots of 

Appendix I, it is determined that the following shots may have contributed 

residual radiation to the activities: 

BOLTZMANN (28 May) 

DIABLO (15 July) 

SHASTA (18 August) 

The loading area, trenches, minefield, and infiltration course of the 

test area were all near the hotline.* Using the interpolation 

technique described in Appendix I, the intensity on BOLTZMANN hotline in 

the test area is estimated to have been 300 at twelve hours after the 

shot 

The test area was near the edge of the fallout paths for both 

DIABLO and SHASTA (Figures I-4 and I-7). For these shots, the gamma intensity 

varied with position within the area. For both, the maximum intensity in 

the test area was at the infiltration course, at about 20 at 

This value, corrected for decay, will be taken conservatively as the 

intensity from each shot to which task force personnel were exposed. 

intensities, for each shot are decayed to intensities 

on rehearsal dates through the factors, f, obtained from Table 11-6. The 

film badge doses, D, accrued during rehearsals are reconstructed below: 

*Line of highest radiation intensity along the fallout path. 

26 
-

-- - -

23 August 

Shot f I (mr/hr) D(mrem) 

BOLTZMANN 

DIABLO 

SHASTA 

300 

20 

20 

0.003 

0.006 

0.13 

0.12 

2.6 

0.63 

0.084 

1.82 

2.205 

0.294 

6.37 

26 August 

BOLTZMANN 

DIABLO 

SHASTA 

300 

20 

20 

0.003 

0.005 

0.068 

0.1 

1.36 

0.63 

0.07 

0.952 

TOTAL 

2.52 

0.28 

3.808 

15 

The above are based on stay times of 3.5 hours for the first rehearsal and 

4 hours for the second (see Table 1). 

B. Shots FRANKLIN PRIME and SMOKY were observed from News Nob. 

No residual radiation was present at this location. 

c. TF BIG BANG and personnel witnessed Shot GALILEO from 

the vicinity of the Mercury Highway, at or near BJY, where there was negligible residual radiation. 

D. The activities in the SMOKY trench area resulted in substantial exposure to residual radiation from SMOKY. As was the case for the 

rehearsals in the BOLTZMANN fallout, the troops were within the highest 

recorded contour; therefore the technique described in Appendices 

I and III was used to estimate the radiation intensity. Using this technique 

and Figure I-9, the SMOKY residual radiation intensity values) in the 

area ranged from 2200 at the parking area to 6100 at the infiltration course. The fallout fields from Shots BOLTZMANN, DIABLO, and SHASTA also 

contributed to the exposure during this exercise, as for the rehearsals. 

The intensities are converted to those encountered during this exercise, using the decay factors for BOLTZMANN, DIABLO, and SHASTA obtained 

27 
-

-

-

-

- --

1 

detonated only two days before the exercise, the decay data included in Table 

II-4 are required for suitable accuracy. The following chart shows the 

reconstruction of the film badge dose for 2 September. 

f I D(mrem) 

BOLTZMANN 300 

DIABLO 20 

SHASTA 20 

parking area 2200 

infiltration course 6100 

average during march 3800 

0.003 0.9 0.63 

0.005 0.1 0.07 

0.025 0.5 0.35 1 

660 462 477 77 

0.30 1830 1281 171 1281 

1140 798 399 

TOTAL 1050 1760 

The range of doses is based on times given in the shot scenario 

(Section 2.5). Of the 100 minutes Task Force BIG BANG spent in the SMOKY 

trench/infiltration course area, 30 minutes were spent marching, 8 to 60 

minutes were spent at the infiltration course (depending how long the test 

troops waited for their turn to run the course), and the remaining time was 

spent at the parking area. 

During the infiltration course exercise, the troops spent approximately 

60 seconds crawling on the ground and an additional seconds in a foxhole 

(Reference 2). Using the ANISN radiation transport code (Reference an 

adjustment factor (1.1) is obtained to convert the gamma radiation intensity 

at 3 feet above an infinite plane source to a surface level intensity. From 

this small factor it is evident that the increase in gamma radiation intensity 

that results from decreasing the distance to the plane source directly under 

the detector (subject) is practically offset by a decrease in the area that 

contributes radiation. In consideration of the short time (about one minute) 

spent on the ground during the test, the adjustment to the gamma dose is 

negligible. 

28 
4.2 EXTERNAL BETA RADIATION EXPOSURE 

For the average-energy beta particles from the SMOKY fallout in which 

Task Force BIG BANG operated, maximum ranges of 1 meter in air and 0.13 cm in 

tissue suggest a beta radiation hazard limited to skin on the lower portion of 

the body. However, because of the wide range of beta energies from the fission products, the actual beta spectrum encountered on 2 September is used to 

calculate personnel doses. Although there was no reported erythema (skin 

redness), the common visible symptoms of a beta burn, the exposure of the lower 

legs (above the boot tops) and the chest (film badge) during the stay in the 

contaminated area, as well as the direct contact with the soil during the 

infiltration course test, is considered. From Appendix IV, it is evident that 

the surface contamination at the infiltration course during the rehearsals was 

insignificant when compared with the level on 2 September (0.256 

Therefore, only the exposure during the test itself is considered. 

The beta dose from skin contact is computed with the aid of the 

hour beta spectrum (Reference 13) and energy deposition-with-depth data 

(Reference 28). The spectrally-averaged deposition value is 2.0 per 

normally-incident beta. For a surface collection of isotropic point sources, 

the geometry is such that the average energy deposition with depth per beta 

emitted has the same value near the skin surface as per normally-incident 

beta. For a one-minute contact time, the beta dose to the skin surface is 

estimated as follows: 

= 

(1.0 

Beta skin doses to the lower leg and chest are computed for the 

duration of the task force activities in the SMOKY fallout 

field. Because a boot provides quite effective shielding from beta, the 

greatest beta dose to an erect individual would have been just above the boot. 

29 
The following method for calculating beta particle transport from the ground 

to the skin provides an upper limit to the beta dose: 

1. The ground surface source of beta radiation is divided into 

(rings), each C by its average distance from the 

skin under considerat i on (the half is that portion of the ground 

visible from the skin assumed vertically oriented). 

2. The betas do not orig i nate precisely from the ground surface because 

of ground roughness. Attenuation of betas emitted at small angles 

to the surface is particularly significant. A uniform distribution 

to a depth of 1 mm is assumed for the beta source. The are 

therefore partitioned into layers. 

3. The orientation of the skin surface relative to the beta source 

influences the calculated dose. Therefore, each annular layer is 

further partitioned into sectors. 

4. The straight-line distances through the soil, air, clothing, and the 

dead outer layer of skin, as weighted by the density of each, are 

combined to form an equivalent distance in tissue. Added to this 

is the straight-line distance into live tissue to any desired depth. 

The total equivalent tissue distance is used in conjunction with 

the energy deposition data of Reference 28 to calculate the contribution from each sector of each annular layer to tissue dose at the 

desired depth. 

These calculations show that only betas of above average energy (0.42 

contributed to the skin dose. Betas from less than two meters distant 

contributed most of the dose. For the lower leg, the calculated beta skin 

dose is 6 rem, for the chest, 3 rem. The beta dose calculated for the f ilm 

badge (unshielded by c is 4 rem. 

The estimated beta dose to surface skin is greater than the est 

gamma film badge dose, but its biological effect is far less. Some high 

energy beta particles do penetrate the skin, but dose levels decrease sharply 

with depth. For example, the estimated dose for the genetic material nearest 

to the surface of the young-adult gonad is 0.4 rem. The skin itself is 

generally less susceptible to radiation damage than are internal organs. 

Consequently, the estimated external beta dose is not significant when compared 

to the external dose to the whole body. This fact is reflected by 

radiation standards which permit a much greater skin-only dose than whole body 

dose. 

30 
4.3 INTERNAL RADIATION EXPOSURE 

Section 4.1 outlined Task Force BIG BANG activities in areas contaminated by radioactive fallout. The two on-site rehersals conducted on 23 and 

26 August took place in the HumRRO test area near the SMOKY trenches. At 

that time the area was contaminated by fallout from shots BOLTZMANN (28 May), 

DIABLO (15 July) and SHASTA (18 August). On 2 September, after observing 

shot GALILEO, the task force returned to the same area to conduct a portion of 

the HumRRO exercise on the infiltration course. By then, the area had received 

additional fallout from shot SMOKY fired only 2 days earlier (31 August). 

With the exception of the rifle disassembly/reassembly portion of 

HumRRO exercise, respiratory protection was likely not worn by task force 

personnel during their test activities (see Figure 3, 4, and 6). Therefore, 

inhalation of resuspended radioactive material is considered in the overall 

dose reconstruction. 

Unfortunately, there are no measurements of body burdens, bioassays, 

or air sampling data that can be used to estimate the radiation dose to BIG 

BANG personnel resulting from internal emitters. However, the internal dose* 

can be calculated from estimates of ground contamination levels using the 

following basic methodology: 

••The concentration of radioactive materials in the air is determined 

by multiplying the ground contamination level by an appropriate 

resuspension factor**. 

••The amount of radioactive material inhaled is determined by multiplying the airborne concentration by the breathing rate and the 

duration of exposure. 

••The radiation dose to an internal organ of interest (bone, lung, 

liver, etc.) for a specified time period is determined by multiplying 

the amount of radioactive material inhaled by an appropriate dose 

factor**. 

* The term "dose" is used in this section instead of the more precise 

term "committed dose equivalent" as defined by the International Commission 

of Radiological Units and Measurements (ICRU). 

** These terms are explained later in the text. 

31 
Because fallout consists of a mixture of radioactive materials, this 

process must be performed for each radionuclide. The total dose to a particular organ is given by the following expression: 

Dj GC x K X BR X T X 

i 

where: Dj Dose (rem) to organ j 

GC = Ground Contamination 

K = Resuspension Factor per or 

BR = Breathing Rate 

T = Duration of Exposure (hr) 

= Activity fraction of isotope i 

= Dose Factor for organ j resulting from an 

intake of isotope i 

Ground Contamination. There is no data that directly quantifies the 

amount and constituents of the surface contamination at the time and location 

of BIG BANG activities. However, these parameters can be related to the gamma 

intensities determined in Section 4.1. See Appendix IV. 

Resuspension Factor.* Radioactive particles deposited on the ground 

or other surfaces are not an inhalation hazard unless they become airborne 

through some resuspension process such as wind action or mechanical disturbance. 

The degree of resuspension depends on many factors which include: 

••the activity causing resuspension (wind action, pedestrian traffic, 

heavy equipment operation, etc.) 

••nature of the surface (rough, vegetation, wet or dry) 

* The resuspension factor (K) is the ratio of the concentration of resuspended material in the air (e.g., to the amount of that material 

on the surface (e.g., The factor as used hereafter has the 

dimension of 

32 
••particle characteristics (size, composition) 

••location of measurement (height above ground, relationship to 

source) 

••time after deposition (weathering, small particle depletion, 

etc.) 

Numerous experiments have been conducted to study this phenomenon and 

develop representative resuspension factors for various conditions. Stewart 

(Reference 15) has tabulated resuspension factors that range from to 

depending on the conditions and the type of material studied. 

Surface winds were calm during the exercise on the course on 

2 September (Reference 10); therefore, any resuspension resulted solely from 

the troop activities. The potential for the inhalation of mechanically 

resuspended material began with the truck ride into the area. Surveys made 

during a weapons safety experiment measured resuspension factors which averaged 

2 x in the rear of a Land Rover vehicle in motion (Reference 15). 

While in the contaminated area, resuspension resulted from walking to and from 

the infiltration course, waiting in the area prior to running the course, and 

the actual running of the course (which included about one minute of crawling 

time). Obviously, resuspension reached its peak during the time on the 

infiltration course. In connection with other safety experiments, Stewart 

(Reference 15) reports plutonium resuspension factors for similar arid terrain 

that ranged from 3 x to 1.5 x resulting from dust raised by 

pedestrians. These measurements were made approximately 1 foot above the 

ground and the resuspended particles were characterized as mainly having 

diameters of 20-60 microns; fewer than 1 percent were smaller than 10 microns 

(aerodynamic diameter)*. At elevations higher than one foot above the ground, 

these measured resuspension factors should be considerably lower. For example, 

in another experiment reported by Stewart, the resuspension factor measured at 

2 feet above the ground was more than an order of magnitude less than the 

value determined one foot above the surface. 

* Diameter of a spherical particle (density = 1 with the same settling 

velocity as the particle in question. For example, a 10 unit density 

sphere would behave as a 6 particle of sand or a particle. 

33 
On the basis of the data discussed above, the following resuspension 

factors are chosen to represent the conditions during the HumRRO exercise on 

2 September: 

Activity 

Infiltration course run 10-4 

All other activities 10-5 

Wind-driven resuspension must be considered for the rehearsals. 

Disagreements in reference material regarding the functional dependence in the 

resuspension factor on wind speed and time after fallout deposition 

prevents conclusive estimates from being made. Reported dependences on wind 

speed include (Reference (Reference and K 

lated to u (Reference 15). Time dependences include (Reference 17) 

and K-e-A&Reference Differences in particle size distribution limit 

the comparability of reported experiments to each other and to the HumRRO 

environments. 

Larson‘s data (Reference on airborne and ground activity 

concentrations for SMOKY fallout 99 miles from GZ, at 3 to 20 days after the 

shot, are used to deduce resuspension factors. These range from to 

Daily-averaged winds ranged from about 1 to 10 mph. For the HumRRO 

rehearsals, the various fallout fields were 5 to 90 days old. Surface 

wind speed during the 23 August rehearsal was 4 to 8 mph, while the only 

datum on 26 August (at a time subsequent to the rehearsal) indicated gusts 

to 23 mph (Reference 16). These conditions are considered sufficiently 

comparable to those of the Larson data, that with any reasonable application of the various wind speed and time dependence models, the wind-driven 

resuspension factor is unlikely to have been greater than order during 

the HumRRO rehearsals. Therefore, the resuspension factors chosen for mechanical disturbances are used for the rehearsals as well as the exercise. 

34 
-

---~-

--- Breathing Rate. The Task Group on Lung Dynamics of the International 

on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has applied three different 

ventilatory states to their lung model. These states are typifed by breathing 

rates of 0.67, 1.3 and 1.9 (Reference 19). The mid-range value is 

representative of a moderate activity state, the highest value represents 

strenuous activity. For purposes of this analysis, the high value is chosen 

to represent the time on the infiltration course. The mid-range value is 

applied to the remainder of the time. 

Duration. The task force spent 3.5 and 4 hours at the 

test area during the two rehearsals (23 August and 26 August), respectively. 

Travel to and from the area was over approximately 4 kilometers of roadway 

that had been contaminated by BOLTZMANN and WILSON fallout (Figures I-l and 

I-3). Considering the short distance, and that fallout deposited on the road 

more than two months earlier would likely have been swept away by prior 

traffic, transit time is not included in the exposure duration for the rehearsals. On 2 September, the task force traveled approximately 8 kilometers 

(15 minutes) through the two-day-old SMOKY fallout field to get to the test 

area, where they spent one hour and forty minutes conducting the infiltration 

course portion of the exercise. During both rehearsals and the final 

exercise, each test participant spent approximately 3 minutes per run on the 

infiltration course, this included about one minute of crawling time and 

seconds in a foxhole. It is assumed that, during the rehearsals, each troop 

ran the course twice. 

Protective masks were worn during the rifle disassembly/reassembly 

exercise. The amount of time that the masks were worn during the rehearsals 

is unknown, however, actual test took less than 3 minutes. Considering 

this short time, credit for respiratory protection is not included in the 

total exposure times, which are summarized below: 

23 August 3.5 hours (includes 6 minutes on infiltration course) 

26 August 4 hours (includes 6 minutes on infiltration course) 

2 September 2.2 hours (includes 3 minutes on infiltration course) 

35 
---

Dose Factor. Radioactive material that has been inhaled or ingested 

will be absorbed, metabolized, and distributed to body tissues according to 

its chemical and physical properties. While the material is in the body, it 

irradiates the organ of residence, near-by organs, or even the whole body, 

depending on the type and energy of its emissions. Various models have been 

developed to portray the biological pathways and retention/excretion of 

inhaled and/or ingested material. Based on these models, internal radiation 

doses to selected organs of interest have been calculated for unit quantity 

intakes (inhalation and ingestion) of most radionuclides, for periods of up 

to 50 years subsequent to the intake. Dose is thus related to the amount 

of radioactive material inhaled or ingested through "dose conversion factors" 

or simply "dose factors" (e.g., inhaled). 

Dose factors have been tabulated in References and vary according 

to the biologic retention models employed and the selection of other parameters. 

Reference 24 contains the most current data, however, the authors consider the 

information preliminary and do not it for uncritical adoption for 

all radiological applications at this time. Therefore, the dose factors 

tabulated in Reference 23 are used in this analysis. It should be mentioned 

that these dose factors are based on a one-year chronic intake rather than an 

acute intake such as that experienced by Task Force BIG BANG. However, the 

authors state that these dose factors can be applied to an acute intake with 

an error of 5 percent or less. The inhalation dose factors included in 

Reference 23 are based on the lung model as presented in ICRP Publication 2 

(1959) (Reference 25). This model assumes that 25 percent of the inhaled 

material (readily soluble) is exhaled, 50 percent is deposited in 

the upper respiratory passages and subsequently swallowed, and 25 percent is 

deposited in the lower portions of the lung and eventually taken up by body 

fluids. Only one-eighth of the insoluble materials inhaled is taken up by 

body fluids. These retention values are nearly the same as those characterized 

for the inhalation of an aerosol having a particle size distibution with an 

activity median aerodynamic diameter of 1 micron* (Reference 26). 

* Half of the airborne radioactivity is associated with particle sizes greater 

than 1 micron aerodynamic diameter. For loynormal activity distributions, 

the model is nearly constant over a wide range of geometric standard deviation, 

therefore, this parameter is commonly unspecified. 

36 
The particle size distribution of resuspended material subject to 

inhalation by BIG BANG troops is unknown, however, there is evidence to 

suggest that it would be dominated by large particles. For example, Larson 

(Reference 11) records the following data relative to the particle size of 

fallout from SMOKY: 

Distance From GZ (miles) 

Percent of Total Activity for 

Particles of Diameter Microns 

15U 

100 

50 

25 

4.6 

52 

38 

19 

15 

2.9 

An even lower percentage of activity wou be expected on small particles in 

the exercise area, 2.1 miles from GZ. 

In order to consider the uncerta with respect to the particle 

size distribution of the resuspended material, two calculations are made which 

cover lower and upper bounds of reasonable sizes: 

The first calculation assumes an aerosol having an activity median 

aerodynamics diameter of approximately one micron. This is 

accomplished by utilization of the inhalation dose factors listed 

in Reference 23. (See discussion on page 38.) This follows the 

recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) to assume an of one micron when the actual 

particle size distribution is unknown. (Reference 26). 

The second calculation assumes an aerosol having an greater 

than 20 microns. According to the ICRP (Reference complete 

nasopharyngeal (upper respiratory system) deposition can be assumed 

for unusual particle size distribution having greater than 20 

microns. Particles deposited in this region are rapidly cleaned 

and normally swallowed, thus the intake pathway becomes ingestion. 

Therefore, the application of ingestion dose factors to the amount 

of material inhaled assumes an aerosol with an of greater than 

2U microns. 

37 
---

- -

- -

As stated earlier, inhalation and ingestion dose factors are available 

for several body organs. In this assessment, emphasis is placed on the bone 

dose since the bone contains blood-forming marrow and accumulates several 

long-lived radionuclides (e.g., 

Appendix IV indicates that 49 radionuclides represent in excess of 98% 

of the total beta/gamma activity present in fallout fields relevant to Task 

Force BIG BANG. The alpha activity results from 3 alpha emitters. Composite 

bone dose factors, x for the 49 beta/gamma emitters 

and 3 alpha emitters at each time of interest are shown below. The dose 

factors for the alpha emitters are scaled to relate directly to the inhaled 

beta/gamma activity to prevent disclosure of classified information, as 

mentioned in Appendix IV. 

COMPOSITE 50-YEAR BONE DOSE FACTORS 

(mrem per Ci of beta activity inhaled/ingested) 

SHOT DATE 

SMOKY 2 SEP 

SHASTA 23 AUG 

26 AUG 

2 SEP 

DIABLO 23 AUG 

26 AUG 

2 SEP 

BOLTZMANN 23 AUG 

26 AUG 

2 SEP 

* Read as 1.15 x 

INHALATION INGESTION 

BETA/ BETA/ 

ALPHA GAMMA ALPHA GAMMA 

38 
Results. The calculated 50-year bone dose resulting from the 

inhalation of resuspended radioactive fallout is tabulated in Table 2. 

The results are tabulated according to the following categories: 

••Troop activity (infiltration course vs. all others) 

••Type of emitter inhaled (alpha vs. beta/gamma) 

••Particle size of resuspended material vs 

Entries in Table 2 are calculated as in the following example: T he 50-year 

bone dose from SMOKY beta/gamma emitters inhaled during the infi 1 tration course 

run, for a resuspended particle of is: 

D= 0.256 x x 1.9 x 0.05 hr x 1.3 x = 3.16 mrem 

The calculated 50-year bone dose to Task Force BIG BANG personnel 

resulting from inhalation of resuspended fallout from four shots is 

quite low. Considering the two extremes relative to the particle size distribution of the resuspended material (1 micron vs. greater than 20 microns 

the range in the calculated 50-year dose is 8.8 to 23 millirem. 

Considering the close proximity of BIG BANG activities to shot ground zeros 

and the measured particle size data previously discussed, the actual dose 

should be close to the low end of the calculated range. 

Upon observation of these results, several points deserve discussion. 

••The bone dose from the alpha emitters is nil when a particle size 

distribution of greater than 20 microns is assumed. This is 

due to the extremely low absorption of the radionuclides involved 

from the gastrointestinal tract to the blood (that transports 

them to the bone). This absorption process is much more efficient 

(several orders of magnitude) for smaller particles that are 

deposited in the pulmonary region of the lung. 

••The BOLTZMANN alpha activity in the fallout (assume = 

contributes significantly more to the bone dose than the more 

recent SMOKY fallout. This is due to differences in the composition of the fissionable material. 
TABLE 2 ESTIMATED BONE DOSE 

-

-

- -

COURSE RUN 

ALPHA BETA/GAMMA ALPHA BETA/GAMMA 

SOURCE 1 1 1 1 

< 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.37 

23 AUG DIABLO 0.05 0.004 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.21

BOLTZMANN 1.15 0.03 0.17 2.67 0.08 0.41 0.11 4.40 

0.06 0.111 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.28 

26 DIABLO 0.05 0.003 0.01 < 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.21 

BOLTZMANN 1.19 0.03 0.17 < 3.18 0.09 0.47 0.12 5.01

SHASTA 0.03 0.004 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.12 

2 SEP DIABLO 0.03 0.002 0.01 < 0.06 0.004 0.01 0.006 0.11 

0.65 0.02 0.10 1.44 0.04 0.22 0.06 2.41

SMOKY < 0.28 2.92 3.16 0.52 5.40 5.85 8.32 9.80 

< 3.6 3.0 3.7 8.5 5.7 8.8 23 

Activity Acrodyn ic Diameter 

Note: The results for the 2 September exercise represents the dose estimates for the late finishers of the infiltration course 

run. for the early are 2 lower. 
••As indicated in the basic methodology for this calculation, several 

parameters are involved. Of these parameters, the resuspension 

factor has the greatest potential for significant variation from 

the values used in this calculation. It should be noted that the 

values used were from the high end of the range reported in the 

scientific literature; however, even if the assumed values were low 

by two orders of magnitude, the calculated 50-year dose would still 

be less than 3 rem. 

41 
 

Section 5 

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF TOTAL FILM BADGE GAMMA DOSE 

Because virtually all of the external gamma dose accrued by TF BIG BANG 

and personnel was due to their activities in the SMOKY fallout field, 

only the uncertainties pertinent to these need be considered. The methodology 

of Reference 5 is used with the analysis of Appendices I and III to determine 

error bands. Estimated error factors associated with 90 percent confidence 

limits for each uncertainty parameter are displayed below: 

Source of Error SMOKY Fallout Field, 2 Sept 

Fallout plot intensities 1.46 

(infiltration course 1.64 Fallout plot interpolation 

parking area 1.35 

Mean troop position 1.1 

Decay rate 1.3 

Duration of activity 1.1 

(infiltration course 1.99 

parking area 1.76 

These error factors are applied to the dose accrued at each location, 

with interpolated values along the marching path. The range of film badge 

doses calculated for TF BIG BANG personnel in the SMOKY fal lout fie is thus 

1050 to 1760 mrem (all with 90 percent idence). Total film 

badge dose, including the contributions from the rehearsals and the observation 

of GALILEO, is only 20 mrem greater. 

Quantitative error estimates are not feasible for the external beta 

and internal radiation dose calculations. In each case, however, it is clear 

that one parameter dominates the uncertainties: the fallout depth distribution 

for external beta, and the resuspension factor for internal radiations. If 

the fallout were concentrated at 1 mm depth rather than uniformly distributed 

within the top millimeter, for example, the beta skin dose would be reduced 

about 70 percent. For internal dose calculations, the results are directly 

to the resuspens i on factor used. 

42 
Section 6 

FILM BADGE DOSIMETRY 

6.1 FILM BADGE DATA 

Personnel of Task Force BIG BANG were each issued one film badge to 

cover the entire period of their stay at NTS. Film badges were of the type 

described in Reference 5, Appendix III. There were 161 individuals with 

undamaged badges for the period 13 August to 3 September 1957. The original 

film badge records do not list subunit affiliation for the exercise, but the 

report (Reference identifies some of the troops used as monitors. 

On the basis of currently available data, it does not appear possible to 

differentiate among platoons. That the readings are widely distributed is 

evidence of distinct troop components, however. 

Figure 7 depicts the film badge gamma readings for Task Force BIG 

BANG. Two clusters are evident in this plot. About one-third of the personnel received no more than 295 mrem. They apparently did not attend the 

exercise, as their doses are inconsistent with entry into the SMOKY fallout 

field. All others received at least 860 mrem. A comparison of gamma and beta 

doses for Task Force BIG BANG is displayed in Figure 8. There is only a weak 

positive correlation between beta and gamma readings. The highest beta 

readings cannot necessarily be attributed to those involved in the crawling 

exercise; several monitors and officers had relatively high readings. Although 

the one-minute crawl was a significant contributor to the beta dose, body 

position during the rest of the exercise may have been more influential. 

While the troops were waiting their turns to run the infiltration course, they 

may have rested in a variety of postures. A posture that would place the film 

badge near the ground would have increased the beta reading, owing to the 

short range of most beta particles. 

43 
-- -

13 Aug 3 Sep 

Total Number = 

*Does not include six persons 

for whom badge readings are 

unavailable. 

r 

1600 2000 

Film Badge Reading (gamma, mrem) 

Figure 7. Distribution of Film Badge Task 

Force BIG BANG 

44 

45 

40 

35 

15 

10 

5 
- --
-

Most of the low-dose readings fall into two groups centered about 0 

and 150 mrem. Along with the 10 zero readings, there are 5 reports of 12 to 

20 mrem. These numbers are not considered meaningful since the threshold of 

reliable film badge readings is at least 25 mrem. 

Most of the remaining low-dose readings are within 150 + 30 mrem. 

Personnel who accrued these doses must have attended some undocumented activity 

in the time frame of the rehearsals. This interpretation is supported by the 

119 mrem reading of a team member who departed prior to the exercise; 

the reading cannot be reasonably correlated with the 15 mrem calculated 

for the rehearsals. 

Of those personnel participating in the exercise, the monitors received 

the highest exposures. This seems reasonable since the monitors, in the 

performance of their duties, may have stayed longer on the infiltration course 

than any of the test troops. Nine of the ten known participating military and 

civilian monitors recorded from 2500 to 3200 mrem, whereas only one of the 

test troops exceeded 2600 mrem. 

The mean gamma dose of the troops participating in the exercise was 

1900 mrem, with a standard deviation of 490 mrem. There are too few data 

points to ascribe statistical significance to the distribution in Figure 7. 

It is not clear from the plot whether the high-dose data tend toward a single 

Gaussian distribution or the superposition of several such distributions, as 

the troop activity scenario would suggest. 

Those troops who can be inferred to have remained together should have 

similar readings. For example, the four lieutenants all accrued between 2380 

and 2480 mrem. Aside from the monitors, it is difficult to make similar 

deductions from rank in other cases, however. 

6.2 COMPARISON OF DOSE CALCULATIONS WITH FILM BADGE DATA 

Figure 9 displays a comparison of the distribution of film badge 

gamma readings with the calculated distribution of film badge doses for the 

test troops. An adaptation of each was necessary for the direct comparison: 

46 
-- -

13 Aug 3 Sep 

Total Number = 80 

Calculated 

Actual 

1 

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 

Film Badge Doses (gamma, mrem) 

Figure 9 

Distribution of Calculated and 

Actual Film Badge Doses 

47 
-

(1) a standard deviation of 7 was assigned to the reading for each 

group of test participants, and (2) the officers, identified monitors, and 

those (presumed to be monitors' assistants) with the 17 next highest doses 

were not included, so that the 80 remaining readings are presumed to be those 

of the test troops. The figure demonstrates that the scenario of troop 

implies a dose distribution similar to that found for TF BANG 

film badges. 

A statistical comparison of the calculated gamma film badge doses and 

the film badge readings is displayed in Table 3. Of those troops who were 

tested in the exercise, the earliest finishers of the infiltration 

course are estimated to have accrued 1070 mrem, while the latest finishers' 

estimate is 1780 mrem. These compare favorably with the overall TF BIG BANG 

average film badge reading of 1900 mrem and the 1630 mrem average reading of 

deduced test troops. For the monitors, the calculated dose of mrem 

compares to the actual median film badge reading of 2830 mrem. The latter is 

well within the confidence limits of the former. 

The calculated film badge beta dose (the skin dose to the chest area) 

is greater than the film badge beta readings, perhaps because the fallout was 

distributed to depths greater than one millimeter. The low or zero readings 

likely resulted from the film badges being tucked into pockets to preclude 

their loss, leading to additional shielding, particularly if the beta window 

were facing inward toward the body. In this case, the calculated beta dose to 

the film is 0.3 rem for the one millimeter depth distribution. 

* 7 percent was the smallest standard deviation in film badge readings for any 

cohesive unit during Desert Rock VII-VIII and pertained to readings of a 

magnitude similar to that for TF BIG BANG. 

48 
-

+

-

+

-

-

TABLE 3 

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED FILM BADGE DOSES 

WITH FILM BADGE DATA FOR 

TASK FORCE BIG BANG TROOPS* 

Ca lculated Film Film Badge 

Badge Dose** Readings 

Group (mrem) (mrem) 

lowest 860 

Earliest 1070 + Finishers 470 

mean, 

test 1630 

Average troops 1430 Finishers 650 

mean, 

all 1900 

Latest troops 

Finishers 

median, 1780 Officers 850 officers 2390 

Monitors median, 

monitors 2830 

highest 2980 

Period: 13 August 3 September 1957; personnel present at 

exercise only 

** With 90 percent confidence limits 
Section 7 

CONCLUSIONS 

Of the several shots during Operation that contributed to the 

residual radiation exposure of Task Force BIG BANG, only Shot SMOKY was of any 

significance. Although the exercise was conducted in conjunction with 

Shot GALILEO, no residual and negligible initial radiation from GALILEO was 

encountered by the troops. Exposure to gamma radiation in the SMOKY fallout 

field resulted in film badge readings from about 1 rem to 3 rem. The data 

indicate that film badge records are in substantial agreement with equivalent 

values inferred from radiation field measurements and troop movement records. 

Reasonable judgments concerning troop motion within the SMOKY fallout field 

yield a satisfactory explanation for the range of the film badge readings. 

The dose to personnel from inhaled radioactivity was small in comparison 

to the external gamma dose. For the bone, the calculated dose is less 

than 25 mrem. The internal exposure resulted from both fissioned and unfissioned 

bomb debris, which emitted alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Neutron-activated 

shot tower material contributed negligibly to the internal dose. 

50 
-

Section 8 

REFERENCES 

1. Reynolds Electrical Engineering Company, Inc., Nevada Test Site, Mercury, 

Nevada, "Plumbbob On-Site Rad-Safety Report," undated (OTO-57-2). 

2. R.D. Baldwin, Staff Memorandum, "Experiences at Desert Rock VI II,” March 

1958, US Army Human Resources Research Office 

3. Headquarters, Sixth US Army, Presidio of San Francisco, California, 

"Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, Final Report of Operations," January 

1958 (Ag-S-9531). 

4. Headquarters, Sixth US Army, Presidio of San Francisco, California, 

"Report of Test, Infantry Troop Test, Exercises Desert Rock VII and 

VIII," 11 1957 (AMCDR-S-3). 

5. J.L. Goetz, D. Kaul, J. Klemm, and J.T. "Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure for Task Force Warrior Shot SMOKY Exercise Desert Rock 

VII-VIII Operation Plumbbob," DNA May 1979. 

6. Camp Desert Rock, Nevada, "Operation Order 17, SMOKY, Desert Rock VII and 

VI II undated. 

7. S. Glasstone and P.J. Dolan, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," 1977, 

United States Department of Defense and United States Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

8. L. Huszar, et al., "Version 4 of ATR (Air Transport of Radiation)," DNA 

3995, January 1976. 

9. R.J. Smith, et al., "Initial Gamma Data From Nuclear Weapon Tests 

1945-1962," Arsenal, MD. UNPUBLISHED. 

10. "Local Fallout from Nuclear Test Detonations," US Army Nuclear Defense 

Laboratory (NDL). UNPUBLISHED. 

11. K.H. Larsen, et al., WT-1488, "Distribution Characteristics and Biotic 

Availability of Fallout Operation PLUMBBOB," Projects 37.1, 37.2, 

37.3, and 37.6. 

12. W.W. Engle, Jr., "A User's Manual for ANISN, a One-Dimensional Discrete 

Ordinates Transport Code with Anisotropic Scattering," Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Computing Technology Center, Union Carbide Nuclear Division, 

K-1693, 1967. 

13. S.P. Finn and G.L. Simmons, "Calculation of Fission Product Gamma Ray and 

Beta Spectra at Selected Times After Fast Fission of U-238 and U-235 and 

Thermal Fission of U-235," Science Applications, Inc., SAI-78-782-LJ/F, 

15 October 1978. 

51 
14. L. Huszar, et al., "Energy Dependent Air/Ground Correction Factors 

for the AIR (Air Transport of Radiation) Code," BRL Report No. 345, 

August 1977. 

15. K. Stewart, "The Resuspension of Particulate Material from Surfaces," 

in eedinqs of a Symposium on Surface Contamination, (B.R. Fish, 

editor), Gatlinburg, Tennessee, June 1964, Pergamon Press, New York, 

63-74. 

16. Personal with Mr. Ralph Quiring, U.S. Weather Service, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, November 1979. 

17. L.R. Anspaugh, et al., "Evaluation of the Resuspension Pathway Toward 

Protective Guidelines for Soil Contamination with Radioactivity," in 

Proceeding of a Seminar, Portoroz, 20-24 May 1974, organized by the IAEE 

with support of the UNEP. 

18. L.R. Anspaugh, et al., "Resuspension and Redistribution of in 

Soils," Health Physics, 1975, Vol. 29 (October), pp. 571-582. 

19. ICRP Task Group on Lung Dynamics, "Deposition and Retention Models for 

Internal Dosimetry of the Human Respiratory Tract," Health Physics, 

Vol. 12, Pergamon Press, 1966, pp. 173-207. 

20. U.S Regulatory (USNRC), "Reactor Safety Study An Assessment 

of Accident Risks in U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," WASH 1400 

(NUREG Appendix VI, USNRC, Washington, D.C., October 1975. 

21. G.G. Killough, et al., "A Methodology for Calculating Radiation Doses 

From Radioactivity Released to the Environment," Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory March 1976. 

22. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), Regulatory Guide 1.109, 

"Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reaction 

Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part SO, 

Appendix I," USNRC, Washington, Revision 1, 1977. 

23. G.R. Hoenes and J.K. "Age Specific Radiation Dose Commitment 

Factors for a One-Year Chronic Intake," USNRC Report-NUREG 0172, 

November 1977. 

24. G.G. Killough, et al., "Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent to 22 Target 

Organs for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear 

Fuel-Cycle Facilities," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USNRC Report 

ORNL/NUREG/TM-190, June 1978. 

25. International Commission on Radiological Protection, "Report of Committee 

II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation," ICRP Publication 2, 

Pergamon Press, New York, 1959. 

26. International on Radiological Protection, "Limits for Intakes 

of Radionuclides by Workers," ICRP Publication 30, Part 1, Pergamon Press, 

New York, 1979. 

52 
27. "ORIGEN Isotope Generation and Depletion Code - Matrix Exponential 

Method," CC-217, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

June 1977. 

28. M.J. Berger, "Distribution of Absorbed Dose Around a Point Source of 

Electrons and Beta Particles in Water and Other Media," Journal of 

Nuclear Medicine, Supp. 5, Vol. 12, 1971. 

T.R. England and M.G. Stamatelatos, "Multi-Group Beta and Gamma Spectra 

of Individual ENDF/B-IV Fission-Product Nuclides," LA-NUREG-6622-MS, LASL, 

December 1976. 

53 
54 
APPENDIX I 

FALLOUT PLOTS 

(Except for the GALILEO map, this appendix is taken from Reference 5 and 

included here for reader convenience.) 

Because the radiation dose accrued by individuals at the Nevada Test 

Site in 1957 was caused, to a significant extent, by the exposure to fallout 

from several shots, it is imperative that all shots be examined and, 

where appropriate, the fallout plotted. Table I-l lists the shots that were 

examined and identifies those for which fallout plots are produced in the 

figures following. For those not plotted, the reason is primarily that the 

height of burst was sufficient for that yield to reduce local fallout, beyond 

the immediate area around ground zero, to insignificant levels. This is 

verified through inspection of post-shot rad-safe surveys by Reynolds Electrical Engineering Company (REECO) and the Civil Effects Group (CETG), Program 

37 (References 1 and 11). 

The fallout plots shown in Figures I-l through I-10 were derived from 

the information contained in the above references. Plots of actual radiation 

levels, measured at specific times after each shot, were normalized to 

hours by using the decay schemes described in Appendix II. A single composite fallout plot was obtained from the survey data through averaging the 

normalized values. The REECO dose rate plots were not used in their entirety; 

only actual data points were considered (where the REECO contours 

intersect roads). Because the roads depicted in the REECO plots were sufficiently straight, sets of collinear data values were obtained which could be 

processed mathematically. 

Because gamma radiation intensity tended to vary exponentially with 

distance, the data were fit to an exponential form. The simplest, after 

taking logarithms, is 

log ax b 

55 
- .-- -

TABLE I-l 

OPERATION FALLOUT DETERMINATION 

28 MAY TO 2 SEPTEMBER 1957 

SHOT - - YIELD DATE TIME BURST HEIGHT AREA COORD FALLOUT 

BOLTZMANN 12KT 28 May, 0455 500' Tower 7 867056 Fig. II-1 

FRANKLIN 140T 2 Jun, 0455 300' Tower 3 870004 Fig. II-2 

5 Jun, 0455 500' Balloon 852100 Insig. 

WILSON 18 Jun, 0455 500' Balloon 852100 Fig. II-3 

PRISCILLA 37KT 24 Jun, 0630 700' Balloon FF 956729 East 

HOOD 74KT 5 Jul, 0440 1500' Balloon 852100 Insig. 

DIABLO 17KT 15 Jul , 0430 500' Tower 2b 792118 Fig. II-4 

KEPLER 24 Jul, 0450 500' Tower 4 797057 Fig. II-5 

OWENS 25 Jul, 0630 500' Balloon 852100 Insig. 

PASCAL "A" 26 Jul, 0100 Underground 858009 Fig. II-6 

STOKES 7 Aug, 0525 1500' Balloon 7b 867047 Insig. 

SHASTA 17KT 18 Aug, 0500 500' Tower 2a 794093 Fig. II-7 

DOPPLER 23 Aug, 0530 1500' Balloon 7b 867047 Insig. 

FRANKLIN 

PRIME 30 Aug, 0540 750' Balloon 7b 867047 Fig. II-8 

SMOKY 44KT 31 Aug, 0530 700' Tower 828159 Fig. II-9 

GALILEO 2 Sep, 0540 500' Tower 1 797009 Fig. II-10 

Safety shot with some nuclear yield 

56 
A least squares linear regression was performed on log I. The locations of 

100, and 1000 were obtained according to the fit. Usually, the data, when 

normalized to spanned these values. If not, no extrapolation was performed. 

The log-linear fit is clearly inappropriate across GZ or the hotline. 

A higher order fit, akin to a Gaussian, was tried in order to permit a functional 

maximum: 

log I = t bx t c 

While this form was useful in obtaining gamma intensity on hotlines, it underestimated GZ values. When used on data not crossing GZ, there was a tendency 

toward unrestrained exponential growth (i.e., positive a), just as for the 

log-linear fit. So long as the data lines did not cross GZ or the hotline, 

the difference in 10, 100, and 1000 locations from the first order to 

second order fit was well within the standard deviation of the data. For 

these reasons, the log-linear fit was used to construct composite plots. 

The consistency of the data was assessed from log I(x). The standard 

deviation, of log I from the best linear fit was computed along all lines 

used. A markedly similar scatter in the data was observed not only from line 

to line, but also from shot to shot. For all lines used on all plots, the

error factor, defined as 10 hw ere n is the number of data points 

along a line, averages 1.46. Its own standard deviation is 0.05. The consistency of the error factor supports the dismissal of isolated data far outside 

reasonable confidence limits. 

Thus, all the composite plots may be regarded as depicting gamma 

intensity along the roads within a factor of 1.46, with 90 percent reliability. 

Where the contours have been interpolated between roads, the error factor 

would be slightly greater. The on-site composite plots were reasonably 

consistent with the off-site surveys from Program 37 (Reference 11). For 

57 
most shots, interpolation was necessary in the gap between the composite 

contours obtained from on-site surveys and off-site surveys. In those cases, 

azimuthal consistency as well as magnitude determined the overall correlation. 

Where the contours have been interpolated (dashed lines), the error factor 

grows considerably, particularly where contours are closely spaced. 

In general, available data was used or interpolated for all areas of 

interest. One obvious exception is evident for SMOKY, where the upwind 

radiation intensity is crucial to determine the dose received by Task Force 

WARRIOR and supporting elements operating in the upwind area. The steep 

terrain obviously prevented post-shot ground or aerial rad-safe surveys 

immediately upwind. The upwind contours were therefore estimated as being 

virtually circular, under the conservative assumption that upwind fallout 

would have carried no farther from ground zero than crosswind fallout, particularly in the fact of rising terrain. In this case, as well as others, both 

estimated and interpolated contours are dotted. 

It should be noted that the fallout plots shown in the figures differ 

from earlier estimates of fallout, such as that provided by the DASA 1251 

report (Reference 10). Because the plots are all derived from the same data 

(References 1 and some explanation for the difference is in order. 

First, presumed actual survey points along roads were used as data points 

rather than the entire sketched contours. Second, DASA 1251 ascribed more 

reliability to the contours than could have possibly existed. For instance, 

the northwest quadrant of SMOKY fallout should be considered highly suspect 

simply on the basis that the steep terrain would have precluded surveys in 

that area. Third, the influence of previous shots on subsequent surveys was 

not considered. This is particularly evident for SMOKY, where the REECO 

surveys were biased by the northerly SHASTA fallout of two weeks previous and 

DIABLO fallout of seven weeks previous. Thus, any composite SMOKY fallout 

plot, using REECO data, would reflect higher intensities on the western side 

than actually resulted from shot SMOKY itself. Finally, the DASA 1251 fallout 

contours were normalized (to using a decay rate of The plots 

contained herein are normalized to through the use of actual shot decay 

58 
---

rates where available from Program 37. Where the actual data are not available, the composite decay is used. In either case, significant 

variations from the traditional 'rule" are evident. This is discussed 

in Appendix II where actual decay rates and schemes used to derive the 

composite plots are described in greater detail. 
BOLTZMANN Fallout 

60 
 Figure I-2. FRANKLIN Fallout 

H 12 

2 June 

Derived from Reference 

 

 

’

’ .-

J969 _ -- .

_ _ 
62 

 

'

_-

 Figure I-5. KEPLER _ 

H t 12 

24 July 

Derived from References 
--- PASCAL "A" 

H 12 

26 July 

Derived from Reference 1 
, Figure I-7. SHASTA Fallout 

H + 12 

18 August 

Derived 
 Figure I-8. FRANKLIN PRIME Fallout 

H 12 

30 August 

Derived from Reference 

67 
-

’ *

--- -- - -

i 

 from References 
- - - --

Derived from References 
-

70 
- - --

APPENDIX II 

FALLOUT DECAY 

(Except for the additional decay factors through the GALILEO shot date, this 

appendix is taken from Reference 5 and is included here for reader convenience.) 

The decay of fallout contamination was examined in detail for two specific reasons. First the rate was used to normalize all survey data to From 

these reduced data, the fallout plots shown in Appendix I were constructed. 

Second, precise decay rates were needed to facilitate evaluation of the actual 

intensity of each fallout field at various times after the shot when troop 

units were operating therein. 

Several decay curves were examined, particularly the actual decay rates 

for specific shots as measured by Program 37 (Reference 11) whenever they were 

available. For the other shots where no decay data was available, the 

composite decay, as compiled by Program 37, was examined. It was noted that 

these decay rates vary considerably from the traditional "rule". They 

also vary from the decay rate used in the DELFIC code (DOD Standard fallout 

model), which determines a composite decay from the decay of each fission 

product. While DELFIC agrees quite well with the "rule", it does not 

consider the case of tower shots where substantial amounts of extraneous 

neutron-activated material, such as iron, are added to the radionuclide 

inventory. Also DELFIC does not consider fractionation, any one of several 

processes apart from radioactive decay which results in non-uniform composition of fallout material. For example, delayed fallout generally contains 

relatively more and which have gaseous precursors, than does 

early fallout. 

The actual decay rates were used for Shots BOLTZMANN, DIABLO, SHASTA, 

and SMOKY. These are shown in Tables II-1 through 11-4. For all other 

shots, the overall composite decay was used, as shown in Table 11-5. 

71 
-

TABLE II-1 

FALLOUT DECAY 

H+ (hours) Decay Rate, 

Composite 

2-3 -0.65 

-0.89 

-1.00 

8-13 -1.33 

13-900 Composite 

900-1400 -1.17 

1400-4000 -1.20 

as used in the expression, 

Source: Reference 11 

Conversion of REECO Survey Data*to 

Survey H+ Factor 

Initial (0551) 0.927 

(1319) 8.4 622 

(0648) 25.9 i.93 

(0550) 72.9 

(1352) 177 11.3 

* Reference 1 

72 
-

TABLE II-2 

DIABLO FALLOUT DECAY 

H+ (hours) Decay Rate, 

Composite 

2-5 -1.30 

5-6 -1.71 

6-15 -1.13 

15-25 -0.50 

25-30 -2.38 

30-80 Composite 

80-180 

180-300 -1.84 

300-400 -1.64 

400-600 -1.33 

600-2300 -1.21 

as used in the expression, 

Source : Reference 11 

Conversion of REECO Survey Data*to 

Survey H+ Factor 

Initial (0551) 1.35 ,043 

(1118) 6.8 

(0645) 26.25 1.87 

(0652) 50.4 3.74 

(0642) 74.2 5.45 

(0755) 99.4 7.33 

* Reference 1 

73 
-

TABLE II-3 

SHASTA FALLOUT DECAY 

(hours) Decay Rate, 

Composite 

3-5 -1.21 

5-8 -0.92 

8-10 -0.65 

10-70 -0.76 

70-180 -1.21 

180-400 -1.67 

400-1500 -1.28 

1500-3000 -1.19 

as used in the expression, 

Source: Reference 11 

Conversion of REECO Survey to 

Survey Factor 

Initial (0740) 2.7 0.21 

(1124) 6.4 0.61 

(0729) 26.5 1.83 

(0650) 49.8 2.95 

(3625) 73.4 4.05 

Reference 1 

74 
-

TABLE II-4 

SMOKY FALLOUT DECAY 

H+ (hours) Decay Rate, 

6-8 -1.34 

8-19 -0.74 

19-42 -0.83 

42-85 -0.95 

85-650 Composite** 

650-800 -2.39 

800-900 -1.23 

900-1400 -1.00 

1400-3000 -1.17 

as used in the expression, 

**The reference does not portray Composite decay in 

this interval. 

Source: Reference 

Conversion of REECO Survey Data*to 

Survey H+ Factor 

(1309) 7.65 

(0628) 24.97 1.76 

(1415) 80.75 5.02 

(1318) 127.8 8.95 

Reference 1 

75 
-- - -

TABLE II-5 

COMPOSITE FALLOUT DECAY 

H+ (hours) Decay Rate, 

-2.18 

2-3 -0.70 

3-6 -1.30 

6-14 -1.03 

14-50 -0.78 

-0.90 

-1.20 

180-400 -1.58 

-1.29 

600-1600 -1.34 

-1.45 

3000-4000 -1.68 

4000-5000 -1.76 

as used in the expression 

Source: Reference 11 

76 
Although the differences in decay rates are not significant for some 

time intervals, should be noted that the actual decay rates are generally 

more consistent with each other than with Figure II-1 is a plot of 

each specific decay for the shots named, together with the composite, 

compared with the traditional decay, all normalized to hours. 

Thus, to find the intensity at a time given the intensity at 

time the following expression is used: 

I X 

t t 

I 

t 0 

0 

where x is the slope of the decay curve, obtained from Tables II-1 through 

11-5, for successive time intervals. In this manner, all radiological survey 

data were normalized to hours to aid in deriving the fallout plots shown 

in Appendix I. The contours so reconstructed were then used 

for all subsequent analyses of personnel exposures. The analyses required 

that the actual fallout intensities be determined at various times after each 

shot for specific troop locations. Table II-6 shows the factors used in the 

analyses. These factors were derived from the above expression to aid in 

converting intensities to any subsequent time. For precise conversions, 

particularly within one or two days after a given event, the above expression 

should be used. 

77 
-- -

Time After Burst (hours) 

Figure II-l. Fallout Decay Comparison 

78 

104 
 

 

 

 

 

 

-

TABLE 

FACTORS COHVERT INTENSITIES TO INTENSITIES ON SPECIFIC DATES 

Date JULY AUGUST 

Shot 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 2 4 6 8 

FRANKLIN ,004 

WILSON ,007 

DIABLO 1 

KEPLER 

PASCAL "A" ,084 

SHASTA 

FRANKLIN 

PRIME 

SMOKY 

GALILEO 

10 12 14 16 18 

,003 

019 

1 

20 22 24 26 28 30 1 3 

NOTE: Dates shown are based on increments after For more precise conversions. use the method described in the text. 
80 
 

APPENDIX III 

GAMMA INTENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE SMOKY FALLOUT FIELD 

Because the exercise was conducted near the hotline of 

the SMOKY fallout field, the log-quadratic model introduced in Appendix I, 

log I = ax2 + bx + c, was used for dose reconstructions. As this model 

introduces some complications in the analysis, it is discussed here separately. 

All gamma survey data for the SMOKY fallout field could have been 

fit to the log-quadratic (Gaussian) model; however, a few trials showed that 

this model implied contours very nearly the same as for the 

log-linear model. Simultaneous fitting of data on both sides of the hotline 

was not generally possible. Consequently, the SMOKY contours (Figure 

derived through the log-linear model, have been used as a basis for interpolating with the log-quadratic model. 

The log-quadratic model was applied by fitting a normal to the 

hotline through the location to be exposure-analyzed and utilizing its intersections with the 100 and 1000 contours on either side of the hotline. 

These four intersections were used to determine a least squares fit (with one 

degree'of freedom) to the model. From fits so obtained, intensities at 

the infiltration course and parking area were determined as 6100 and 

2200 mr/hr, respectively. Log-linear interpolation was used to determine the 

intensity along the path from the tracks to the infiltration course. This was 

justified because the march was more parallel to than normal to the hotline, 

and was done in lieu of calculating a dense set of log-quadratic fits to 

provide intensities all along the marching path. The average intensity 

between the parking area and the infiltration course was determined from 

n( 

yielding 3800 mr/hr. With the assumption of a constant-velocity march, 

this value was used d ly in dose computations. 

81 
Error analysis of these intensities concerned the choice of model 

and the interpolation associated with a quadratic fit. a quantitative 

error estimate cannot be obtained concerning the choice of model, it was 

instructive to compare with the results of a more sophisticated model. A 

curve of Gaussian form was a simple expedient for crossing a hotline, but it 

had one disturbing feature for use on the SMOKY fallout field: the contour 

lines on the north of the hotline were more closely spaced than those on the 

south, to such a degree that uncertainty in contour position was too small to 

account for the difference in spacing. The Gaussian fit forced equal spacing 

on either side of the hotline. A function was sought which would 

the skew in the contour lines. Many such functions exist, but most have the 

undesirable property of having a zero at a finite position. One that does not 

is of the form: 

With four parameters, this expression exactly fits the four intersections of 

the 100 and 1000 lines. Although the implied hotline intensities for 

the two models are quite different, (7600 for the Gaussian, 13900 

for the skewed Gaussian), agreement of the two forms is good for the intensities at the parking area and at the infiltration course. On this basis the 

Gaussian model appears adequate for the required intensity estimates at and 

between the areas of concern. 

Error estimation of the interpolation with a Gaussian was expedited 

by using the fallout plot uncertainties as a base. The error factor of 1.46 

obtained for fallout plots in Appendix I is strictly applicable only to the 

lines along which data was analyzed and at the mid-data location along a line. 

The points used for the Gaussian fit satisfied both criteria fairly well. For 

the quadratic fit, the standard error of the model cannot be well characterized 

82 
by a single value that is good over a wide range of data. Owing to the lack 

of data near the hotline, intensities in its vicinity were predicted with 

less precision than those near the 100 and 1000 points (of coordinates 

denoted below as through x4). Even at these points, the standard error 

was not identical. The standard error at any coordinate, x, of the quadratic 

fit was found through the following expression:. 

s.e.(log I(x)) = 

The standard error of log I at the infiltration course was 1.64 times the 

root-mean-square average of the standard errors at through The 

standard error of the fallout plot alone, multiplied by this factor, gave the 

standard error inclusive of interpolation to the infiltration course*. 

Expanding to 90 percent confidence limits and examining I rather than log I, 

the combined error factor at the infiltration course was: 

error factor (plot interpolation) = anti log (1.64 • log 1.46) = 1.86. 

The rule for relating error factors (Reference 5) was used to determine that 

the error factor for interpolation alone was (coincidentally) 1.64. With 

similar analysis, the interpolative error factor at the parking area was found 

to be 1.35. 

* The average standard error for points through x4 was not the same as 

implied by the error factor for fallout plots mainly because few points were 

explicitly used in determining the Gaussian, as compared to the many determining the contours; in essence, a pre-determined standard deviation existed 

for the Gaussian. Hence, the combined standard error was normalized to that 

of the fallout plot alone. 

83 
 -

-

84 
APPENDIX IV 

GROUND CONCENTRATION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN THE HUMRRO AREA 

shots BOLTZMANN, DIABLO, SHASTA, and SMOKY deposited 

fallout in the HumRRO site prior to one or more of the exercises held there. 

Ground contamination was measured at neither the time nor the position of 

activities. The beta/gamma surface activity may be related, however, 

to the gamma intensities determined for locations of interest in Section 4.1. 

This relationship varies with the time-dependent energy spectrum of 

product emissions. 

The ORIGEN isotope generation and depletion code (Reference 

as supplemented by Reference 29, is applied to all fissionable materials in 

each weapon to determine the radioisotopes produced by the burst. By following the decay modes of all radioisotopes present, the code calculates the 

inventory of fission products and actinides following the burst. The spectra 

for all isotopes, weighted to account for emission modes, are combined to form 

a single gamma emission spectrum for each time of interest. The ANISN radiation transport code (Reference 12) is used to calculate the attenuation and 

scattering of photons from a uniform, plane fallout field. The photon incidence on a receptor at the standard one-meter survey height is then translated 

into a gamma intensity in 

The procedure for determining the beta surface activity 

from the one-meter gamma intensity for any position at time t is summarized 

as follows: 

1. Use ORIGEN to: 

a. compute the abundance of all radioisotopes at time t. 

b. identify the decay rate and the gamma energy and probability for all emission modes, for each radioisotope. 

85 
c. determine the overall gamma energy spectrum from a 

and b. 

d. determine the disintegrations per unit time of each 

radioisotope, and sum to find the total Curies. 

2. Assume the total activity is uniformly distributed on a large 

planar surface; this gives a surface activity in 

3. Use ANISN to: 

a. calculate the spectrum at one meter above the surface from 

the spectrum of surface emissions. 

b. determine the gamma intensity (mr/hr) from the 

spectrum at one meter. 

4. The ratio thus found of to is applicable to gamma 

survey readings of any intensity taken at time t. 

Surface activities, presented in Table IV-l, are calculated from 49 

beta/gamma-emitting fission products for which dose factors (discussed in Section 

4.3) were reported in Reference 22. From ORIGEN it is determined that these 

49 radionuclides represented 98.4 percent of the beta/gamma activity from SMOKY 

fallout at hours and a greater percentage from older fallout. This 

suggests that all radionuclides contributing significantly to a 50-year dose 

are incorporated in the analysis. 

In radiochemical analyses of fallout it is often found that the mix 

of isotopes varies with location. A different fraction of a given isotope may 

be found in close-in fallout as compared to that deposited farther away. In 

the ORIGEN calculations, radioisotopes of the inert gases are eliminated from 

consideration, but other evidence of fractionation is found when the calculations 

are compared with measured data. Ruthenium and strontium abundances are 

overpredicted by several hundred percent in comparison with the data of Larson 

(Reference 11). Agreement of other calculated and measured radioisotope 

abundances is generally within 25 percent. Consequently, calculated abundances 

are used for all radioisotopes with the exception of ruthenium and strontium, 

which are normalized to the measurements for shot SMOKY. A comparison of 

Larson's data and calculated values is displayed in Table IV-2. 

86 
TABLE IV-l 

SURFACE CONCENTRATIONS OF BETA/GAMMA EMITTERS FOR 

THE HUMRRO REHEARSALS AND TEST 

Shot 

BOLTZMANN 

DIABLO 

SHASTA 

BOLTZMANN 

DIABLO 

SHASTA 

BOLTZMANN 

DIABLO 

SHASTA 

SMOKY 

23 August 

184 0.9 

178 0.12 

122 2.6 

26 August 

184 0.9 

179 0.1 

117 1.36 

2 September 

185 0.9 

179 0.1 

127 0.5 

140 

166 

21 

317 

166 

167 

256000 

160000 

14000 

* At parking area 

At infiltration course 

*** Average during march 

Average during truck transit in contaminated area 

87 
TABLE IV-2 

MEASURED AND CALCULATED PERCENT OF 

BETA ACTIVITY FOR SELECTED NUCLIDES 

AT H 720 HOURS 

Shot Ba-140 Cs-136.137 Y-91 Zr-95 

SMOKY (4.6 mi from GZ, 4.7 mi S. of midline) 

measured 10.4 20.7 NS** 1.39 1.3 7.78 

calculated 12.0 17.0 0.1 1.39 1.3 8.7 9.1 

SHASTA (15 mi from 1.3 mi W. of midline) 

1.48 1.36 9.7 8.10 

measured calculated 12.90 14.870 1.44 1.32 7.2 8.6

DIABLO (16 mi from GZ, 6.7 mi E. of midline) 

measured 13.3 15.8 0.15 1.8 1.58 10.3 9.3 

calculated 12.0 14.8 0.20 1.48 1.36 7.3 8.6 

BOLTZMANN (36 mi from GZ, 0.0 mi from midline) 

measured 14.6 18.5 0.20 5.5 1.75 9.6 9.3 

calculated 12.0 14.9 0.21 1.48 1.36 7.1 8.5 

Calculation normalized to SMOKY measurements 

Not Significant 
A second source of uncertainty involves the distribution of surface 

activity with depth. The presence of activity in the top layer of ground 

rather than precisely on the surface reduces the measured for a given 

ANISN is used with both a true surface source and a uniform distribution to a depth of 1 cm. The latter results in a 

ratio almost 50 percent greater than the former. Because this depth 

distribution (a simulation of the effect of surface irregularities as well 

as the settling of fallout into the ground) results in better agreement 

between theoretical and measured fallout gamma intensities, it is used in the 

derivation of Table IV-l. 

Proper comparison with Larson's experimental ratios is difficult 

because they were determined at unreported times and improperly normalized to 

a common time base. They are in general agreement with computed values, 

however. Larson's data for shot SMOKY were in the range of 94 to 152 (@i/m*)/ 

These are consistent with other ratios for tower shots cited in 

weapons test reports. 

Alpha Activity Surface Concentration 

The predominant source of alpha activity from the four shots of 

interest in assessing ground contamination was the unreacted weapon 

material. Secondary contributions came from reaction products in the devices. 

The amounts and types of alpha emitters considered for each shot are determined 

based on the yield fractions from each weapon component. The ORIGEN code is 

used to determine the quantity of each radioisotope produced, the amount of 

weapon material consumed, and the quantity of unreacted material. 

ORIGEN provides a ratio of alpha to beta/gamma activity which is 

invariant if it is assumed that the alpha emitters are uniformly distributed 

with the fission products. The alpha activity concentration on the ground is 

determined from this ratio and the surface beta/gamma activity. The results 

of this computation, performed for all shots and all post-shot times of 

interest, are not presented because they contain classified information 

concerning the make-up of each device. 
 

 

Ground Contamination From Tower Activation Products 

To complete the assessment of potential internal exposure, isotopes 

produced by neutron activation of cab and tower materials must be considered. 

Because only limited measurements were made of the isotopic composition 

of SMOKY fallout, the activation contribution from experiments conducted in 

conjunction with other tower shots is used. For some tower shots in Operation 

Upshot-Knothole, measurements were made of the ratios of atoms per fission of 

various activation products. Because the samples were obtained at long 

distances from the test site, it is necessary to assume these ratios are 

independent of particle size (i.e., no fractionation). 

To correlate the atoms-per-fission data and infer similar ratios 

for SMOKY, the amount of structural material involved must be compared. 

The tower weight and height, as well as the cab weight, are available for 

SMOKY and some Upshot-Knothole shots. The length of tower vaporized or melted 

is deduced through cube root yield scaling of data from shot FIZEAU (Plumbbob). 

It is thus determined that the weights of vaporized material for shots NANCY 

and SIMON were similar to that for SMOKY. Atoms-per-fission ratios, similar 

for these two shots, are used for SMOKY. 

The number of atoms produced of any radioisotope (with decay 

constant A) is the total number of fissions multiplied by the atoms per fission 

for that isotope. Activity (A) at any time (t) is found through the expression: 

1 Ci A (Ci) = 3.7 x dis 

The proportionality between this activity and the total beta activity is applied 

to ground concentrations as well. Of the radioisotopes measured in the 

Upshot-Knothole analyses, those that would contribute the most to the 50-year 

bone dose of BIG BANG participants are Fe The surface 

beta activity at the infiltration course at the time of the exercise 

for these isotopes is shown below: 

Isotope 

Activity 1.3 4.5 1.9 0.3 
These values are so much less than the fission product surface activity from 

SMOKY at the infiltration course (see Table IV-l) that a 50-year dose from 

tower activation products, even if extremes of biologic retention are considered, 

is not significant compared to that from fission products. 
-

_

92