Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, MSC 6201 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201 

DTRA-TR-09-14 

Evaluation of Generic 3X Upper Bound Factor 

Used in Reconstructing External Gamma Doses 

to Military Participants at Atmospheric 

Nuclear Weapon Tests 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

November 2009 

 HDTRA1-07-C-0015 

 David C. Kocher 

 Prepared by:

 SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. 

 102 Donner Drive 

TECHNICAL REPORT

 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

 
STANDARD FORM 298 (Rev. 8/98)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection 

of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Manag ent and Budget, em

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR ORM TO THE ABOVE DDRESS.

Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 

F A

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

30-11-2009 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

HDTRA1-07-C-0015 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Evaluation of Generic 3X Upper Bound Factor Used in 

Reconstructing External Gamma Doses to Military Participants at 

Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

139D 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

CS 

5e. TASK NUMBER

AH 

6. AUTHOR(S)

David C. Kocher 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. 

102 Donner Drive 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

DTRA RD-NTSN 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Nuclear Technologies Directorate 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DTRA-TR-09-14 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

This report discusses the adequacy of a generic 3X upper bound factor used by the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency, Nuclear Test Personnel Review in reconstructing external personnel gamma doses. Comparisons are 

performed between reconstructed doses with relevant film badge readings in evaluating the adequacy of applying a 

3x upper bound factor to reconstructed mean doses or point estimates of doses with no uncertainty. The use of the 

3X upper bound factor was usually found adequate in cases of land exposure in either the Nevada Test Site or 

Pacific Proving Ground. In the case of shipboard exposures in the Pacific Proving Ground, less adequacy was noted, 

and further investigation was recommended. Finally, a recommendation was made that doses to unbadged 

shipboard personnel should be assigned on the basis of badge readings for other participants on that ship, rather 

than a reconstructed dose. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Nuclear Test Personnel Review, Veterans, Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing, Fallout, External Gamma Dose, 

Upper Bound Factor. 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

Dr. Paul K. Blake

a. EPORT R

U

b.

A TRACT BS

U

c. THIS 

P E AG

U

17. IMITATION 

OF BSTRACT 

 L

 A

UU

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

190 19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code ) 

703 767-3384 
CONVERSION TABLE 

Conversion Factors for U.S. Customary to metric (SI) units of measurement. 

MULTIPLY BY TO GET 

 TO GET BY DIVIDE 

meters (m) 

kilo pascal (kPa) 

kilo pascal (kPa) 

meter2

 (m2) 

joule (J) 

joule (J) 

mega joule/m2

 (MJ/m2) 

*giga bacquerel (GBq) 

radian (rad) 

degree kelvin (K) 

joule (J) 

joule (J) 

watt (W) 

meter (m) 

joule (J) 

meter3

 (m3) 

meter (m) 

joule (J) 

Gray (Gy) 

terajoules 

newton (N) 

kilo pascal (kPa) 

newton-second/m2

 (N-s/m2) 

meter (m) 

meter (m) 

meter (m) 

kilogram (kg) 

newton (N) 

newton-meter (N-m) 

newton/meter (N/m) 

kilo pascal (kPa) 

kilo pascal (kPa) 

kilogram (kg) 

kilogram-meter2

 (kg-m

2

) 

kilogram-meter3

 (kg/m3) 

**Gray (Gy) 

coulomb/kilogram (C/kg) 

second (s) 

kilogram (kg) 

kilo pascal (kPa)

1.000 000 x E -10 

1.013 25 x E +2 

1.000 000 x E +2 

1.000 000 x E -28 

1.054 350 x E +3 

4.184 000 

4.184 000 x E -2 

3.700 000 x E +1 

1.745 329 x E -2 

tk

 = (tof + 459.67)/1.8 

1.602 19 x E -19 

1.000 000 x E -7 

1.000 000 x E -7 

3.048 000 x E -1 

1.355 818 

3.785 412 x E -3 

2.540 000 x E -2 

1.000 000 x E +9 

1.000 000 

4.183 

4.448 222 x E +3 

6.894 757 x E +3 

1.000 000 x E +2 

1.000 000 x E -6 

2.540 000 x E -5 

1.609 344 x E +3 

2.834 952 x E -2 

4.448 222 

1.129 848 x E -1 

1.751 268 x E +2 

4.788 026 x E -2 

6.894 757 

4.535 924 x E -1 

4.214 011 x E -2 

1.601 846 x E +1 

1.000 000 x E -2 

2.579 760 x E -4 

1.000 000 x E -8 

1.459 390 x E +1 

1.333 22 x E -1

angstrom 

atmosphere (normal) 

bar 

barn 

British thermal unit (thermochemical) 

calorie (thermochemical) 

cal (thermochemical/cm2

)

curie 

degree (angle) 

degree Fahrenheit 

electron volt 

erg 

erg/second 

foot 

foot-pound-force 

gallon (U.S. liquid) 

inch 

jerk 

joule/kilogram (J/kg) radiation 

 absorbed dose 

kilotons 

kip (1000 lbf) 

kip/inch2

 (ksi) 

ktap 

micron 

mil 

mile (international) 

ounce 

pound-force (lbs avoirdupois) 

pound-force inch 

pound-force/inch 

pound-force/foot2

pound-force/inch2

 (psi) 

pound-mass (lbm avoirdupois) 

pound-mass-foot2

 (moment of inertia) 

pound-mass/foot3

rad (radiation dose absorbed) 

roentgen 

shake 

slug 

torr (mm Hg, 00

 C) 

 *The becquerel (Bq) is the SI unit of radioactivity; 1 Bq = 1 event/s.

**The gray (Gy) is the SI unit of absorbed dose. 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 

 1.1 Policies on Estimating Upper Bounds of Reconstructed External Gamma Dose.........1 

 1.2 Purpose of Report .........................................................................................................2 

 1.3 Basic Assumptions in Evaluating Adequacy of 3X Upper Bound Factor....................3 

 1.4 General Approach to Analysis......................................................................................5 

 1.5 Sources of Data Used in Analysis and Consideration of Data in NuTRIS...................6 

 1.6 Organization of Report .................................................................................................7 

 References............................................................................................................................8 

2. OPERATIONS AT NTS – I. OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE (1951) .................................9 

 2.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions...........................................................................9 

 2.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses......................................................................................9 

 2.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses ...............................................................................10 

 2.1.2.1 Weapons Effects Evaluation Teams at Equipment Display 

 Positions.............................................................................10 

 2.1.2.2 Observers at Shot DOG ................................................................11 

 2.1.2.3 Maneuver Troops at Shot DOG ....................................................13 

 2.1.2.4 Units at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE ............................................13 

 2.1.2.5 Other Support Units ......................................................................14 

 2.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................15 

 2.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................16 

 References..........................................................................................................................17 

3. OPERATIONS AT NTS – II. OPERATION TUMBLER-SNAPPER (1952)........................19 

 3.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................19 

 3.1.1 Observers at Shot FOX ................................................................................19 

 3.1.2 Observers and Maneuver Troops at Shot GEORGE....................................20 

 3.1.3 Observers and Maneuver Troops at Shot DOG ...........................................21 

 3.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................21 

 3.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................22 

 References..........................................................................................................................23 

4. OPERATIONS AT NTS – III. OPERATION UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE (1953)......................25 

 4.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................25 

 4.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses....................................................................................25 

 4.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses ...............................................................................26 

 4.1.2.1 Marine Brigade at Shot BADGER................................................26 

 4.1.2.2 Maneuver Troops at Shot NANCY...............................................28 

 4.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................29 

 4.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................30 

 References..........................................................................................................................31 

i
 

Page

5. OPERATIONS AT NTS – IV. OPERATION TEAPOT (1955).............................................33 

 5.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................33 

 5.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses....................................................................................33 

 5.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses ...............................................................................34 

 5.1.2.1 Marine Brigade at Shot BEE.........................................................34 

 5.1.2.2 Observers at Various Shots...........................................................35 

 5.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................36 

 5.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................37 

 References..........................................................................................................................38 

6. OPERATIONS AT NTS – V. OPERATION PLUMBBOB (1957) .......................................40 

 6.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................40 

 6.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses....................................................................................40 

 6.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses ...............................................................................41 

 6.1.2.1 Task Force WARRIOR.................................................................41 

 6.1.2.2 Task Force BIG BANG ................................................................43 

 6.1.2.3 Marine Brigade at Shots PRISCILLA and HOOD.......................46 

 6.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................46 

 6.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................48 

 References..........................................................................................................................50 

7. OPERATIONS AT PPG – I. OPERATION CROSSROADS (1946) .....................................52 

 7.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................52 

 7.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................55 

 7.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................57 

 References..........................................................................................................................60 

8. OPERATIONS AT PPG – II. OPERATION SANDSTONE (1948) ......................................64 

 8.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................64 

 8.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................66 

 8.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................66 

 References..........................................................................................................................67 

9. OPERATIONS AT PPG – III. OPERATION GREENHOUSE (1951)..................................70 

 9.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.........................................................................70 

 9.1.1 Exposures During Operation........................................................................70 

 9.1.1.1 Exposures on Ships.......................................................................71 

 9.1.1.1.1 Comparisons in unit dose reconstructions ....................71 

 9.1.1.1.2 Comparisons based on more likely exposures of 

 badged participants ................................................75 

 9.1.1.1.3 Comparisons based on film badge readings in 

 NuTRIS..................................................................78 

 9.1.1.2 Exposures on Residence Islands ...................................................79 

 9.1.2 Exposures Following Operation ..................................................................80 

ii
 

Page

 9.2 SAIC Memoranda .......................................................................................................80 

 9.3 Summary of Analysis..................................................................................................82 

 References..........................................................................................................................84 

10. OPERATIONS AT PPG – IV. OPERATION IVY (1952) ...................................................87 

 10.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.......................................................................87 

 10.1.1 Exposures on Ships....................................................................................87 

 10.1.1 Exposures on Residence Islands ................................................................95 

 10.2 SAIC Memoranda .....................................................................................................95 

 10.3 Summary of Analysis................................................................................................96 

 References..........................................................................................................................98 

11. OPERATIONS AT PPG – V. OPERATION CASTLE (1954)...........................................100 

 11.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.....................................................................100 

 11.1.1 Exposures on Ships..................................................................................100 

 11.1.1.1 Comparisons Based on Film Badge Readings in Unit 

 Dose Reconstructions.......................................................100 

 11.1.1.2 Consideration of Film Badge Readings in NuTRIS .................107 

 11.1.2 Exposures on Residence Islands ..............................................................115 

 11.1.3 Exposures on Rongerik Atoll...................................................................115 

 11.2 SAIC Memoranda ...................................................................................................116 

 11.3 Summary of Analysis..............................................................................................118 

 References........................................................................................................................120 

12. OPERATIONS AT PPG – VI. OPERATION WIGWAM (1955) ......................................126 

 12.1 Unit Dose Reconstructions .....................................................................................126 

 12.2 Information on Doses to Participants......................................................................126 

 12.3 Discussion of Assigned Doses................................................................................128 

 References........................................................................................................................129 

13. OPERATIONS AT PPG – VII. OPERATION REDWING (1956) ....................................130 

 13.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.....................................................................130 

 13.2 Discussion of Film Badge Dosimetry.....................................................................130 

 13.3 SAIC Memoranda ...................................................................................................131 

 13.4 Summary of Analysis..............................................................................................136 

 References........................................................................................................................137 

14. OPERATIONS AT PPG – VIII. OPERATION HARDTACK I (1958) .............................143 

 14.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions.....................................................................143 

 14.2 Discussion of Film Badge Dosimetry.....................................................................143 

 14.3 SAIC Memoranda ...................................................................................................143 

 14.3.1 Exposures on Residence Islands ..............................................................144 

 14.3.2 Exposures on Ships..................................................................................147 

iii
 

iv

Page

 14.4 Summary of Analysis..............................................................................................150 

 References........................................................................................................................150 

15. OPERATIONS AT PPG – IX. OPERATION DOMINIC I (1962).....................................156 

 15.1 Unit Dose Reconstructions .....................................................................................156 

 15.2 Discussion of Film Badge Dosimetry.....................................................................156 

 15.3 SAIC Memoranda ...................................................................................................156 

 15.4 Summary.................................................................................................................157 

 References........................................................................................................................158 

16. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................159 

 16.1 Summary of Evaluations at NTS ............................................................................161 

 16.1.1 Exposures to Initial Gamma Radiation....................................................161 

 16.2.2 Exposures to Residual Gamma Radiation................................................162 

 16.2 Summary of Evaluations at PPG.............................................................................166 

 16.2.1 Exposures on Ships..................................................................................167 

 16.2.1.1 Operation CROSSROADS .......................................................169 

 16.2.1.2 Operation GREENHOUSE.......................................................169 

 16.2.1.3 Operation IVY ..........................................................................170 

 16.2.1.4 Operation CASTLE ..................................................................171 

 16.2.1.5 Operation REDWING...............................................................173 

 16.2.1.6 Operation HARDTACK I.........................................................173 

 16.2.1.7 Summary of Evaluations on Ships............................................173 

 16.2.2 Exposures of Other Units.........................................................................175 

 16.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................177 

Distribution List...........................................................................................DL-1 
 

1. INTRODUCTION

 The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is responsible for providing estimates of 

radiation doses that were received by military participants at atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 

during the period 1945–1962. Many participants received external exposure to gamma radiation 

(photons), including initial gamma radiation that was emitted during the first minute after a 

nuclear detonation and, more commonly, residual gamma radiation that was emitted at later 

times in radioactive decay of fission and activation products and other debris from a weapon. 

External exposure to gamma radiation often was monitored using film badges worn by 

participants. However, many participants did not wear film badges during periods of exposure. 

In those cases, external gamma doses must be estimated using more indirect methods of dose 

reconstruction. For example, many reconstructions of external gamma dose have been based on 

external exposure rates in the environment or on ships that were measured in radiation surveys 

shortly after a detonation, extrapolation or interpolation of measured exposure rates in time and 

space, and assumptions about locations and times of exposure. 

1.1 Policies on Estimating Upper Bounds of Reconstructed External Gamma Doses 

 In accordance with a policy of the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) Program 

specified in Title 32, Part 218 of the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR Part 218), 

reconstructions of external gamma dose should provide estimates of mean doses and upper 

bounds, where upper bounds should be at least upper 95% confidence limits when uncertainties 

in estimating dose are taken into account; i.e., upper bounds should not underestimate doses to at 

least 95% of all participants. Upper bounds are more important than mean doses because, as 

specified in regulations of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in 38 CFR 3.311, they are 

used in adjudicating claims for compensation for cancers and other radiogenic diseases when an 

evaluation of disease causation is required. 

 Prior to July 2003, upper bounds of reconstructed external gamma doses relative to mean 

doses were estimated on a scenario-specific basis. For example, when participants who did not 

wear film badges were members of a military unit that engaged in well documented activities at a 

particular atmospheric test or tests and there was no indication that they engaged in other 

1
 

activities apart from their unit that could have resulted in significant radiation exposure, means 

and upper bounds of external gamma doses often were estimated on the basis of a unit dose 

reconstruction; i.e., all unbadged members of a unit were assigned the same mean dose and upper 

bound. The ratio of the upper bound to the mean dose, which we refer to as an “upper bound 

factor,” generally was different in dose reconstructions for different military units. 

 In July 2003, DTRA issued Interim Guidance which specified that upper bounds of all 

reconstructed external gamma doses were to be calculated by multiplying reconstructed mean 

doses by a factor of three (Benavides, 2003). Use of a generic 3X upper bound factor1

 replaced 

the previous approach of estimating scenario-specific upper bounds. This provision of the 

Interim Guidance was based on a finding by a committee of the National Research Council 

(NRC) that, although reconstructed mean doses generally were valid, upper bounds often were 

underestimated (NRC, 2003); i.e., upper bounds of reconstructed external gamma doses often 

were too low to give at least upper 95% confidence limits of doses to participants. Use of a 

generic 3X upper bound factor in reconstructing external gamma doses is incorporated in current 

policies and procedures of the NTPR Program (DTRA, 2007; 2008). 

1.2 Purpose of Report 

 The purpose of this report is to investigate whether use of a generic 3X upper bound 

factor, as specified in the Interim Guidance, is adequate to ensure that upper bounds of 

reconstructed external gamma doses are at least upper 95% confidence limits—i.e., whether use 

of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed external gamma doses that do 

not underestimate doses to at least 95% of unbadged participants. 

As described in Section 1.4, the approach taken in this investigation is to compare upper 

bounds of doses that are obtained by applying a 3X upper bound factor to reconstructed mean 

doses or point estimates of dose with no uncertainty given in unit dose reconstructions with 

upper bounds of distributions of film badge readings that apply to members of those units.2

 If 

the resulting upper bound of a reconstructed external gamma dose for a particular unit is greater 

 1

 The term “3X upper bound factor” is used in this report to denote that the upper bound of a 

reconstructed dose is assumed to be three times higher than the mean dose. 

2

 Throughout this report, the term “upper bound” refers to an upper 95% confidence limit of a 

reconstructed dose or distribution of film badge readings, unless otherwise noted. 

2
 

than doses indicated by at least 95% of the film badge readings for members of that unit, use of a 

3X upper bound factor is considered to be adequate in that case. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which has developed methods of 

dose reconstruction used in the NTPR Program, is developing improved methods of uncertainty 

analysis for use in reconstructing mean external gamma doses and upper bounds. The intention 

is to replace a generic 3X upper bound factor with scenario-specific upper bounds that are based 

on an improved analysis of uncertainty in all parameters used in reconstructing external gamma 

doses. The evaluation of a generic 3X upper bound factor presented in this report does not 

consider SAIC’s improved methods of uncertainty analysis but is concerned only with evaluating 

current practices of dose reconstruction, as specified in the 2003 Interim Guidance. 

1.3 Basic Assumptions in Evaluating Adequacy of Generic 3X Upper Bound Factor 

In evaluating the adequacy of a generic 3X upper bound factor in reconstructing external 

gamma doses on the basis of comparisons of reconstructed doses with distributions of relevant 

film badge readings, we have assumed that upper bounds that are obtained by applying a 3X 

upper bound factor to reconstructed mean doses or point estimates of dose with no uncertainty 

should be at least upper 95% confidence limits of true doses to participants. As a consequence 

of this assumption, the relationship between an exposure in roentgen (R) indicated by a film 

badge reading for a participant and the corresponding dose equivalent to the whole body in rem, 

which is the quantity calculated in dose reconstructions, is taken into account in evaluating the 

adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor. This is an important consideration when, in accordance 

with a policy of the NTPR Program (DTRA, 2007), the mean dose equivalent to the whole body 

in rem that is assigned to participants with badge readings is assumed to be equal to a badge 

reading (exposure) in R, even though badge readings in R generally overestimated dose to the 

whole body in rem. We refer to the ratio of a badge reading in R to the corresponding dose to 

the whole body in rem as a bias factor. 

Biases in readings of film badges that were used during the atmospheric weapons testing 

program were estimated by a committee of the NRC (1989). Estimated biases in film badge 

readings at various operations at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) or Pacific Proving Ground (PPG) 

3
 

are summarized in Table 1.1.3 These bias factors have been taken into account in evaluating the 

adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor as described below. 

Table 1.1. Overall bias factors in film badge readings at different operations

at Nevada Test Site and Pacific Proving Grounda

Operation Film badge bias 

factor Operation Film badge bias factor 

I. Nevada Test Site II. Pacific Proving Ground 

BUSTER-JANGLE 1.5 CROSSROADS 1.5 

TUMBLER-SNAPPER 2.1b SANDSTONE 1.5 

UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE 1.1 GREENHOUSE 1.4 

TEAPOT 1.1 IVY 1.5c

PLUMBBOB 1.3 CASTLE 1.3 

WIGWAM 1.3 

REDWING 1.3 

HARDTACK I 1.5 

DOMINIC I 1.5 

a

 See NRC (1989). Bias factor is ratio of deep-dose equivalent (rem) to exposure (R) recorded by 

film badges that were worn by participants. Deep-dose equivalent is assumed to give dose equivalent to 

whole body. Estimated bias in film badge readings at an operation is given only if reconstructed doses for 

military units at that operation are compared with relevant badge readings in this report. 

b

 Bias factor applies to ground personnel only. Estimated bias factor for flight personnel is 1.8. 

c

 Bias factor applies to ground personnel only. Estimated bias factor for flight personnel is 1.4.

 3

 Several sources (categories) of bias in film badge readings were evaluated (NRC, 1989). The 

laboratory category includes several sources of bias in laboratory procedures to calibrate and process film 

and to interpret readings in terms of exposure, R. The radiological category includes biases due to 

(1) differences between the spectrum of photons to which a film was exposed and the spectrum used in 

calibrating the film, (2) wearing a film badge on the body when the film was calibrated freely in air, and 

(3) backscatter of photons by the body. The environmental category includes all biases related to the field 

environment in which film badges were exposed (e.g., exposure to moisture, light, high temperatures, and 

radioactive contamination). At all operations, a bias factor of 1.3 was applied to convert a badge reading 

in R, adjusted to account for operation-specific biases in recorded exposures due to laboratory, 

radiological, and environmental factors, to deep-dose equivalent. The total bias was obtained by 

combining the separate bias factors. The NRC (1989) report also gives estimated uncertainties in all bias 

factors; these uncertainties are not used in our evaluation of the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor. 

4
 

1.4 General Approach to Analysis 

In this analysis, the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor is evaluated on the basis of 

comparisons of reconstructed doses for specific military units at a particular test or tests at a 

particular operation with distributions of film badge readings for participants in those units. This 

approach conforms to the way dose reconstructions are presented and compared with film badge 

readings in published reports and SAIC memoranda. It also facilitates an identification of the 

kinds of exposure scenarios in which use of a 3X upper bound factor may not be adequate. We 

have not attempted to evaluate the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor on the basis of 

aggregations of comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings in two or more 

cases, even when different cases involved units that were exposed under similar conditions. 

The general approach we have taken in this analysis is the following. We first compare 

the dose obtained by applying a 3X upper bound factor to the reconstructed whole-body dose for 

a particular unit, either the mean dose or a point estimate of dose with no reported uncertainty, in 

rem with film badge readings for members of that unit that are not adjusted to account for the 

bias in badge readings discussed in the previous section; badge readings are reported in rem. 

Such comparisons conform to the way reconstructed doses and badge readings are presented in 

unit dose reconstructions and to the policy of the NTPR Program noted in Section 1.1 that badge 

readings in R are assumed to give whole-body doses in rem. If use of a 3X upper bound factor is 

found to be adequate when a reconstructed dose is compared with unadjusted badge readings, 

that conclusion would not be affected if the bias in badge readings, which reduces the estimated 

dose to the whole body, were taken into account. Only when use of a 3X upper bound factor is 

found to be inadequate on the basis of a comparison of a reconstructed dose for a particular unit 

with unadjusted badge readings for members of that unit is the bias in badge readings taken into 

account in evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor.4

 4

 Biases in film badge readings are taken into account, as needed, only in cases of exposure to 

residual gamma radiation. Biases in badge readings are not considered in cases of exposure to initial 

gamma radiation (i.e., in cases of exposure of forward observers at NTS), because film badges that 

recorded exposures to initial gamma radiation often were not worn by participants and some of the biases 

that contribute to the overall bias factors in Table 1.1 (see footnote 3) either do not apply or are somewhat 

different than biases that apply to exposure to residual gamma radiation. As indicated by analyses in 

Sections 2 and 4–6, possible biases in film badge readings did not need to be considered in evaluating the 

adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in cases of exposure to initial gamma radiation at NTS. 

5
 

In comparing reconstructed doses with film badge readings when doses were low, the 

minimum dose that a film badge can distinguish from zero also is taken into account. The NRC 

(1989) report assigned a minimum detectable exposure of 40 mR to film badges at all operations. 

In this report, we have assumed a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem on the basis of 

a “threshold of reliability” that has been used in the NTPR Program (Barrett et al., 1987). When 

badge readings are below 50 mrem, comparisons with reconstructed doses that also are below 

50 mrem are not considered to be meaningful. 

1.5 Sources of Data Used in Analysis and Consideration of Data in NuTRIS 

In the analysis presented in this report, film badge readings that are compared with 

reconstructed doses are obtained from published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. 

Most published unit dose reconstructions are given in reports prepared by SAIC, although a few 

are given in other reports that include more general descriptions of all activities that took place at 

particular operations and tests. 

Another source of information on film badge readings for participants is the NTPR 

Program’s NuTRIS (Nuclear Test Review Information System) database. Throughout our 

analysis, we attempted to use badge readings given in NuTRIS, in addition to readings that were 

reported in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. However, this effort 

proved to be less informative than we hoped. The most important difficulty was that the badge 

readings in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda frequently did not 

correspond well with readings for members of the same unit in NuTRIS; i.e., some reported 

badge readings were not given in NuTRIS or vice versa. Given these inconsistencies, we could 

not conclude that badge readings in NuTRIS that were not reported in published unit dose 

reconstructions or SAIC memoranda could be used reliably in our analysis. 

Two other difficulties were encountered in attempting to compare film badge readings in 

NuTRIS with reconstructed doses for military units at PPG. The first was that NuTRIS does not 

distinguish between permanent badges and mission badges. This is an important concern when 

only permanent badges were relevant in comparisons with reconstructed doses. The second 

difficulty occurred in cases, such as on ships at Operation CASTLE, where readings of cohort 

film badges were assigned to unbadged participants. In those cases, NuTRIS does not indicate 

6
 

which participants were badged and which were assigned a dose equal to a cohort badge reading. 

Thus, on the basis of information in NuTRIS, we were unsure of the total number of film badges 

on a ship and their readings, and there was uncertainty about the fraction of all badge readings 

that exceed a reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

Given these difficulties, we did not use badge readings obtained from NuTRIS in 

evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor, although comparisons of reconstructed 

doses with badge readings in NuTRIS are presented in some cases, especially when badge 

readings were not reported in unit dose reconstructions and the number of badge readings in 

NuTRIS is substantial. However, NuTRIS did provide useful information. For example, we 

identified a few cases where reconstructed doses may have been assigned inappropriately to 

unbadged participants in particular units. In addition, information in NuTRIS gave no indication 

that there are additional types of exposure situations where use of a 3X upper bound factor is 

inadequate beyond situations we identified on the basis of reconstructed doses and film badge 

readings that were reported in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. 

1.6 Organization of Report 

The following sections present comparisons of reconstructed external gamma doses in 

published unit dose reconstructions and SAIC memoranda with relevant film badge readings at 

several operations at NTS or PPG. If an operation is not considered, either there are no unit dose 

reconstructions at that operation or there are no opportunities to compare reconstructed doses 

with film badge readings; this situation applies at Operations RANGER (1951), HARDTACK II 

(1958), and DOMINIC II (1962) at NTS. Exposures at the Trinity site in New Mexico and at 

Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 also are not considered, since all doses at the Trinity site 

have been estimated on the basis of film badge readings for participants or a suitable cohort 

(DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-1, Section 3.1) and film badges were not used in Japan. A final 

section summarizes the results of our analysis and presents some general conclusions from our 

evaluation of the adequacy of a generic 3X upper bound factor. 

7
 

References

Barrett, M., Goetz, J., Klemm, J., Ortlieb, E., and Thomas, C., 1987. Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure for Military Participants, Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III—Operation 

Buster-Jangle, DNA-TR-87-116 (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA). 

Benavides, C., 2003. Letter to S. Powell, Titan Corporation (Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 

Fort Belvoir, VA) (July 16). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2007. Policy & Guidance Manual – Nuclear Test 

Personnel Review Program (Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA) 

(November). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

NRC (National Research Council), 1989. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

(National Academy Press, Washington, DC). 

NRC (National Research Council), 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC). 

8
 

2. OPERATIONS AT NTS – I. 

OPERATION BUSTER-JANGLE (1951) 

2.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions 

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE are given in a 

published report by Barrett et al. (1987). 

2.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses

Readings of film badges that were placed at distances of 1700–4500 yards from ground 

zero at Shot DOG are compared with calculations of initial gamma dose in Figure 5 of Barrett et 

al. (1987). These badges were not worn by participants, but they should provide reasonable 

estimates of initial gamma dose that would have been received at those locations. There were no 

significant exposures to initial gamma radiation at this operation (Barrett et al., 1987). 

At all but the closest distance from ground zero, the upper bound of the distribution of 

film badge readings (either unshielded badges in unprotected positions on the ground or 

equipment badges in positions where participants would have been exposed if they had been 

present) exceeds the calculated dose. At all distances, the upper bound of the distribution of 

badge readings and the calculated dose differ by about a factor of two or less. Thus, at all 

distances, use of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma 

doses that are at least upper 95% confidence limits. 

More recent calculations of initial gamma doses at Shot DOG are given in Figure 29 of 

Santoro et al. (2005), which also compares calculated doses with central estimates of measured 

doses. At all distances from ground zero, measured doses exceed the calculated doses by a factor 

between 1.3 and 2. The more recent calculations do not affect the conclusion about the adequacy 

of a 3X upper bound factor on the basis of information reported by Barrett et al. (1987). 

9
 

2.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses 

 Several comparisons of reconstructed doses from exposure to residual gamma radiation at 

locations near ground zero with film badge readings for participants in particular units are given 

by Barrett et al. (1987). In many cases, reconstructed doses were considered to be “high-sided” 

(i.e., upper bounds), and a mean dose was not estimated (Barrett et al., 1987). 

2.1.2.1 Weapons Effects Evaluation Teams at Equipment Display Positions. Members of 

weapons effects evaluation teams were exposed to residual gamma radiation from Shots 

CHARLIE (October 30) and DOG (November 1) at one of two equipment display positions. At 

Position 1, where about 25 individuals were exposed, high-sided reconstructed doses on three 

consecutive days are compared with film badge readings as follows: 

 October 30 – 

 – Reconstructed dose, 64 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–50 mrem 

 – Badge readings of zero, 14 of 20 total badges 

 October 31 – 

 – Reconstructed dose, 9 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–34 mrem 

 – Badge readings of zero, 9 of 17 total badges 

 November 1 – 

 – Reconstructed dose, 48 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 20–95 mrem (24 total badges) 

 – Mean badge reading, 45 mrem 

The high-sided reconstructed dose exceeds all badge readings on the first day, but not on the 

second and third two days. Use of a 3X upper bound factor on the high-sided reconstructed 

doses gives upper bounds that exceed all badge readings on the first and third days, but not on 

10
 

the second day. However, the comparison on the second day is not meaningful when all badge 

readings are below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem (see Section 1.4). 

 At Position 2, where about 80 individuals were exposed, high-sided reconstructed doses 

are compared with film badge readings as follows: 

 October 30 – 

 – Reconstructed dose, 32 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–50 mrem 

 – Badge readings of zero, 18 of 27 total badges 

 October 31 – 

 – Reconstructed dose, 5 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–50 mrem 

 – Badge readings of zero, 9 of 16 total badges 

 November 1 – 

 – Reconstructed dose, 24 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–50 mrem and single reading of 95 mrem 

 – Badge readings of zero, 40 of 65 total badges 

On all three days, the high-sided reconstructed dose is less than higher badge readings. On the 

first and third days, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the high-sided reconstructed doses gives 

upper bounds that exceed at least 95% of all badge readings. This is not the case on the second 

day. However, since all badge readings on that day are at or below a nominal minimum 

detectable dose of 50 mrem, this comparison is not meaningful. 

2.1.2.2 Observers at Shot DOG. About 2,800 observers at Shot DOG (November 1) 

were issued film badges. The high-sided reconstructed dose is compared with film badge 

readings as follows: 

11
 

Reconstructed dose, 4 mrem 

Range of badge readings, 0−320 mrem and single reading of 750 mrem 

Badge readings of zero, 2,439 (87%) 

Badge readings above nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, 37 

The high-sided reconstructed dose, which is very low, is less than most non-zero film badge 

readings. By assuming that badge readings below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 

50 mrem are not meaningful, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the high-sided reconstructed 

dose gives an upper bound dose (12 mrem) that is less than 37, or 1.3%, of the badge readings; 

i.e., the upper bound does not significantly underestimate doses to more than 95% of these 

observers. 

Even though use of a 3X upper bound factor appears to be adequate when a minimum 

detectable dose is taken into account, the few badge readings that greatly exceed the high-sided 

reconstructed dose could be a concern. For example, nine badge readings exceed 100 mrem, or 

more than 15 times the reconstructed dose of 4 mrem when the bias of a factor of 1.5 in film 

badge readings at this operation (see Table 1.1) is taken into account. Barrett et al. (1987) states 

that the 37 badge readings above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem “are likely due 

to the unauthorized [and documented] excursions of personnel who proceeded closer to ground 

zero than the remainder of the observer group” and that the highest badge reading of 750 mrem 

was “thought to be an equipment badge” (i.e., a badge that was placed close to ground zero prior 

to detonation and was exposed to initial gamma radiation). Regardless of the cause of the high 

badge readings in this case, however, the substantial number of readings that greatly exceed three 

times the high-sided reconstructed dose is not a significant concern, because the number of 

badges that were issued to observers at Shot DOG agrees with the total number of observers 

(Barrett et al., 1987). Therefore, there should be no need to use a reconstructed dose for 

unbadged observers that might greatly underestimate actual doses.5

 5

 In a review of a previous draft of this report, SAIC analysts argued that the only reasonable 

explanation for the large discrepancies between the reconstructed dose and a few badge readings is that 

observers with high badge readings also participated in other, undocumented activities that were not taken 

into account in the dose reconstruction for observers; i.e., documented activities of observers could not 

have resulted in such high doses (Chehata, 2009). We do not dispute this view. 

12
 

2.1.2.3 Maneuver Troops at Shot DOG. In the dose reconstruction for maneuver troops 

at Shot DOG (November 1), a mean and upper bound of the external gamma dose were 

estimated.6

 The reconstructed mean dose is compared with 846 film badge readings as follows: 

Reconstructed mean dose, 80 mrem 

Range of badge readings, 0–200 mrem 

Badge readings at or above 100 mrem, 12 (1.4%) 

Use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that 

exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

2.1.2.4 Units at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE. There are only a few reported film badge 

readings for participants who were exposed to residual gamma radiation from Shots SUGAR 

(November 19) and UNCLE (November 29). Reconstructed mean doses for different groups are 

compared with badge readings as follows: 

 Exposure of damage evaluators during pre-shot checks of equipment display positions at 

Shot UNCLE (exposure to fallout from Shot SUGAR) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.19 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.11–0.21 rem (6 total badges) 

 Exposure of senior Army officers during tour of equipment display positions eight days 

after Shot UNCLE – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.25 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.12–0.19 rem (16 total badges) 

 6

 Estimated upper bounds of reconstructed residual gamma doses to participants on the ground at 

NTS generally take into account uncertainties in external exposure rates at locations and times of 

exposure and uncertainties in locations of exposure and times spent at those locations. Scenario-specific 

upper bounds of doses given in unit dose reconstructions are not relevant to our evaluation of the 

adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor and are not given in this report. 

13
 

 Exposure of Exercise Desert Rock personnel during recovery of film packets from 

equipment display positions five days after Shot UNCLE – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 3.7 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 4.65–5.80 rem (6 total badges) 

In all three groups, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an 

upper bound that exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

The few film badge readings at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE are representative only of 

unique activities by small groups of participants. There were no reported badge readings for a 

much larger number of participants that engaged in a variety of activities at Shot SUGAR or for 

most participants at Shot UNCLE. Reconstructed mean doses range from 1.4 to 2.7 rem for 

many groups at Shot SUGAR and from 0.5 to 3.7 rem for most participants at Shot UNCLE 

(Barrett et al., 1987; Table 14). Nonetheless, the agreement between the reconstructed mean 

dose and film badge readings in the small group at Shot UNCLE that received doses of about 

5 rem provides support for the validity of dose reconstructions at higher doses at those shots. 

2.1.2.5 Other Support Units. Barrett et al. (1987) gives reconstructed doses for several 

support units at Shots DOG, SUGAR, and UNCLE. Film badge readings for members of those 

units were not reported, but badge readings are given in NuTRIS. In almost all units, most badge 

readings in NuTRIS are less than the reconstructed dose and are at or below a nominal minimum 

detectable dose of 50 mrem. 

The one exception involves radiation-safety monitors, who were assigned a total 

reconstructed dose at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE of 1.08 rem (Barrett et al., 1987). Three of the 

seven monitors with badge readings in NuTRIS have total doses on the days of those shots of 

1.65, 2.05, and 2.92 rem. The highest badge readings exceed the reconstructed dose by less than 

a factor of three without accounting for the bias in badge readings. However, it is questionable 

whether this comparison is meaningful when badge readings in NuTRIS were not reported in the 

published unit dose reconstruction. 

14
 

2.2 SAIC Memoranda

 Subsequent to publication of the unit dose reconstructions described in Section 2.1, 

several memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units were prepared by SAIC (Goetz, 

1988; Klemm and Ortlieb, 1993; Ortlieb, 1996; Dancz, 2001). Only one of those memoranda 

gives a comparison of reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. 

 Klemm and Ortlieb (1993) addressed exposure of members of an engineering support 

regiment in areas contaminated by fallout from Shot UNCLE at about 1–2 months after 

detonation. All badge readings are less than 0.3 rem. These readings are unexpectedly low 

when compared with the reconstructed mean dose of 1.4 rem for this unit during this period 

(Barrett et al., 1987; Table 14). Klemm and Ortlieb (1993) stated that the low badge readings 

may have applied to exposures during cleanup activities at outer, less contaminated positions 

near ground zero of Shot UNCLE. If this is the case, a comparison of the reconstructed dose in 

areas of higher contamination with film badge readings probably is not meaningful. 

 An earlier SAIC memorandum (McRaney and Weitz, 1984) addressed exposure of 

aircrews in Project 4.1 at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE. A reconstructed dose, but no film badge 

readings, is given. NuTRIS identifies three participants in Project 4.1 with film badge readings 

on the days of those shots. This number of badge readings is too few to allow a meaningful 

comparison with a reconstructed dose. Furthermore, the three participants with badge readings 

were not members of the service branch (Air Force) that provided aircrews for this project, and 

those participants also have badge readings in NuTRIS on days other than the days of Shots 

SUGAR and UNCLE, which may indicate that they were exposed in ways different from other 

members of aircrews. Therefore, the unit dose reconstruction, which considered exposure while 

airborne only, may not apply to those individuals. 

 Other SAIC memoranda that were prepared prior to publication of unit dose 

reconstructions by Barrett et al. (1987) are not considered in this analysis. Dose reconstructions 

in the earlier memoranda are considered to be superseded by those in the published report. 

15
 

2.3 Summary of Analysis

 Results of an analysis to compare reconstructed external gamma doses from exposures at 

Operation BUSTER-JANGLE given in published unit dose reconstructions with relevant film 

badge readings are summarized as follows: 

• On the basis of comparisons at varying distances from ground zero at a single shot, use of 

a 3X upper bound factor appears to give upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma 

doses that are at least upper 95% confidence limits. 

• In cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation where a substantial fraction of film 

badge readings exceed a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, use of a 3X 

upper bound factor on a reconstructed mean or high-sided dose gives upper bounds that 

exceed all badge readings. 

• In cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation where most film badge readings are 

below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, no more than 1.3% of all badge 

readings exceed the nominal minimum detectable dose and exceed the reconstructed dose 

by more than a factor of three. 

Therefore, in cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation, information in published unit dose 

reconstructions indicates that use of a 3X upper bound factor on a reconstructed dose, either a 

mean or a high-sided dose, gives upper bounds that are at least upper 95% confidence limits. 

Limited information in SAIC memoranda does not appear to allow meaningful comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings in other cases. 

A comparison of a high-sided reconstructed dose with film badge readings for observers 

at Shot DOG provides a case where a small percentage of badge readings above a nominal 

minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem are much higher than the reconstructed dose. By 

excluding a single reading of 750 mrem and accounting for the bias factor of 1.5 in badge 

readings at this operation, these few badge readings are a factor of about 15–50 higher than the 

high-sided reconstructed dose of 4 mrem. The most likely explanation for these large 

discrepancies is that the few high badge readings represent unauthorized exposures that were not 

taken into account in the dose reconstruction for observers. Furthermore, any concerns about 

reconstructed doses would be unimportant when all observers apparently have a badge reading. 

16
 

Published unit dose reconstructions at this operation provide only limited opportunity to 

evaluate the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor at higher residual gamma doses (e.g., doses 

above 1 rem) at Shots SUGAR and UNCLE.7

 Use of a 3X upper bound factor was found to be 

adequate in the limited number of cases at those shots where reconstructed doses could be 

compared with film badge readings. However, badge readings were not reported for several 

groups of participants with reconstructed mean doses above 1 rem. 

References

Barrett, M., Goetz, J., Klemm, J., Ortlieb, E., and Thomas, C., 1987. Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure for Military Participants, Exercises Desert Rock I, II, and III—Operation 

Buster-Jangle, DNA-TR-87-116 (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA). 

Chehata, M., 2009. “Review of SENES Draft Report ‘Evaluation of Generic 3X Upper Bound 

Factor Used in Reconstructing External Gamma Doses to Military Participants at 

Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests’,” memorandum to P. Blake, Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency, and H. Maier, L-3 Communications (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 31). 

Dancz, J., 2001. “Dose to the 369th Construction Engineers During the Clearing of the 

BUSTER-JANGLE UNCLE Equipment Displays,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (September 25). 

Goetz, J., 1988. “Radiation Dose for 303rd Signal Battalion, Operation Buster-Jangle,” 

memorandum to I. Kesselman, JAYCOR (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 29). 

Klemm, J., and Ortlieb, E., 1993. “Interim Report on Post-BUSTER-JANGLE Doses to Camp 

Desert Rock Personnel,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 19). 

 7

 In this report, a dose of 1 rem is used to distinguish between relatively high and relatively low 

doses. The choice of this dose is somewhat arbitrary, but a distinction between higher and lower doses is 

useful in evaluating the significance of comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings. 

17
 

McRaney, W., and Weitz, R., 1984. “Estimate of Radiation Dose Received by Project 4.1 

Aircrews During Operation BUSTER-JANGLE,” memorandum to Air Force Nuclear 

Test Personnel Review (Science Application, Inc., McLean, VA) (May 9). 

Ortlieb, E., 1996. “539th Quartermaster Detachment, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE (1951),” 

memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 8). 

Santoro, R.T., Egbert, S.D., Barnes, J.M., Kerr, G.D., Pace, J.V. III, Roberts, J.A., and Slater, 

C.O., 2005. “Radiation Transport Calculations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” Chapter 3 

in Reassessment of the Atomic Bomb Radiation Dosimetry for Hiroshima and Nagasaki – 

Dosimetry System 2002 (DS02), Vol. 1, ed. by R.W. Young and G.D. Kerr (Radiation 

Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan); 139–222. 

18
 

3. OPERATIONS AT NTS – II. 

OPERATION TUMBLER-SNAPPER (1952) 

3.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions 

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation TUMBLER-SNAPPER are given in 

a published report by Goetz et al. (1985). All unit dose reconstructions are concerned with 

exposure to residual gamma radiation. 

3.1.1 Observers at Shot FOX 

 There were 1,450 observers at Shot FOX (May 25), but only 104 film badge records were 

available. The reconstructed mean dose is compared with film badge readings as follows: 

 Reconstructed mean dose, 0.13 rem 

 Group of 10 badge readings – mean (upper bound), 0.11 (0.16) rem 

 Group of 88 badge readings – mean (upper bound), 0.30 (0.39) rem 

 Highest badge reading among 6 outliers, 0.84 rem 

The upper bounds of badge readings in the two groups are 95th percentiles that we estimated 

from standard deviations of distributions of badge readings given by Goetz et al. (1985); 

individual badge readings or their distributions were not reported.8

 

In this case, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an 

upper bound that is less than about 10, or 10%, of all badge readings.9

 To give an upper bound 

that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 4 would be 

required. However, when the unusually large bias of a factor of 2.1 in film badge readings at this 

operation (see Table 1.1) is taken into account, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

 8

 NuTRIS gives 81 film badge readings that presumably apply to observers at Shot FOX on the 

basis of their assignment on the day. Five badge readings are 0.47 rem or greater. This case provides an 

example of apparent discrepancies between film badge readings reported in published unit dose 

reconstructions and badge readings in NuTRIS (see Section 1.5). 

9

 This estimate includes all six outliers and an assumption that four film badge readings in the 

group of 88 badges exceed the upper bound (95th percentile) of 0.39 rem. 

19
 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds all but one (about 1%) of the badge 

readings. A limitation in evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in this case is the 

small number of badge readings, which may not be indicative of doses to all observers as a 

group, and the absence of badge readings for largest group of observers (Goetz et al., 1985). 

 Goetz et al. (1985) noted that the group of 88 higher badge readings for observers at Shot 

FOX may include doses that were received during undocumented activities at that shot. 

However, an analysis of activities and possible groupings of participants in relation to badge 

readings (JAYCOR, 1985) indicated that there was no evidence to support such an assumption, 

and that the most reasonable conclusion is that the reconstructed dose for all observers as a group 

is too low. NuTRIS indicates that the reconstructed mean dose of 0.13 rem has been assigned to 

unbadged observers at Shot FOX, in spite of the evidence from limited film badge readings that 

the reconstructed dose is too low. This discrepancy could be important when a whole-body dose 

in rem is assumed to be equal to a badge reading in R without accounting for the bias in badge 

readings (DTRA, 2008). Given the conclusion noted above that all film badge readings for 

observers are relevant, we believe that the mean of all badge readings should be assigned to 

unbadged observers at Shot FOX. 

3.1.2 Observers and Maneuver Troops at Shot GEORGE 

 There were about 1,950 observers and maneuver troops at Shot GEORGE (June 1), but 

only 238 film badge records were available. The reconstructed mean dose is compared with 

badge readings as follows: 

 Reconstructed mean dose to maneuver troops, 0.11 rem 

Reconstructed mean dose to observers, 0.028 rem 

Mean (upper bound) of film badge readings, 0.16 (0.21) rem 

Highest badge reading among 9 outliers, 0.30 rem 

If all badge readings are assumed to apply to maneuver troops (DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-4, 

Sections 9.1.2 and 9.2.2), use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives 

an upper bound that exceeds all badge readings. However, the few badge readings (12% of all 

participants) may not represent doses to all maneuver troops as a group, and available badge 

20
 

readings may not all apply to maneuver troops. If some badge readings apply to observers, use 

of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose for that group may not give an upper 

bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings for observers. This could be the case even 

when the bias factor of 2.1 in badge readings is taken into account. If all higher badge readings 

apply to observers, which is an unlikely worst case, the required upper bound factor would be 

slightly greater than 3 (about 3.6). Thus, it seems unlikely that a 3X upper bound factor is 

inadequate in this case, and a possible inadequacy would not be substantial. 

3.1.3 Observers and Maneuver Troops at Shot DOG 

 Goetz et al. (1985) gives a dose reconstruction for maneuver troops at Shot DOG 

(May 1); this dose reconstruction also applies to observers (DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-4, 

Section 6.1.3). The reconstructed mean dose given by Goetz et al. is 0.37 rem. In a subsequent 

revision of the dose reconstruction, however, the mean dose was increased to 0.67 rem (DTRA, 

2008; Appendix C-4, Section 6.1.3). The basis for this increase was not documented. 

Film badge readings for participants at Shot DOG were not reported by Goetz et al. 

(1985). However, an earlier report (Ponton and Maag, 1982; Section 5.3.1) indicates that badge 

readings for 25 maneuver troops are 1.5 rem or less.10 If that information is valid, use of a 3X 

upper bound factor on the revised reconstructed mean dose of 0.67 rem gives an upper bound 

that exceeds the highest badge reading without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

3.2 SAIC Memoranda

 Subsequent to publication of the unit dose reconstructions described in Section 3.1, a few 

memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units were prepared by SAIC (Ortlieb, 1985; 

Goetz, 1986; Klemm, 1994; Booker, 1995). None of those memoranda give a comparison of 

reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. 

 10 Maneuver troops at Shot DOG were members of the 1st Marine Corps Provisional Atomic 

Exercise Brigade (Ponton and Maag, 1982). NuTRIS gives four film badge readings for members of this 

unit during periods that include the day of Shot DOG; these readings are 0.10, 0.11, 0.995, and 1.48 rem. 

21
 

 Other SAIC memoranda that addressed exposures of observers or maneuver troops and 

were prepared prior to publication of the unit dose reconstructions by Goetz et al. (1985) are not 

considered in this analysis. A later memorandum (Ortlieb, 1997) indicates that they were 

superseded by the published unit dose reconstructions. 

3.3 Summary of Analysis

Two comparisons of reconstructed external gamma doses from exposures at Operation 

TUMBLER-SNAPPER with relevant film badge readings are provided in published unit dose 

reconstructions; information in SAIC memoranda does not provide additional comparisons. 

Both comparisons apply to exposures of observers or maneuver troops to residual gamma 

radiation. Results of these comparisons are summarized as follows: 

• In the case of exposure of observers at Shot FOX, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that is at least an upper 95% confidence 

limit when the large bias factor of 2.1 in film badge readings at this operation is taken 

into account. 

• In the case of exposure of observers and maneuver troops at Shot GEORGE, use of a 3X 

upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds all 

badge readings, provided the higher badge readings apply to maneuver troops and not to 

observers, for whom the reconstructed mean dose is about a factor of six lower. 

In the case at Shot FOX, we also noted that the assignment of the reconstructed mean dose to 

unbadged observers, as indicated in NuTRIS, probably is inappropriate, and we recommend that 

the mean of all film badge readings should be assigned instead. 

A possible difficulty in evaluating the validity of the two comparisons summarized above 

is that film badge readings were available for only a small fraction of all participants (about 7% 

at Shot FOX and 12% at Shot GEORGE). Therefore, available badge readings may not be 

representative of doses to entire groups of participants at the two shots. Another possible 

difficulty concerns the assumption that all higher badge readings at Shot GEORGE apply to 

maneuver troops (DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-4, Sections 9.1.2 and 9.2.2). If some of the higher 

badge readings apply to observers, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean 

22
 

dose for observers may not give an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings 

for that group when the large bias in badge readings is taken into account. However, it seems 

unlikely that all higher badge readings apply to observers, and the required upper bound factor 

would be only slightly greater than 3 even if that were the case. 

 An additional comparison of reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge 

readings was based on a revised dose reconstruction for observers and maneuver troops at Shot 

DOG (DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-4, Section 6.1.3) and information on film badge readings for 

maneuver troops at that shot reported by Ponton and Maag (1982). Use of a 3X upper bound 

factor on the revised reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds the highest 

badge reading without accounting for the bias in badge readings. However, a possible concern 

about the validity of this comparison is that film badge readings summarized by Ponton and 

Maag (1982) were not included in the later unit dose reconstruction (Goetz et al., 1985). 

Film badge readings were not available for participants at Shot CHARLIE, which 

included about 500 observers and 1,525 maneuver troops (Goetz et al., 1985). However, an 

inability to test the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in this case should not be an important 

concern when reconstructed mean doses are less than 0.03 rem (Goetz et al., 1985). 

References

Booker, R., 1995. “Dose Assessment for the Project 19.2b 90-mm Gun Battery, Operation 

TUMBLER-SNAPPER (1952),” memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 25). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Goetz, J., 1986. “Radiation Dose Estimate for Personnel of the 3623rd Ordnance Company 

(Motor Maintenance), Exercise Desert Rock IV, Operation Tumbler-Snapper,” 

memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(October 20). 

Goetz, J., Klemm, J., and Ortlieb, E., 1985. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Observers and 

Maneuver Troops, Exercise Desert Rock IV, Operation Tumbler-Snapper, DNA-TR-85-

277 (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

23
 

JAYCOR, 1985. “SAIC TUMBLER-SNAPPER Reconstruction dtd 1 August 1985,” 

memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (JAYCOR, Alexandria, VA) (September 26). 

Klemm, J., 1994. “Dose Evaluation from Fallout at Indian Springs Air Force Base,” 

memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 5). 

Ortlieb, E.J., 1985. “Radiation Doses for US Army Personnel Assigned to the Chemical Section 

for Exercise Desert Rock IV, Operation Tumbler-Snapper,” memorandum to File 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 25). 

Ortlieb, E., 1997. “Radiation Doses for Observers and Maneuver Troops at Operation 

TUMBLER-SNAPPER,” memorandum to JAYCOR (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 15). 

Ponton, J., and Maag, C., 1982. Shots ABLE, BAKER, CHARLIE, and DOG. The First Tests of 

the TUMBLER-SNAPPER Series, 1 April – 1 May 1952, DNA 6020F (Defense Nuclear 

Agency, Washington, DC). 

24
 

4. OPERATIONS AT NTS – III. 

OPERATION UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE (1953) 

4.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions 

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE are given in 

published reports by Goetz et al. (1981), Frank et al. (1982), and Edwards et al. (1985). 

4.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses

 Comparisons of calculated initial gamma doses with readings of film badges that were 

placed at varying distances from ground zero (but were not worn by participants) are given in 

Figure 3-3 (Shot ANNIE), 3-5 (Shot NANCY), 3-6 (Shot BADGER), 3-8 (Shot SIMON), 3-9 

(Shot HARRY), and 3-10 (Shot GRABLE) of Goetz et al. (1981). At all distances at all shots, 

the calculated dose and film badge reading differ by less than a factor of two. Thus, in all cases, 

use of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma doses that 

exceed all badge readings. 

 Reconstructed gamma doses to volunteer observers at locations close to ground zero at 

Shot NANCY (March 24), Shot BADGER (April 18), and Shot SIMON (April 25) are given by 

Goetz et al. (1981). Reconstructed mean doses are compared with film badge readings for those 

observers as follows: 

 Shot NANCY (distance of 2500 yards) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.64 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.3–0.55 rem (9 volunteer observers) 

 Shot BADGER (distance of 2000 yards) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 7.2 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 4.1–9.6 rem (12 volunteer observers) 

25
 

 Shot SIMON (distance of 2000 yards) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 13.6 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 9.5–17.5 rem (8 volunteer observers) 

At all three shots, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper 

bound that exceeds all badge readings. 

At Shots BADGER and SIMON, reconstructed doses and film badge readings include 

significant contributions from residual gamma radiation; only at Shot NANCY was exposure of 

volunteer observers due almost entirely to initial gamma radiation (Goetz et al., 1981). The 

contributions from residual gamma radiation were about 45% at Shot BADGER and 30% at Shot 

SIMON (Goetz et al., 1981). Nonetheless, the agreement between the reconstructed mean doses 

and film badge readings at those two shots supports the validity of reconstructed initial gamma 

doses at NTS at doses of several rem or higher. 

4.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses 

 Comparisons of reconstructed residual gamma doses with film badge readings for several 

groups of participants in maneuver units are given by Frank et al. (1982) and Edwards et al. 

(1985). However, except for the few volunteer observers whose doses are discussed above, film 

badge readings for approximately 4,650 observers at this operation were not available (Goetz et 

al., 1981). Reconstructed mean doses to those observers from exposure to residual gamma 

radiation, which occurred at seven shots, range from 0.04 rem at Shot GRABLE to 1.3 rem at 

Shots BADGER and HARRY (Goetz et al., 1981). 

4.1.2.1 Marine Brigade at Shot BADGER. Exposure of the 2nd Marine Corps Provisional 

Atomic Exercise Brigade was due almost entirely to residual gamma radiation from Shot 

BADGER (April 18) and occurred during maneuvers and a tour of the equipment display area at 

that shot (Frank et al., 1982). Reconstructed mean doses for different groups in this unit are 

compared with film badge readings as follows: 

26
 

 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, company with highest badge readings – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 4.7 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 4.2–7.1 rem 

 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 2.9 rem (2.8 rem for Company E) 

 – Mean badge readings in four companies, 2.9–3.8 rem 

 – Highest badge readings in any company, about 5.2 rem (4 readings) 

 Brigade Headquarters Staff – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 3.7 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 3–5.7 rem (8 total badges) 

The following information also is relevant to these comparisons: 

• In the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, the number of badge readings per company is 4–6 and 

the total number of readings is 19. Ranges of badge readings in companies that did not 

have the highest readings are 1.0–3.29, 1.59–3.5, and 3.41–6.2 rem. 

• In the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, the number of badge readings per company is 6–12; the 

total number of readings in this battalion was not given. Mean badge readings in the 

other three companies, excluding the four readings of about 5.2 rem, are 3.8, 3.1, and 

3.3 rem; ranges of badge readings were not given. The four highest badge readings of 

about 5.2 rem were judged likely to apply to damage evaluators at an equipment display 

who received additional exposure that was not considered in the dose reconstruction. 

• In Brigade Headquarters Staff, the two highest badge readings of 5.7 rem were judged 

likely to apply to damage evaluators. 

In all three groups, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an 

upper bound that exceeds all badge readings, including readings that could have applied to 

damage evaluators, without accounting for the small bias of a factor of 1.1 in film badge readings 

at this operation (see Table 1.1). Doses to all three groups were well above 1 rem. 

 Frank et al. (1982) also gives a reconstructed mean dose of 0.5 rem for members of 

helicopter crews in the brigade. Film badge readings were not available, but an after-action 

27
 

report cited by Frank et al. assigned a dose of 1 rem to all members of this group. We could not 

determine the basis for this estimate. 

4.1.2.2 Maneuver Troops at Shot NANCY. More than 11,000 Army troops participated 

in maneuvers at this operation, but only 82 film badge readings were available (Edwards et al., 

1985). A listing of badge readings and the affiliation of those participants indicated that these 

readings apply to members of Battalion Combat Team (BCT)-B at Shot NANCY (March 24). 

Reconstructed mean doses for forward and rear elements in this unit are compared with film 

badge readings, which were categorized into three groups, as follows: 

 Reconstructed mean dose for forward elements, 2.4 rem11

 Reconstructed mean dose for rear elements, 1.1 rem 

 Mean (upper bound) of badge readings in high dose group, 2.2 (2.4) rem 

 Range of badge readings in intermediate dose group, 1.1–1.6 rem 

 Mean (upper bound) of badge readings in low dose group, 0.9 (1.0) rem 

The high, intermediate, and low dose groups of badge readings were assumed to apply to 

personnel in forward, intermediate, and rear elements of BCT-B, respectively (Edwards et al., 

1985); a reconstructed dose for the intermediate dose group separately was not given. Use of a 

3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose for either element gives an upper bound 

that exceeds all badge readings in any dose group without accounting for the bias factor of 1.1 in 

badge readings. Doses to most personnel in BCT-B were greater than 1 rem. 

Ten other units participated in maneuvers at five shots in this operation, including BCT-A 

at Shot NANCY (Edwards et al., 1985). Reconstructed mean doses from exposure to residual 

gamma radiation range from 0.04 rem for BCT-A at Shot GRABLE to 3.1 rem for BCT-A at 

Shot SIMON (Goetz et al., 1981). Again, however, film badge readings for members of these 

units were not available. 

 11 Reconstructed mean dose was obtained from Table 5-1 of Edwards et al. (1985); this dose also 

is given in the Standard Operating Procedures Manual (DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-5, Section 4.2.3, 

Table 6). Mean dose given in Section 5.2.2 of Edwards et al. (1985) is 2.2 rem. 

28
 

4.2 SAIC Memoranda 

 Several memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units that were not considered 

in the unit dose reconstructions discussed in Section 4.1 were prepared by SAIC (Frank, 1982a,b; 

Phillips, 1983a,b; Ortlieb, 1984, 1985, 1995a,b; Ortlieb and Klemm, 1987; Klemm and Ortlieb, 

1988; Klemm, 1988). Only two of those memoranda give comparisons of reconstructed external 

gamma doses with film badge readings. 

 Phillips (1983a) addressed exposure of personnel in a unit that assisted in equipment 

evaluation and recovery activities in Project 3.21 at Shots ENCORE (May 8) and GRABLE 

(May 25); almost all the dose was received at the latter shot. The reconstructed dose for 

participation in all activities after Shot GRABLE, which took place over three days, is 3.79 rem. 

Film badge readings for 21 individuals who probably were involved in Project 3.21 include three 

readings less than 0.1 rem, 12 readings of 0.1–1.0 rem, and six readings of 1.0–3.0 rem (Phillips, 

1983a). Use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed dose gives an upper bound that 

exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

 Ortlieb (1984) addressed exposure of personnel in a unit that conducted helicopter tests at 

eight shots. Reconstructed residual gamma doses were compared with film badge readings for 

two time periods: the first period included participation at Shots ANNIE (March 17), NANCY 

(March 24), DIXIE (April 6), RAY (April 11), and BADGER (April 18); the second period 

included participation at Shots SIMON (April 25), ENCORE (May 8), and HARRY (May 19). 

Some personnel participated at shots in both time periods. In addition to carrying out helicopter 

tests, one helicopter participated in Project 6.10 at Shot HARRY. Reconstructed doses are 

compared with film badge readings for 11 members of this unit as follows: 

• During the first period, reconstructed doses at each shot range from 0.001 to 2.6 rem; by 

far the highest doses (0.9–2.6 rem) were calculated at Shot BADGER. Absent specific 

information on helicopter assignment and shot participation, a dose of 2.6 rem was 

assumed to be a reasonable high-sided estimate. Film badge readings for four members 

of this unit during this period are 0.05 (twice), 0.08, and 2.14 rem. 

• During the second period, reconstructed doses at each shot range from 0.001 to 0.68 rem, 

except the reconstructed dose during participation in Project 6.10 at Shot HARRY is 

29
 

1.6 rem. Absent specific information on helicopter assignment and shot participation, a 

dose of 1.6 rem was assumed to be a reasonable high-sided estimate. Film badge 

readings for three members of this unit during this period are 0.04, 0.26, and 0.35 rem. 

• The sum of the high-sided reconstructed doses during the two time periods is 4.2 rem. 

Film badge readings for four participants who were assigned to this unit during both time 

periods are 0.05, 0.78, 1.68, and 4.51 rem. 

In all three cases, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the high-sided reconstructed dose gives an 

upper bound that exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

However, it is difficult to compare reconstructed doses for participants who were assigned to 

particular helicopters at particular shots with available film badge readings when the helicopter 

assignment and shot participation for each member of this unit were not given. 

 For some units, reconstructed external gamma doses given in SAIC memoranda (Phillips, 

1983b; Ortlieb, 1985; Ortlieb, 1995a,b) could be compared with limited film badge readings in 

NuTRIS. However, since only one or two badge readings are given in NuTRIS in each case, 

meaningful comparisons with reconstructed doses cannot be made. 

4.3 Summary of Analysis 

 Results of an analysis to compare reconstructed external gamma doses from exposures at 

Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE given in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC 

memoranda with relevant film badge readings are summarized as follows: 

• On the basis of comparisons at varying distances from ground zero at six shots and 

comparisons for volunteer observers at specific distances from ground zero at three shots, 

use of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma doses 

that are at least upper 95% confidence limits. 

• In all cases where reconstructed residual gamma doses could be compared with a 

substantial number of film badge readings, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean or, for one unit, high-sided dose gives an upper bound that exceeds 

all badge readings and, thus, is at least an upper 95% confidence limit. 

30
 

 A difficulty in evaluating the significance of the comparisons of reconstructed residual 

gamma doses with film badge readings at this operation is that comparisons could be made in 

only a limited number of cases. Except for the few volunteer observers at three shots, badge 

readings for observers who were exposed to residual gamma radiation at seven shots were 

unavailable (Goetz et al., 1981), and except for members of one battalion combat team at one 

shot, badge readings for Army maneuver troops in ten units at five shots also were unavailable 

(Edwards et al., 1985). This is a potentially important concern when reconstructed doses for 

some units are relatively high (above 1 rem). However, the limited comparisons support the 

validity of dose reconstructions in cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation at this 

operation and the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor when doses were above 1 rem. 

References

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Edwards, R., Goetz, J., and Klemm, J., 1985. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Maneuver 

Units, Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole, DNA-TR-84-303 (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Frank, G., 1982a. “Radiation Dose for Personnel of the 505th Military Police (MP) Battalion, 

Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (February 15). 

Frank, G., 1982b. “Radiation Dose for Personnel of the 412th Engineer Construction Battalion, 

Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (April 29). 

Frank, G., Weitz, R., Goetz, J., Klemm, J., and Schweizer, T., 1982. Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure, 2nd Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade, Exercise Desert Rock 

V, Operation Upshot-Knothole, DNA-TR-82-03 (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, 

VA). 

Goetz, J., Kaul, D., Klemm, J., McGahan, J., and Weitz, R., 1981. Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure for Troop Observers, Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole, 

DNA 5742F (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

31
 

Klemm, J., 1988. “Supplemental External Dose to Personnel of the 412th Engineer Construction 

Battalion, Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole,” memorandum to 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(September 16). 

Klemm, J., and Ortlieb, E.J., 1988. “Radiation Doses for Personnel of the 94th Medical 

Detachment (Veterinary Food Inspection), Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation UpshotKnothole,” memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 25). 

Ortlieb, E.J., 1984. “Radiation Dose Calculations for Helicopter Atomic Test Unit, Exercise 

Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 6). 

Ortlieb, E.J., 1985. “Radiation Dose for Personnel of the 50th Chemical Service Platoon, 

Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 18). 

Ortlieb, E., 1995a. “Dose Tables for Camp Desert Rock Support Units, Operation UPSHOTKNOTHOLE,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 31). 

Ortlieb, E., 1995b. “Dose Tables for Camp Desert Rock Support Units, Operation UPSHOTKNOTHOLE,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 9). 

Ortlieb, E.J., and Klemm, W.J., 1987. “Radiation Doses for Personnel of the 94th Medical 

Detachment (Veterinary Food Inspection), Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation UpshotKnothole,” memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 9). 

Phillips, J., 1983a. “Radiation Dose Estimates for Personnel Supporting AFSWP Project 3.21, 

Shots ENCORE and GRABLE, Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE,” memorandum to 

File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (March 23). 

Phillips, J., 1983b. “Radiation Dose Estimates for Personnel of the 3623rd Ordnance Company, 

Exercise Desert Rock V, Operation Upshot-Knothole,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (March 29). 

32
 

5. OPERATIONS AT NTS – IV. 

OPERATION TEAPOT (1955)

5.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions 

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation TEAPOT are given in published 

reports by Goetz et al. (1980), Edwards et al. (1983), and Goetz et al. (1984). 

5.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses

Comparisons of calculated initial gamma doses with readings of film badges that were 

placed at varying distances from ground zero (but were not worn by participants) are given in 

Figure 3-2 (Shot MOTH), 3-4 (Shot TESLA), 3-5 (Shot TURK), 3-7 (Shot BEE), 3-8 (Shot 

APPLE I), and 3-9 (Shot APPLE II) of Goetz et al. (1980). At all distances at all shots, the 

calculated dose and film badge reading differ by less than a factor of two. Thus, in all cases, use 

of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma doses that exceed 

all badge readings. 

Film badge readings for observers who were exposed to initial gamma radiation were not 

reported by Goetz et al. (1980). A later report (Ponton et al., 1981) indicates that the average 

badge reading for ten volunteer observers at a distance of 2600 yards from ground zero at Shot 

APPLE II (May 5) was 1.3 rem; a range of badge readings was not reported.12 The reconstructed 

mean dose for these observers is 1.6 rem, and about 80% of the reconstructed dose was due to 

initial gamma radiation (Goetz et al., 1980). Although available information on badge readings 

is limited, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean initial gamma dose should 

give an upper bound that exceeds all badge readings. This would not be the case only if at least 

one badge reading exceeds 4.8 rem. 

Reconstructed initial gamma doses for observers at Shot MOTH (February 22) given by 

Goetz et al. (1980) could be compared with limited film badge readings for that day in NuTRIS; 

 12 Goetz et al. (1980) reported the same average badge reading and referenced an after-action 

report of the test manager. NuTRIS gives only three badge readings (1.45 rem and two readings of 

1.6 rem) that presumably apply to volunteer observers at Shot APPLE II on the basis of the reconstructed 

neutron dose of 4.5 rem that was assigned to those participants (Goetz et al., 1980). 

33
 

residual gamma doses were negligible. However, NuTRIS gives only four badge readings, and a 

comparison with the reconstructed dose probably is not meaningful even if those badge readings 

are valid. 

5.1.2 Residual Gamma Radiation 

 A comparison of reconstructed residual gamma doses with film badge readings for 

personnel in a Marine brigade is given by Goetz et al. (1984). In addition, NuTRIS gives a 

substantial number of film badge readings that could apply to observers at some shots where 

reconstructed doses are given by Goetz et al. (1980). However, there are no film badge readings 

for approximately 1,000 members of Task Force RAZOR that can be compared with 

reconstructed residual gamma doses for that unit given by Edwards et al. (1983). 

5.1.2.1 Marine Brigade at Shot BEE. Exposure of the 3rd Marine Corps Provisional 

Atomic Exercise Brigade was due almost entirely to residual gamma radiation from Shot BEE 

(March 22) and occurred mainly during maneuvers and a tour of equipment displays (Goetz et 

al., 1984). Reconstructed mean doses for different groups are compared with film badge 

readings for 460 of the 1,843 members of this brigade as follows: 

 Reconstructed mean doses – 

 – Serials 1–4, 0.57 rem 

 – Serials 5 and 6, 0.59 rem 

 – Personnel from camp detachment, 0.85 rem 

 Badge readings – 

 – Range of mean badge readings in different groups, 0.035–0.42 rem 

 – Mean (upper bound) of badge readings in rifle companies, 0.41 (0.49) rem 

 – Highest badge reading among 7 outliers above 0.5 rem, 0.87 rem 

The slightly higher reconstructed dose for Serials 5 and 6 is due to a small contribution of 

0.02 rem from initial gamma radiation at Shot BEE; the reconstructed initial gamma dose for 

Serials 1–4 is zero. The particular units in the brigade that comprised Serials 1–6 are listed in 

34
 

Table 1 of Goetz et al. (1984), and the average badge reading by group is given in Table 4 of that 

report. With the exception of the seven badge readings above 0.5 rem, the mean badge reading 

for members of rifle companies is the highest. Although it is not easy to associate various 

distributions of film badge readings given in Section 6 of Goetz et al. (1984) with exposures of 

particular groups, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the lowest reconstructed mean dose gives 

an upper bound that exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the small bias of a factor 

of 1.1 in film badge readings at this operation (see Table 1.1). 

5.1.2.2 Observers at Various Shots. Reconstructed residual gamma doses for observers 

at seven shots are given by Goetz et al. (1980); film badge readings for these observers were not 

reported in the unit dose reconstructions. Reconstructed mean doses range from about 1 mrem at 

Shot MOTH to 1.3 rem at Shot TURK. 

NuTRIS gives film badge readings for observers at three shots. Reconstructed mean 

doses, excluding doses to volunteer observers at Shot APPLE II discussed in Section 5.1.1 but 

including relatively small contributions from initial gamma radiation at all three shots, are 

compared with film badge readings in NuTRIS for the day of those shots as follows: 

 Shot BEE (March 22) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.85 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.06–0.69 rem and single readings of 1.16 and 1.18 rem 

(45 total badges) 

 Shot ESS (March 23) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.04 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.08 rem (5 total badges) 

 Shot APPLE II (May 5) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.40 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.06–0.92 rem (18 total badges) 

At all three shots, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper 

bound that exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

35
 

However, the significance of the comparisons at those three shots is difficult to evaluate when 

Goetz et al. (1980) stated that “due to inadequate film badge dosimetry data ..., no significant 

comparison of calculated dose with film badge doses is possible” and no badge readings were 

reported. Especially at Shots BEE and APPLE II, where a substantial number of badge readings 

on the days of those shots are given in NuTRIS, it is difficult to reconcile the data in NuTRIS 

with the absence of badge readings in the published unit dose reconstructions without knowing 

the reasons for the judgment by Goetz et al. (1980) that the badge data were inadequate. 

 Film badge readings for observers on the days of Shots TURK (March 7) and MET 

(April 15) also are given in NuTRIS. However, there is only a single badge reading on the day 

of Shot TURK and only three readings on the day of Shot MET. Thus, even if the badge 

readings are relevant, comparisons with reconstructed doses are not meaningful.13 

5.2 SAIC Memoranda 

 Several memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units that were not considered 

in the unit dose reconstructions discussed in Section 5.1 were prepared by SAIC (Goetz, 1981; 

Frank, 1981a,b, 1982; Gminder, 1983; Phillips, 1983; Phillips and Ortlieb, 1984; Goetz et al., 

1985; Goetz, 1986; Orlieb, 1986, 1991; Thomas, 1987). Only one of those memoranda (Goetz et 

al., 1985) gives additional information related to comparisons of reconstructed external gamma 

doses with film badge readings. However, since the available badge readings were used to 

reconstruct doses at a decontamination station, information in that memorandum cannot be used 

to compare badge readings with reconstructed doses that were not based on those readings. 

For some units, reconstructed external gamma doses given in SAIC memoranda (Frank, 

1981a; Frank, 1982; Phillips and Ortlieb, 1984) could be compared with limited film badge 

readings given in NuTRIS. However, there are only three or fewer badge readings in NuTRIS in 

each case, which precludes meaningful comparisons with reconstructed doses even if the badge 

readings in NuTRIS are relevant. 

 13 The relevance of the three film badge readings in NuTRIS on the day of Shot MET is 

particularly questionable when observers were located at a distance of more than 10,000 yards at the time 

of the shot and, thus, received no initial gamma dose, observers left the area shortly after detonation, and 

there was no contamination in the area during pre-shot equipment inspections (Goetz et al., 1980). 

36
 

5.3 Summary of Analysis 

 Results of an analysis to compare reconstructed external gamma doses from exposures at 

Operation TEAPOT given in published unit dose reconstructions with relevant film badge 

readings are summarized as follows: 

• On the basis of comparisons at varying distances from ground zero at six shots and a 

comparison for volunteer observers at a specific distance from ground zero at a single 

shot, use of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma 

doses that are at least upper 95% confidence limits. 

• Reconstructed residual gamma doses could be compared with film badge readings that 

were reported in published unit dose reconstructions in only three cases, which involved 

exposure of different elements of a maneuver unit at Shot BEE. In all three elements, use 

of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that 

exceeds all badge readings and, thus, is at least an upper 95% confidence limit. 

We also noted that a substantial number of film badge readings in NuTRIS may apply to 

observers at Shots BEE and APPLE II, and that a lesser number of badge readings in NuTRIS 

may apply to observers at Shot ESS. However, since badge readings for observers were not 

reported in the published unit dose reconstructions (Goetz et al., 1980) on the grounds that the 

data were inadequate, it is difficult to conclude that a comparison of reconstructed doses with 

badge readings in NuTRIS is meaningful in those cases. Given the limited opportunities to 

compare reconstructed residual gamma doses with film badge readings at this operation on the 

basis of information in published unit dose reconstructions, an investigation into the validity of 

badge readings in NuTRIS for observers at the three shots noted above could be informative. 

An additional limitation in comparing reconstructed doses with film badge readings at 

this operation is the lack of badge readings for members of Task Force RAZOR at Shot 

APPLE II (Edwards et al., 1983). Reconstructed mean doses for various elements of the task 

force, excluding observers, are about 0.8 rem or higher (Edwards et al., 1983; Table 5-1). Those 

doses were due mainly to exposure to residual gamma radiation; contributions from initial 

gamma radiation were less than 20%. 

37
 

References

Edwards, R., Goetz, J., and Klemm, J., 1983. Analysis of Radiation Exposure, Task Force 

Razor, Exercise Desert Rock VI, Operation Teapot, DNA-TR-83-07 (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

Frank, G., 1981a. “Radiation Dose for Members of the 95th Engineer Combat Battalion, 

Exercise Desert Rock VI,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, 

VA) (September 22). 

Frank, G., 1981b. “Radiation Dose for Personnel of the 95th Engineer Combat Battalion, 

Exercise Desert Rock VI,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, 

VA) (November 10). 

Frank, G., 1982. “Radiation Dose for Personnel of the 232nd Signal Company, Exercise Desert 

Rock VI,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (February 17). 

Gminder, R., 1983. “Radiation Dose Estimates for Project 40.9 Personnel during Operation 

TEAPOT,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (July 24). 

Goetz, J., 1981. “Radiation Dose to Decontamination Personnel, Mojave MCAAS,” 

memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (March 30). 

Goetz, J., 1986. “Forwarding of Tables Omitted from SAIC Memorandum of 10 September 

1985,” memorandum to D. Auton, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 6). 

Goetz, J., Kaul, D., Klemm, J., McGahan, J., and Weitz, R., 1980. Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure for Troop Observers, Exercise Desert Rock VI, Operation Teapot, DNA 5354F 

(Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

Goetz, J., Klemm, J., and Ortlieb, E., 1984. Analysis of Radiation Exposure, Third Marine 

Corps Provisional Atomic Energy Brigade, Exercise Desert Rock VI, Operation Teapot, 

DNA-TR-84-13 (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

Goetz, J., Klemm, J., and Ortlieb, E., 1985. “Radiation Dose for Personnel of the 50th Chemical 

Service Platoon, Exercise Desert Rock VI, Operation Teapot,” memorandum to File 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 10). 

38
 

Ortlieb, E.J., 1986. “Radiation Dose Estimates for Sixth Army CBR Teams at Exercise Desert 

Rock VI, Operation Teapot,” memorandum to File (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (July 25). 

Ortlieb, E., 1991. “Radiation Dose Reconstruction for Personnel of Companies A and C of the 

505th Military Police Battalion, Exercise Desert Rock VI, Operation TEAPOT, 

memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 7). 

Phillips, J., 1983. “Radiation Dose Estimate for Personnel of the 505th Military Police Battalion, 

Exercise Desert Rock VI, Operation TEAPOT,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (December 5). 

Phillips, J., and Ortlieb, E., 1984. “Radiation Dose Estimates for Personnel of the 573rd

Ordnance Company, Operation TEAPOT,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, 

Inc., McLean, VA) (January 30). 

Ponton, J., Maag, C., Wilkinson, M., and Shepanek, R.F., 1981. Operation TEAPOT 1955, DNA 

6009F (Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC). 

Thomas, C., 1987. “Calculated Dose for Project 1.6 Participants, Operation TEAPOT,” 

memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(June 19). 

39
 

6. OPERATIONS AT NTS – V. 

OPERATION PLUMBBOB (1957)

6.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation PLUMBBOB are given in published 

reports by Goetz et al. (1979a), Goetz et al. (1980), and Frank et al. (1981a). 

6.1.1 Initial Gamma Doses

Comparisons of calculated initial gamma doses with readings of film badges or chemical 

dosimeters that were placed at varying distances from ground zero (but were not worn by 

participants) are given in Figure 10 (Shot DOPPLER) of Goetz et al. (1979a) and in Figure 3-2 

(Shot PRISCILLA) and 3-4 (Shot HOOD) of Frank et al. (1981a). At all distances at all shots, 

the calculated dose and film badge or chemical dosimeter reading differ by less than a factor of 

two. Measured doses tend to be less than calculated doses, except in the comparisons with 

chemical dosimeter readings at Shot HOOD. Thus, in all cases, use of a 3X upper bound factor 

gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma doses that exceed all film badge or chemical 

dosimeter readings. 

Members of Task Force WARRIOR were exposed to initial gamma radiation at Shot 

DOPPLER (August 23). The reconstructed mean dose given by Goetz et al. (1979a) is 0.14 rem, 

whereas a mean initial gamma dose of 0.23 rem is given in the Standard Operating Procedures 

Manual (DTRA, 2008; Appendix C-7, Section 4.2).14 Although film badge readings for 

members of the task force are available, those badge readings also include higher exposures to 

residual gamma radiation (see Section 6.1.2.1). Therefore, a reconstructed initial gamma dose 

cannot be compared with film badge readings in this case. There were no other significant 

exposures to initial gamma radiation at this operation (Goetz et al., 1979a; Goetz et al., 1980; 

Frank et al., 1981a). 

 14 The basis for the increase in mean dose is not documented in the Procedures Manual. 

40
 

6.1.2 Residual Gamma Doses 

 Comparisons of reconstructed residual gamma doses with film badge readings for 

participants are given in all three published unit dose reconstructions noted above. 

6.1.2.1 Task Force WARRIOR. Exposures of Task Force WARRIOR (Project 50.1) 

occurred before and after Shot SMOKY on August 31 (Goetz et al., 1979a). Most members of 

the task force were issued two film badges. The first badge was used during a period up to 

August 27 and recorded exposure to initial gamma radiation at Shot DOPPLER discussed in 

Section 6.1.1 and exposure to fallout from Shots BOLTZMANN, DIABLO, and KEPLER. The 

second badge was used from August 27 to September 2 and recorded exposure to fallout from 

Shots DIABLO, SHASTA, and SMOKY. Reconstructed mean doses during these two time 

periods are compared with film badge readings as follows: 

 Time period up to August 27 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose to most participants, 0.47 rem 

 – Reconstructed mean dose to participants exposed in more contaminated areas in 

 Shot DIABLO fallout field, 0.56 rem 

 – Range of 523 badge readings, 0–0.8 rem and single reading of 1.04 rem 

 Time period from August 27 to September 2 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose to most participants, 0.13 rem 

 – Reconstructed mean dose to participants exposed in more contaminated areas in 

 Shot SHASTA fallout field, 0.16 rem 

 – Additional reconstructed mean dose to unidentified subgroups during equipment 

 recovery or inspection of defensive positions, 0.06 rem and 0.12 rem, 

respectively 

 – Range of 480 badge readings, 0–0.4 rem 

 – Range of 22 badge readings, 0.8–1.4 rem and single readings of 2.0 and 2.5 rem15

 15 NuTRIS gives a film badge reading of 2.74 rem for one participant in Project 50.1. 

41
 

In the first time period, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose to most 

participants gives an upper bound that exceeds all badge readings without accounting for the bias 

of a factor of 1.3 in film badge readings at this operation (see Table 1.1). In the second time 

period, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose to most participants gives 

an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings in the group of 480 badges 

(Goetz et al., 1979a). If the highest badge readings in that group apply to participants who were 

exposed in more contaminated areas in the Shot SHASTA fallout field or during equipment 

recovery or inspection of defensive positions after Shot SMOKY, use of a 3X upper bound factor 

on a reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds all 480 badge readings. 

 In the second time period, however, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the highest 

reconstructed mean dose that could apply to any member of the task force (i.e., a mean dose of 

0.34 rem, including exposure in more contaminated areas in the Shot SHASTA fallout field and 

during equipment recovery and inspection of defensive positions after Shot SMOKY) gives an 

upper bound that is less than about 70% of the badge readings in the smaller group of 22 higher 

readings. Although the smaller group includes less than 5% of all badge readings for the task 

force in the second time period, the clear separation of badge readings in the two groups suggests 

that exposure of some members of the task force was not represented adequately in the dose 

reconstruction for this time period. To equal or exceed at least 95% of all film badge readings in 

the smaller group of 22 badges, the reconstructed mean dose during the second time period 

would need to be increased by a factor of about 5–12 when the bias factor of 1.3 in badge 

readings is taken into account. The required upper bound factor depends on whether exposure 

occurred in more contaminated areas in the Shot SHASTA fallout field and during participation 

in equipment recovery or inspection of defensive positions after Shot SMOKY. 

 In evaluating film badge readings during the second time period, Goetz et al. (1979a) 

argued that members of the task force with higher readings in the group of 22 badges must have 

disobeyed orders, either deliberately or inadvertently, and proceeded toward ground zero of Shot 

SMOKY instead of one of the planned objectives, because exposure rates that were estimated by 

extrapolation of field survey data taken after Shot SMOKY were too low to give doses indicated 

by the badge readings and badge readings for other members of the task force who proceeded 

toward the planned objectives are much lower. However, an NRC committee concluded that a 

more likely explanation is that some airborne radionuclides were separated from the rapidly 

42
 

rising fireball shortly after detonation and transported toward the location of one of the planned 

objectives, where unexpected exposure to fallout occurred (NRC, 2003). An important 

consideration in the NRC committee’s argument was the absence of field survey data in the 

vicinity of the planned objectives. Exposure rates in those areas that were assumed in the dose 

reconstruction were based on extrapolation of measurements in other directions from ground 

zero of Shot SMOKY and a belief, which lacked support by measurements, that all airborne 

radionuclides traveled in directions away from the areas of the planned objectives. 

6.1.2.2 Task Force BIG BANG. Exposures of Task Force BIG BANG occurred before 

and after Shot GALILEO on September 2 (Goetz et al., 1980). Most exposures were due to 

fallout from Shot SMOKY and occurred after Shot GALILEO. Reconstructed mean doses are 

compared with film badge readings as follows: 

 Reconstructed mean dose – 

 – Earliest finishers at infiltration course, 1.1 rem 

 – Average finishers at infiltration course, 1.4 rem 

 – Latest finishers at infiltration course, officers, and monitors, 1.8 rem 

 Range of badge readings excluding readings less than 0.3 rem, 0.9–3.2 rem (about 

 110 total badges) 

In addition, a badge reading for one of the test troops at the infiltration course exceeds 2.6 rem, 

whereas median badge readings for officers and radiation-safety monitors are 2.4 and 2.8 rem, 

respectively, and nine of the ten badge readings for monitors range from 2.5 to 3.2 rem. Use of a 

3X upper bound factor on the appropriate reconstructed mean dose for test troops or officers and 

monitors gives an upper bound that exceeds all film badge readings for those groups without 

accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

Film badge readings less than 0.3 rem (about 50 total badges) were assumed to apply to 

members of the task force who did not participate in activities at the infiltration course in the 

Shot SMOKY fallout field, because those readings could not be reconciled with survey data at 

locations of exposure and known times spent at those locations (Goetz et al., 1980). The 

reconstructed doses given above thus do not apply to those members. 

43
 

6.1.2.3 Marine Brigade at Shots PRISCILLA and HOOD. Exposures of the 4th Marine 

Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade were due mainly to residual gamma radiation from 

neutron-induced activity at Shots PRISCILLA (June 24) and HOOD (July 5) (Frank et al., 

1981a). Reconstructed mean doses for different groups in this unit are compared with film badge 

readings as follows: 

Brigade staff, viewed Shot PRISCILLA display – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.59 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, ~0.25–0.5 rem (11 total badges) 

Brigade staff, viewed Shot HOOD display – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.75 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, ~0.9–1.2 rem (13 total badges) 

Brigade staff, did not view Shot PRISCILLA or HOOD displays – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.14 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.1 rem (41 total badges) 

 2nd Battalion, viewed Shot PRISCILLA and HOOD displays – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.0–1.1 rem 

 – Mean badge reading (excluding outlier), 0.84 rem (18 total badges) 

 – Highest (outlier) badge reading, 1.22 rem 

 2nd Battalion, viewed Shot PRISCILLA display only – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.46 rem 

 – Mean badge reading, 0.34 rem (7 total badges) 

 2nd Battalion, did not view Shot PRISCILLA display – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.58–0.66 rem 

 – Mean badge reading (excluding outlier), 0.47–0.55 rem (86 total badges) 

 – Highest (outlier) badge reading, 1.2 rem 

44
 

 Helicopter crews, viewed Shot PRISCILLA display – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.47 rem 

 – Range of badge readings (excluding outliers), 0.29–0.46 rem (20 total badges) 

 – Outlier badge readings, about 1 rem (8 total badges) 

 Helicopter crews, did not view Shot PRISCILLA display – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.02 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, < 0.2 rem 

 Radiation-safety monitors, viewed Shot PRISCILLA display – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.48 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.018–2.4 rem (175 total badges) 

The following information also is relevant to these comparisons: 

• Ranges of reconstructed mean doses for two groups in the 2nd Battalion and the range of 

mean film badge readings for one group in that battalion reflect small differences in 

reconstructed doses and badge readings for different companies while viewing the 

display at Shot HOOD. 

• Mean film badge readings for members of the 2nd Battalion who did not view the display 

at Shot PRISCILLA exclude three badge readings below 0.1 rem and four readings of 

about 0.2–0.3 rem, in addition to the outlier at 1.2 rem. 

• Film badge readings of around 1 rem for eight members of helicopter crews that viewed 

the display at Shot PRISCILLA could not be explained on the basis of known activities in 

the brigade exercise and were attributed to additional undocumented activities. 

• A reconstructed dose greater than 0.5 rem for some radiation-safety monitors not 

indicated above was attributed to additional undocumented activities. The basis for this 

higher dose was not described by Frank et al. (1981a). 

• A badge reading of 7.2 rem not given above could be explained by the participant’s 

mission as an equipment display officer, which required an extended presence in the Shot 

HOOD display area that was not taken into account in the unit dose reconstruction. 

45
 

With three exceptions, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an 

upper bound that exceeds all film badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge 

readings. The most important exception involves radiation-safety monitors who viewed the 

display at Shot PRISCILLA. Distributions of badge readings for that group shown in Figure 6-1 

of Frank et al. (1981a) indicate that about 30 of the 175 readings (about 17%) exceed three times 

the reconstructed mean dose of 0.48 rem. To exceed at least 95% of all badge readings, an upper 

bound factor of about 4 would be required. However, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings 

when the bias factor of 1.3 in film badge readings is taken into account. We also note that a 

finding that a substantial number of badge readings exceed three times the reconstructed mean 

dose would not be an important concern if all radiation-safety monitors have badge readings, 

because there would be no need to reconstruct doses for unbadged monitors that might 

significantly underestimate actual doses.16 The other two exceptions—the low reconstructed 

mean dose for members of helicopter crews who did not view the display at Shot PRISCILLA 

compared with the highest badge readings and the badge reading of 7.2 rem for a single 

participant—are of lesser importance, because doses to helicopter crews were low17 and the 

badge reading of 7.2 rem applies to a documented and unusual exposure that was not taken into 

account in the unit dose reconstruction. 

6.2 SAIC Memoranda 

 Subsequent to publication of the unit dose reconstructions described in Section 6.1, two 

SAIC memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units were prepared (Frank, 1982; 

McRaney and Weitz, 1983). However, neither of those memoranda gives a comparison of 

reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. An SAIC memorandum that 

 16 NuTRIS indicates that most radiation-safety monitors wore film badges. However, NuTRIS 

also gives a few reconstructed gamma doses for monitors. Reconstructed doses for the date of Shot 

PRISCILLA are 0.002 or 0.46 rem; reconstructed doses for the dates of Shots PRISCILLA and HOOD 

are 0.46, 0.48, or 0.58 rem; and a reconstructed dose for the date of Shot HOOD is 0.50 rem. These doses 

suggest that the unusually high badge readings for some monitors that were attributed to additional 

undocumented activities in the unit dose reconstruction (Frank et al., 1981a) have not been taken into 

account in reconstructing doses to unbadged monitors. 

17 Frank et al. (1981a) does not give a distribution of film badge readings less than 0.2 rem. 

46
 

addressed exposure of Headquarters staff of the 4th Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise 

Brigade at Shot HOOD (Frank et al., 1981b) and was prepared prior to publication of the dose 

reconstructions for that unit by Frank et al. (1981a) is not considered in this analysis, since it was 

superseded by the published report. 

 In two cases, reconstructed external gamma doses in SAIC memoranda can be compared 

with limited film badge readings given in NuTRIS. These comparisons are summarized below. 

Frank (1982) addressed exposure of Army troop observers in Project 50.2 at Shot 

PRISCILLA. NuTRIS gives many film badge readings for Army personnel in that project 

during the time period around the day of that shot. Most badge readings are between 0.2 and 

0.6 rem, and the highest reading is 0.67 rem.18 The reconstructed dose for Army observers at 

Shot PRISCILLA of 0.46 rem (Frank, 1982) is the same as the reconstructed mean dose for 

members of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade who 

viewed the display at that shot (see Section 6.1.2.3). The highest film badge reading exceeds the 

reconstructed dose by less than a factor of two without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

Goetz et al. (1979b) addressed exposure of five officer volunteers at ground zero at Shot 

JOHN (July 19), which was detonated at a high altitude. Film badge readings in NuTRIS for 

those volunteers are zero (three readings), 0.035, and 0.055 rem; all but one of these readings is 

below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 0.050 rem (see Section 1.4). The calculated initial 

gamma dose is 0.015 rem. The highest badge reading exceeds the calculated dose by more than 

a factor of three, but the two differ by less than a factor of three when the bias factor of 1.3 in 

badge readings is taken into account. 

Film badge readings in NuTRIS in the two cases discussed above are not taken into 

account in evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in dose reconstructions at this 

operation. However, in the case of exposure of volunteer observers at Shot JOHN, film badge 

readings in NuTRIS support a conclusion that a 3X upper bound factor is adequate in all cases of 

exposure to initial gamma radiation. 

 18 Badge readings during periods that extend well beyond the date of Shot PRISCILLA are as 

high as about 1.4 rem. These readings could have included exposure at later shots and were not 

considered in a comparison with the reconstructed dose. 

47
 

6.3 Summary of Analysis 

 Results of an analysis to compare reconstructed external gamma doses from exposures at 

Operation PLUMBBOB given in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda with 

relevant film badge readings are summarized as follows: 

• On the basis of comparisons at varying distances from ground zero at three shots, use of a 

3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed initial gamma doses that are 

at least upper 95% confidence limits. 

• In 13 of the 14 cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation where doses were above a 

nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge 

readings when the bias in film badge readings at this operation is taken into account. 

• The one case where use of a 3X upper bound factor is not adequate involves exposure of 

members of Task Force WARRIOR during the period from August 27 to September 2, 

mainly to residual gamma radiation. Although use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

lowest reconstructed mean dose for members of the task force gives an upper bound that 

exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings during that period, that upper bound is 

substantially less than badge readings in a group of 22 badges (about 4% of the total) 

with readings that were at least a factor of two higher than all other badge readings. 

When the bias in film badge readings at this operation is taken into account, an increase 

in reconstructed mean doses for members of that group by a factor of about 5–12 is 

required to give an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings in that 

group during that period. The required upper bound factor depends on the particular 

activities in which members of that group participated. 

We also noted that the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in cases of exposure to initial 

gamma radiation is supported by a comparison of the reconstructed dose for five volunteer 

observers at Shot JOHN with film badge readings given in NuTRIS. 

In an additional case involving exposure of helicopter crews that did not view the display 

at Shot PRISCILLA, the highest badge readings are about an order of magnitude higher than the 

reconstructed mean dose. However, a possible discrepancy in this case is not meaningful when 

48
 

the reconstructed mean dose and most film badge readings are below a nominal minimum 

detectable dose of 50 mrem. 

The large discrepancy between reconstructed mean doses and the higher readings in the 

small group of 22 film badges for members of Task Force WARRIOR probably is best explained 

by the absence of measured exposure rates near locations of exposure and the inappropriateness 

of extrapolating exposure rates at other locations in different directions from ground zero at Shot 

SMOKY, rather than an important deficiency in methods of dose reconstruction. To give an 

upper bound that is at least an upper 95% confidence limit in that group, the required upper 

bound factor depends on whether group members were exposed in more contaminated areas in 

the Shot SHASTA fallout field or participated in equipment recovery or inspection of defensive 

positions after Shot SMOKY. However, the substantial underestimation of doses to the small 

group in Task Force WARRIOR probably is unimportant when badge readings apparently are 

available for most members of the task force (Goetz et al., 1979a). Underestimation of doses 

would be a concern only if an unbadged participant were a member of the small group that 

received the highest doses and a reconstructed dose were assigned to that individual.19

Published unit dose reconstructions at this operation (Goetz et al., 1979a; Goetz et al., 

1980; Frank et al., 1981) apparently address most exposures of observers and maneuver troops to 

residual gamma radiation; exceptions include observers at Shot DIABLO who toured a display 

area that was used at Shot HOOD and observers at Shot KEPPLER who experienced unexpected 

fallout prior to their evacuation (West et al., 1981; Maag and Ponton, 1981; Massie and Ponton, 

1981). Thus, coverage of significant exposures by unit dose reconstructions and film badge 

readings is more complete at this operation than at earlier operations at NTS, which allows a 

more complete evaluation of the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor. The lack of unit dose 

reconstructions for the two groups of observers may not be an important concern when observers 

at this operation were issued film badges (Harris et al., 1981). 

 19 Information in NuTRIS indicates that very few participants in Project 50.1 have been assigned 

a reconstructed residual gamma dose, and that none of the assigned reconstructed doses apply to the time 

period from August 27 to September 2 only. 

49
 

References

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Frank, G., Goetz, J., Klemm, J., Thomas, C., and Weitz, R., 1981a. Analysis of Radiation 

Exposure, 4th Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Energy Exercise Brigade, Exercise 

Desert Rock VII, Operation PLUMBBOB, DNA 5774F (Defense Nuclear Agency, 

Washington, DC). 

Frank, G., Klemm, J., and Goetz, J., 1981b. “Radiation Dose for Headquarters Staff Members, 

4th Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade (MCPAEB), Shot HOOD,” 

memorandum to Dr. Auton, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications, Inc., 

McLean, VA) (February 9). 

Frank, G., 1982. “Radiation Dose for Army Troop Observers at Shot PRISCILLA, Operation 

Plumbbob, 24 June 1957,” memorandum (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) 

(February 16). 

Harris, P.S., Lowery, C., Nelson, A., Obermiller, S., Ozeroff, W.J., and Weary, S.E., 1981. 

PLUMBBOB Series, 1957, DNA 6005F (Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC). 

Goetz, J.L., Kaul, D., Klemm, J., and McGahan, J.T., 1979a. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for 

Task Force WARRIOR – Shot SMOKY – Exercise Desert Rock VII-VIII, Operation 

PLUMBBOB, DNA 4747F (Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC). 

Goetz, J.L., Klemm, J., and Woolson, W., 1979b. “Initial Radiation Exposure for OfficerVolunteers at Shot JOHN,” memorandum to J. McGahan (Science Applications, Inc., 

McLean, VA) (July 11). 

Goetz, J.L., Kaul, D., Klemm, J., McGahan, J.T., and McRaney, W.K., 1980. Analysis of 

Radiation Exposure for Task Force BIG BANG, Shot GALILEO, Exercise Desert Rock 

VII-VIII, Operation PLUMBBOB, DNA 4772F (Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, 

DC). 

Maag, C., and Ponton, J., 1981. Shots DIABLO to FRANKLIN PRIME, The Mid-Series Tests of 

the PLUMBBOB Series, 6 September – 7 Octobert 1957, DNA 6006F (Defense Nuclear 

Agency, Washington, DC). 

50
 

Massie, J., and Ponton, J., 1981. Shots WHEELER to MORGAN, The Final Eight Tests of the 

PLUMBBOB Series, 15 July – 30 August 1957, DNA 6007F (Defense Nuclear Agency, 

Washington, DC).

McRaney W., and Weitz, R., 1983. “Radiation Dose Estimate, Project 53.5, Shot JOHN, 

Operation PLUMBBOB,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, 

VA) (April 15). 

NRC (National Research Council), 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC). 

West, J., Wilkinson, M., Simpson, C., and Massie, J., 1981. Shots BOLTZMANN to WILSON, 

The First Four Tests of the PLUMBBOB Series, 28 May – 18 June 1957, DNA 6008F 

(Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC). 

51
 

7. OPERATIONS AT PPG – I. 

OPERATION CROSSROADS (1946)

7.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation CROSSROADS, which was 

conducted at Bikini Atoll, are given in published reports by Weitz et al. (1982a–c) and 

Berkhouse et al. (1984). Those dose reconstructions are concerned with exposure of naval units 

to residual gamma radiation on specific support or target ships. 

 Exposures on support or target ships occurred mainly during activities in Bikini Lagoon. 

The following sources of exposure during those activities were considered: 

• Lagoon water that was contaminated by neutron activation products after Shot ABLE 

(July 1) and by fission products after Shot BAKER (July 25); 

• Target ships that were contaminated by neutron activation products after Shot ABLE and 

by fission products that were deposited by the base surge after Shot BAKER; 

• Fission products that accumulated on the hull and in salt-water piping and 

condensers/evaporators of support and target ships after Shot BAKER. 

Exposures to contaminated target ships occurred while support ships were moored next to those 

ships and during temporary activities of boarding parties or permanent remanning of target ships. 

On each target or support ship, daily doses from each source were reconstructed on the 

basis of ship-specific radiation survey data and modeling. Reconstructed daily doses during 

times spent at Bikini Atoll are given in tabular form for all support ships (Weitz et al., 1982c) 

and some target ships (Weitz et al., 1982b). Curves of shipboard gamma intensities (exposure 

rates) as a function of time after Shot BAKER are given for some target ships (Weitz et al., 

1982b), and reference exposure rates on the day after Shot BAKER are tabulated for all target 

ships (DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-1, Table 5). These data can be used to reconstruct doses to 

members of boarding parties who did not wear film badges (DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-1, 

Section 5.1). In addition, a nomograph is provided for use in estimating external gamma doses 

to crew members on support ships and manned target ships due to accumulated contamination on 

the hull and in piping after those ships departed from Bikini Atoll (Weitz et al., 1982b,c). 

52
 

Weitz et al. (1982a) compared reconstructed mean gamma doses for crew members on 

the support ship USS RECLAIMER who boarded target ships after Shot BAKER with film 

badge readings for those participants. These comparisons are summarized in Table 7.1. Except 

on August 2, boarding parties were assumed to be exposed only on the weather deck of a target 

ship, where exposure rates were the highest (Weitz et al., 1982b). The high badge readings 

compared with the reconstructed dose on August 13 were attributed to exposures of additional 

reported boarding parties on two target ships that could not be reconciled with records of the 

USS RECLAIMER’s activities, which indicated that the RECLAIMER was not alongside either 

target ship on that date. Given this inconsistency and the lack of information on exposure times, 

these exposures were not taken into account in the dose reconstruction. On each day except 

August 13, when a comparison may not to be meaningful, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed dose gives an upper bound that exceeds all badge readings without accounting for 

the bias of a factor of 1.5 in film badge readings at this operation (see Table 1.1). 

Table 7.1. Comparisons of film badge readings with reconstructed doses for crew members

on support ship USS RECLAIMER who served on boarding parties on target ships

a

Date Number of 

badges 

Range of badge 

readings (mrem) 

Reconstructed 

dose (mrem) 

July 31 5 50–50 85 

August 2 6 50–380 185 

August 5 1 300 229 

August 7 1 370 316 

August 8 3 100–230 187 

August 13 6 60–210 23 

August 17 2 60–60 82 

August 19 3 50–60 145 

a

 See Weitz et al. (1982a), Section 5. 

 Berkhouse et al. (1984) compared reconstructed doses for members of boarding parties 

on the target ship USS INDEPENDENCE after Shot BAKER with film badge readings for those 

participants. These comparisons are summarized in Table 7.2. Reconstructed doses were based 

on measured exposure rates on the weather deck of that ship (Weitz et al., 1982b; Figure A-15) 

53
 

and assumptions about the number of hours of exposure on each day. The high reconstructed 

doses compared with film badge readings were attributed to an assumption that all exposures 

occurred on the weather deck of the target ship, even though ship inspections required members 

of boarding parties to be below deck much of the time (Berkhouse et al., 1984). The exposure 

rate below deck on the USS INDEPENDENCE was about a factor of eight lower than on the 

weather deck (Weitz et al., 1982b; Figure A-15, and DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-1, Table 5). 

Table 7.2. Comparisons of film badge readings with reconstructed doses for

members of boarding parties on target ship USS INDEPENDENCEa 

Date Number of 

badges 

Average (maximum) 

badge reading (mrem) 

Reconstructed dose 

(mrem) 

August 18 32 44 (90) 196 

August 19 44 48 (160) 170 

August 20 42 33 (90) 212 

August 21 35 52 (180) 151 

 a See Berkhouse et al. (1984), Appendix G. 

On all days, use of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed doses on 

the USS INDEPENDENCE that exceed all film badge readings without accounting for the bias 

in badge readings. However, since reconstructed doses apparently were not based on realistic 

assumptions about the fraction of the time spent on the weather deck of the target ship, it is 

difficult to conclude with certainty that use of a 3X upper bound factor would give upper bounds 

of reconstructed doses that exceed all film badge readings if exposure below deck for a 

substantial fraction of the time were assumed in the dose reconstructions.20

 NuTRIS was accessed to investigate whether film badge readings for participants on 

support or target ships could be compared with reconstructed doses tabulated by Weitz et al. 

 20 Suppose, for example, that a member of an inspection team spent 75% of the time below deck, 

as assumed in dose reconstructions on target ships and for members of decontamination teams on target 

ships after August 12 (Phillips et al., 1985). By taking into account that the dose rate was a factor of 

about eight lower below deck, the total dose would be reduced by a factor of 0.25 + 0.75/8 = 0.34. If this 

reduction applies to boarding parties on the USS INDEPENDENCE, upper bounds of reconstructed doses 

that are obtained by use of a 3X upper bound factor would exceed all film badge readings on the first 

three days; this is also the case on the fourth day when the bias factor of 1.5 in film badge readings is 

taken into account. 

54
 

(1982b,c). However, meaningful comparisons are difficult when activities associated with badge 

readings on particular dates are not described in NuTRIS and reconstructed daily doses on 

support ships (Weitz et al., 1982c) do not include exposures of boarding parties on target ships, 

which should be important when many badge readings probably include such exposures 

(Berkhouse et al., 1984). Doses to boarding parties on particular days could be estimated on the 

basis of curves of exposure rates over time on each target ship (Weitz et al., 1982b) and known 

activities and exposure times on ships. However, the latter information was not available to us. 

7.2 SAIC Memoranda 

 Many memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units that were not considered in 

the unit dose reconstructions discussed in Section 7.1 or that present revisions of those dose 

reconstructions were prepared by SAIC (McRaney, 1981; Weitz, 1982, 1995, 1996a–d, 1997a,b, 

1998, 1999; Thomas, 1984, 1986a,b, 1988, 1990, 1993a–c; Goetz, 1985, 1990; Dismukes and 

Thomas, 1990; Klemm and Thomas, 1992; Klemm, 1993, 1994). Some of those memoranda 

give additional information on comparisons of reconstructed external gamma doses with film 

badge readings. These comparisons are summarized below. 

McRaney (1981) addressed exposure of crew members on photographic aircraft at Shot 

ABLE. All film badge readings for these participants are zero, and reconstructed doses for crew 

members on different aircraft range from 1 to 50 mrem. 

Thomas (1986a) addressed exposure of boarding parties on three target ships. Maximum 

film badge readings for members of boarding parties on two of those ships, which also included 

exposures on a support ship, are compared with reconstructed doses as follows: 

• On August 1, 2, and 3, maximum film badge readings for members of boarding parties on 

the USS MUGFORD are 0.12, 1.8, and 0.1 rem, and reconstructed doses are 0.437, 

0.233, and 0.203 rem, respectively. The reconstructed dose on the first and third days 

exceeds the maximum film badge reading. This is not the case on the second day, when 

the high badge reading was marked as questionable. 

• On August 9, 10, and 17, maximum film badge readings for members of boarding parties 

on the USS NEVADA are 0.14, 0.16, and 0.17 rem, and reconstructed doses are 0.607, 

55
 

0.483, and 0.250 rem, respectively. The reconstructed dose exceeds the maximum film 

badge reading on each day. 

Film badge readings for members of boarding parties on the USS STACK on August 3 and 4 

were not reported by Thomas (1986a). 

A subsequent analysis (Weitz, 1996c) addressed exposure of generic crewmen who 

participated in boarding parties on the USS NEVADA on August 9, 10, and 17. This dose 

reconstruction apparently is a revision of the dose reconstruction for boarding parties on this 

target ship by Thomas (1986a) discussed above.21 The revised reconstructed doses on the three 

dates are 0.22, 0.16, and 0.06 rem, respectively. On all three days, use of a 3X upper bound 

factor on the revised reconstructed dose gives an upper bound that exceeds the maximum film 

badge reading reported by Thomas (1986a) without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

Weitz (1996d) addressed exposure of personnel who boarded the target ship USS SALT 

LAKE CITY after Shot BAKER. Averages of film badge readings on each day during the 

period August 4–8 were reported. The average badge readings and their ranges22 are compared 

with reconstructed doses in Table 7.3. Except on August 7, use of a 3X upper bound factor on 

the reconstructed dose gives an upper bound that exceeds the highest film badge reading without 

accounting for the bias in badge readings. On August 7, use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an 

upper bound that exceeds the highest badge reading when the bias factor of 1.5 in film badge 

readings is taken into account. 

Weitz (1997a) addressed exposure of crew members on the support ship USS O’BRIEN 

between July 1 and July 5. This ship received fallout from Shot ABLE while conducting 

downwind patrol operations. All film badges that were turned in on July 2 or July 5 read zero, 

and reconstructed doses for the two turn-in dates are 0.02 and 0.03 rem, respectively. 

 21 Weitz (1996c) indicates that reconstructed doses on August 9 and 10 that were obtained in a 

previous analysis, which was not cited, applied to members of inspection teams that remained on the 

target ship throughout the working day, and that the previous reconstructed dose on August 17 

corresponded to the highest film badge reading on that date. The dose reconstruction by Weitz (1996c) 

was based on more realistic assumptions about exposure times for generic crew members on the target 

ship, and film badge readings were not used to reconstruct doses. 

22 Ranges of film badge readings on each date were obtained from a listing of individual readings 

used by Weitz (1996c), which was provided by SAIC (Chehata, 2009). 

56
 

Table 7.3. Comparisons of film badge readings with reconstructed doses for

members of boarding parties on target ship USS SALT LAKE CITYa 

Date Number of 

badges 

Badge readings 

(rem)b

Reconstructed dose 

(rem) 

August 4 14 0.11 (0.07–0.19) 0.18 

August 5 14 0.15 (0.05–0.32) 0.17 

August 6 22 0.11 (0.05–0.23) 0.14 

August 7 5 0.19 (0.04–0.40) 0.12 

August 8 16 0.11 (0.05–0.21) 0.13 

 a See Weitz (1996d). 

 b

 First entry for each day is average of all badge readings; entry in parentheses is 

 range of badge readings provided by Chehata (2009).

In evaluating the significance of the comparisons summarized above, it is important to 

consider that film badge readings and reconstructed doses in some cases are at or below a 

nominal minimum detectable dose of 0.050 rem (see Section 1.4). Comparisons probably are not 

meaningful in those cases. 

In a few cases, reconstructed external gamma doses in SAIC memoranda (Thomas, 1984; 

Klemm, 1994; Weitz, 1995, 1996a,b, 1997b) could be compared with film badge readings given 

in NuTRIS. However, since only three or fewer badge readings are given in NuTRIS in each 

case, meaningful comparisons with reconstructed doses cannot be made even if readings in 

NuTRIS apply to conditions of exposure that were considered in a dose reconstruction. 

7.3 Summary of Analysis 

 Published unit dose reconstructions provide comparisons of reconstructed external 

gamma doses at Operation CROSSROADS with relevant film badge readings in only two cases, 

which involved exposure of crew members on the support ship USS RECLAIMER who served 

on boarding parties on target ships and exposure of members of boarding parties on the target 

ship USS INDEPENDENCE. With one exception, use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an 

upper bound of the reconstructed dose on a particular date that exceeds all film badge readings 

on that date. In the one exception out of 14 comparisons, which involved exposure of crew 

57
 

members on the USS RECLAIMER, the highest badge reading exceeds the reconstructed dose 

by a factor of about 6 when the bias factor of 1.5 in film badge readings at this operation is taken 

into account. This discrepancy was attributed to additional boardings by crew members that 

could not be reconciled with records of the USS RECLAIMER’s activities on that date and were 

not taken into account in the dose reconstruction. 

We caution, however, that interpretation of the comparisons of reconstructed doses with 

film badge readings may not be unambiguous. Except for exposure of crew members on the 

USS RECLAIMER on a single date, all reconstructed doses were based on an assumption that 

exposure occurred only on the weather deck of a target ship, where exposure rates were higher 

than below deck. If badged participants spent most of the time below deck on a target ship, as 

may have occurred in boarding parties on the USS INDEPENDENCE (Berkhouse et al., 1984), it 

is possible that some film badge readings on a few more dates would exceed a reconstructed dose 

that is based on more realistic assumptions about times spent below deck by more than a factor 

of three, although this outcome appears unlikely when the bias factor of 1.5 in film badge 

readings is taken into account. Information that could be used to estimate exposure times of 

badged participants on the weather deck and below deck on target ships was not available to us. 

However, we also acknowledge that this should not be an important concern when reconstructed 

doses that were based on an assumption of exposure on the weather deck only are assigned to all 

unbadged participants. Another difficulty in evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor 

is that there are three or fewer film badge readings for crew members on the USS RECLAIMER 

on some dates, and comparisons with reconstructed doses in those cases probably are not 

meaningful. Finally, the higher badge readings compared with the reconstructed dose for crew 

members on the USS RECLAIMER on one date remain unexplained. 

SAIC memoranda also provide only limited comparisons of reconstructed doses with film 

badge readings. These comparisons are summarized below. 

In cases of exposure on the target ship USS NEVADA, reconstructed doses on particular 

dates are higher than all film badge readings on those dates, except for exposure of generic crew 

members on one date. On all dates, use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper bound of the 

reconstructed dose that exceeds all badge readings. A possible difficulty in interpreting these 

comparisons is that the number of film badge readings on each date was not reported by Thomas 

58
 

(1986a). If there were only a few badge readings, comparisons of reconstructed doses with those 

readings may not be meaningful.23 

Reconstructed doses for members of boarding parties on two of the three dates on the 

target ship USS MUGFORD are higher than the maximum film badge readings on those dates. 

On the date when the maximum badge reading is much higher than the reconstructed dose, the 

high badge reading was marked as questionable. Since no other badge readings on that date 

were reported, the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in that case is unknown. 

In cases of exposure of crew members on the target ship USS SALT LAKE CITY, use of 

a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed doses that exceed all film badge 

readings on all dates when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings at this operation is taken into 

account. Since there are a substantial number of badge readings on most dates, the comparisons 

on those dates should be meaningful. 

 Overall, on the basis of available information in published unit dose reconstructions and 

SAIC memoranda, the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in reconstructing external gamma 

doses at Operation CROSSROADS can be evaluated in only a limited number of cases. 

Furthermore, there often are only a few badge readings in cases where reconstructed doses can 

be compared with badge readings, which increases the difficulty in evaluating the adequacy of a 

3X upper bound factor at this operation. 

Two factors generally may limit an ability to make meaningful comparisons of 

reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings at this operation. First, it appears 

that, for the most part, doses have been reconstructed only for exposure situations where badge 

readings were not available, and there have not been extensive efforts to compare reconstructed 

doses with badge readings. Second, given that a daily exposure limit of 0.1 R was used at this 

operation (Berkhouse et al., 1984), most film badges were turned in within one day of their 

issuance. Since there apparently was little potential for high doses on most days and in most 

exposure situations, many comparisons involve doses at or below a nominal minimum detectable 

 23 NuTRIS gives film badge readings on the USS NEVADA of 0.10, 0.12, and 0.14 rem on 

August 9, no badge readings on August 10, and badge readings of zero (many), 0.03 (three readings), and 

0.08 rem (three readings) on August 17. Only on August 9 are the badge readings in NuTRIS consistent 

with the maximum readings reported by Thomas (1986a). 

59
 

dose of 50 mrem, and there are few exposure situations where doses well above a minimum 

detectable dose have been compared with reconstructed doses.24

References

Berkhouse, L., Davis, S.E., Gladeck, F.R., Hallowell, J.H., Jones, C.B., Martin, E.J., McMullan, 

F.W., and Osborne, M.J., 1984. Operation CROSSROADS – 1946, DNA 6032F (Kaman 

Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

Chehata, M., 2009. “Review of SENES Draft Report ‘Evaluation of Generic 3X Upper Bound 

Factor Used in Reconstructing External Gamma Doses to Military Participants at 

Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests’,” memorandum to P. Blake, Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency, and H. Maier, L-3 Communications (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 31). 

Dismukes, K., and Thomas, C., 1990. “Assessed Radiation Doses for Aircraft Development 

Squadron (VX-2) and Naval Air Base, Roi (NAVAIRROI) at Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to Capt. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 18). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Goetz, J., 1985. “Estimated Radiation Dose, Provisional Marine Detachment, Enewatak, 1946,” 

memorandum to Marine Corps Nuclear Test Personnel Review (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 11). 

Goetz, J., 1990. Letter to Director, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 17). 

Klemm, J., 1993. “Updates for Operation CROSSROADS Report?,” memorandum to M. Owais, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 18). 

 24 Film badge readings for participants in various groups are summarized by Berkhouse et al. 

(1984). Radiation-safety monitors had the highest exposures; in this group, 56% of readable badges 

indicate zero exposure, 14% exceed 0.1 R, and the highest total exposure of an individual monitor is 

3.7 R. Other groups of interest include initial boarding teams, for which 54% of the badge readings are 

zero, 16% exceed 0.1 R, and the highest reading is 0.72 R, and crew members on support or target ships 

after Shot BAKER, for which 57% of the badge readings are zero and 10% exceed 0.1 R. 

60
 

Klemm, J., 1994. “Guide to CROSSROADS Daily Dose Tables [CLAMP ARS 33],” 

memorandum to H. Maier, JAYCOR (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (September 1). 

Klemm, J., and Thomas, C., 1992. “Supplemental Generalized Dose Reconstructions for 

Operation CROSSROADS,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 28). 

McRaney, W., 1981. “Radiation Dose Estimate for Crews of Photographic Aircraft Participating 

in Shot ABLE, Operation CROSSROADS,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, 

Inc., McLean, VA) (May 19). 

Phillips, J., Klemm, J., and Goetz, J., 1985. Internal Dose Assessment – Operation 

CROSSROADS, DNA-TR-84-119 (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA). 

Thomas, C., 1984. “Assessment of Radiation Exposure Aboard the YOG-63 and YOG-70 at 

Operation CROSSROADS,” memorandum to File (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 28). 

Thomas, C., 1986a. “CROSSROADS Uncertainty Analysis,” memorandum to Navy Nuclear 

Test Personnel Review (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(March 6). 

Thomas, C., 1986b. “Radiological Contamination on the Islands of Bikini Atoll at Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (June 6). 

Thomas, C., 1988. “Assessed Radiation Dose, LCT Group 15 and LCT Group 21, Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (May 3). 

Thomas, C., 1990. “Dose Reconstruction for Initial Boarding Team #10 at Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to Capt. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 25). 

Thomas, C., 1993a. “Dose Reconstruction for the Crew in USS YW 92, Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 19). 

61
 

Thomas, C., 1993b. “Possible Overexposures Among the Crewmembers in USS CARTERET 

(APA 70) and USS WAINWRIGHT (DD 419) at Operation CROSSROADS,” 

memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 15). 

Thomas, C., 1993c. “Radiation Dose Assessment, USS HYADES (AF 28)” (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 3). 

Weitz, R., 1982. “Induced Activity on USS ARKANSAS after Shot Able, Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to W. Loeffler, Navy Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

(Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (August 17). 

Weitz, R., 1995. “Reassessment of Ship Contamination Dose for USS ATR 40, Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 16). 

Weitz, R., 1996a. “Dose Reconstruction for NCB 53/CBD 1156 Personnel at Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (June 14). 

Weitz, R., 1996b. “Doses to Personnel in USS ARKANSAS, Operation CROSSROADS,” 

memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(June 17). 

Weitz, R., 1996c. “Doses to Personnel in USS NEVADA, Operation CROSSROADS,” 

memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(July 8). 

Weitz, R., 1996d. “Consistency of NTPR Reconstruction with Radiation Monitor Reports for 

USS SALT LAKE CITY (CA 25), Operation CROSSROADS (1946),” memorandum to 

Cdr. Ely, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 5). 

Weitz, R., 1997a. “Revised Dose Reconstruction for USS O’BRIEN (DD 725), Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 25). 

Weitz, R., 1997b. “Crew Doses for USS CRITENDEN (APA 77), Operation CROSSROADS,” 

memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 1). 

62
 

Weitz, R., 1998. “Revision to Crew Doses for USS CHOWANOC (ATF 100), Operation 

CROSSROADS,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 10). 

Weitz, R., 1999. “Revision of Ship Contamination Model for USS FALL RIVER,” 

memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 28). 

Weitz, R., Thomas, C., Klemm, J., Stuart, J., Knowles, M., Goetz, J., Muller, E., and Landay, A., 

1982a. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Units of Operation CROSSROADS. 

Volume I – Basic Report, DNA-TR-82-05-V1 (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

Weitz, R., Thomas, C., Klemm, J., Stuart, J., Knowles, M., Goetz, J., Muller, E., and Landay, A., 

1982b. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Units of Operation CROSSROADS. 

Volume II – (Appendix A) Target Ships, DNA-TR-82-05-V2 (Science Applications, Inc., 

McLean, VA). 

Weitz, R., Thomas, C., Klemm, J., Stuart, J., Knowles, M., Goetz, J., Muller, E., and Landay, A., 

1982c. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Units of Operation CROSSROADS. 

Volume III – (Appendix B) Support Ships, DNA-TR-82-05-V2 (Science Applications, 

Inc., McLean, VA). 

63
 

8. OPERATIONS AT PPG – II. 

OPERATION SANDSTONE (1948) 

8.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation SANDSTONE, which was conducted 

at Enewetak Atoll, are given in a published report by Thomas et al. (1983). Those dose 

reconstructions are concerned with exposure of naval units on ships and on residence islands at 

Enewetak and Kwajalein Atolls to residual gamma radiation due to secondary (late-time) fallout 

from the three shots at this operation (Shot X-RAY on April 15, Shot YOKE on May 1, and Shot 

ZEBRA on May 15). 

 Reconstructed mean cumulative doses through May 31 (16 days after the last shot at this 

operation) are 57 and 84 mrem on Enewetak and Kwajalein Atoll, respectively, and range from 3 

to 49 mrem on 31 ships. These doses were estimated by integrating measured exposure rates 

over time and taking into account the shielding provided by a ship’s structure when participants 

were below deck or by buildings when participants on land were indoors. 

Thomas et al. (1983) compared reconstructed doses for typical crew members on ships 

and participants on residence islands with readings of film badges that recorded exposures over 

short time periods around the date of each shot. These comparisons are summarized as follows: 

Exposure on ships (17 cases) – 

 – Number of badge readings on each ship, 1–20 

 – Range of average badge readings, 0–31 mrem (maximum reading of 60 mrem) 

 – Range of reconstructed doses, 1–14 mrem 

Exposure on residence islands at Enewetak and Kwajalein Atolls (4 cases) – 

 – Number of badge readings at each atoll, 3 or 6 

 – Range of average badge readings, 0–10 mrem 

 – Range of reconstructed doses, 2–9 mrem 

In the comparisons on ships, the largest discrepancies between an average film badge reading 

and a reconstructed dose include an average badge reading of 31 mrem and a reconstructed dose 

64
 

of 2 mrem on the USS BAIROKO at the time of Shot ZEBRA, an average badge reading of 

30 mrem and a reconstructed dose of 1 mrem on the USS PICKAWAY at the time of Shot 

YOKE, and an average badge reading of 26 mrem and a reconstructed dose of 1 mrem on the 

USS PICKAWAY at the time of Shot XRAY. However, when a nominal minimum detectable 

dose of 50 mrem (see Section 1.4) is taken into account, these discrepancies probably are not 

meaningful. Only three badge readings included in the comparisons by Thomas et al. (1983), 

two on the USS BAIROKO and one on the USS PICKAWAY, are at or above 50 mrem and, as 

noted above, the highest badge reading is only 60 mrem. 

 NuTRIS was accessed to investigate whether there are additional film badge readings that 

could be compared with reconstructed doses given by Thomas et al. (1983). During time periods 

when participants were assigned to units on Enewetak or Kwajalein Atoll or to particular ships, 

most badge readings do not exceed a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem and, thus, 

are in agreement with the low reconstructed doses. However, there are several cases involving a 

total of about 105 participants where one or more badge readings exceed a reconstructed dose by 

more than a factor of three. These cases are summarized as follows: 

• About 80% of the participants on Enewetak or Kwajalein Atoll with unusually high 

badge readings in NuTRIS were radiation-safety monitors or members of drone or 

photography units. Those units included all island-based personnel with badge readings 

above 1 rem, and the highest reading is 4.5 rem. Other island-based personnel with high 

badge readings were members of engineer units, a Navy patrol squadron, an amphibious 

truck detachment, a detachment from the Army Counter-Intelligence Corps, a provisional 

military policy company, an Air Force base unit, a Naval air station ship security detail, a 

headquarters and service unit, and an inter-island transport unit. All film badge readings 

for members of those units are about 0.84 rem or less. 

• About 80% of the participants on ships with unusually high badge readings in NuTRIS 

were assigned to the USS BAIROKO. Other ship-based personnel with high badge 

readings were assigned to the USS CURTISS or USS MARSH. Most badge readings for 

ship-based personnel are about 0.5 rem or less, except badge readings for four 

participants on the USS BAIROKO are between 1.3 and 6.0 rem. 

65
 

It is highly unlikely that the unusually high film badge readings summarized above 

indicate important discrepancies with reconstructed doses given by Thomas et al. (1983). Most, 

if not all, of the high badge readings probably represent unusual exposure conditions that did not 

apply to most island- or ship-based personnel who were exposed only to fallout (DTRA, 2008; 

Appendix B-2, Section 4). This clearly is the case for radiation-safety monitors and members of 

drone or photography units, and it probably is also the case for members of island-based units 

that engaged in security or transport activities. The high badge readings for a substantial number 

of participants on the USS BAIROKO probably represent exposure to a radium source that was 

used to calibrate survey instruments (DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-2, Section 4.10), and the few 

higher badge readings (four readings of about 0.15 rem and one reading of 0.37 rem) for 

personnel on the USS CURTISS may have been due to persistent localized contamination by 

fallout (DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-2, Section 4.4). Measured exposure rates on ships and the 

two atolls (Thomas et al., 1983, and DTRA, 2007; Appendix B-2, Section 2.2) are too low to 

explain the unusually high film badge readings. 

8.2 SAIC Memoranda 

 Several memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units that were not considered 

in the unit dose reconstructions discussed in Section 8.1 were prepared by SAIC (Gminder, 1981; 

Goetz, 1989; Martinez, 1995, 1998a–f; SAIC, 1996; Weitz, 1996; Orlieb, 1998; Booker, 2002). 

None of those memoranda give information on comparisons of reconstructed external gamma 

doses with film badge readings. Another memorandum (Klemm, 1996) reiterated the generic 

reconstructed dose of 0.06 rem for participants based on Enewetak Atoll that was calculated by 

Thomas et al. (1983) and discussed in Section 8.1. 

8.3 Summary of Analysis

Published unit dose reconstructions provide comparisons of reconstructed doses from 

external exposure to residual gamma radiation at Operation SANDSTONE with relevant film 

badge readings only in cases of exposure to fallout on ships and residence islands where 

measured exposure rates were low. SAIC memoranda do not provide additional comparisons. 

66
 

All reconstructed doses on ships are below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 

50 mrem, and reconstructed doses on Enewetak and Kwajalein Atolls are only marginally greater 

than 50 mrem. Most relevant film badge readings also are less than 50 mrem and, thus, are 

consistent with reconstructed mean doses. Although a substantial number of unusually high 

badge readings for participants on the two atolls and on three ships are given in NuTRIS, most of 

the large discrepancies with reconstructed doses can be explained by the unusual activities of 

participants with those badge readings in high-radiation areas that were not taken into account in 

dose reconstructions. These discrepancies probably do not indicate that the published unit dose 

reconstructions are flawed. 

At this operation, unit dose reconstructions in published reports and SAIC memoranda do 

not provide an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor at higher 

residual gamma doses. In exposure situations where there was the potential for unusually high 

doses, the NTPR Program relies on a participant’s statements and film badge readings for the 

participant or a member of the participant’s exposure cohort to estimate external gamma dose 

(DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-2; Section 4). This approach should not lead to substantial 

underestimates of a participant’s external gamma dose as long as relevant film badge readings 

are available, given that film badges generally were issued to at least some participants in 

situations with the potential for higher doses (Berkhouse et al., 1983). 

References

Berkhouse, L.H., Davis, S.E., Gladeck, F.R., Hallowell, J.H., Jones, C.B., Martin, E.J., 

McMullan, F.W., Osborne, M.J., and Rogers, W.E., 1983. Operation SANDSTONE: 

1948, DNA 6033F (Kaman Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

Booker, R., 2002. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Crewmembers of USS HELENA (CA 75), 

USS TOLEDO (CA 133), and USS OAKLAND (CL 95) during Operation 

SANDSTONE (1948) – Revised,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(October 31). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

67
 

Gminder, R., 1981. “Calculated Radiation Dose for an Individual on Kwajalein Atoll Following 

SANDSTONE/YOLK,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) 

(August 24). 

Goetz, J., 1989. “Extension of Dose Tables, Operation SANDSTONE,” memorandum to 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(October 1). 

Klemm, J., 1996. “Generic Dose for Enewetak Atoll Personnel, Operation SANDSTONE 

(1948),” memorandum to M. Ely, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 1). 

Martinez, D., 1995. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel on Bikini Island in April and 

May 1948,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 18). 

Martinez, D., 1998a. “Radiation Dose Assessment, USS CHICKASAW (ATF 83), Operation 

SANDSTONE (1948),” memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 5). 

Martinez, D., 1998b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel Aboard USS DAVISON (DMS 

37), Operation SANDSTONE (1948),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 1). 

Martinez, D., 1998c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel Aboard USS PELICAN (AMS 

32), Operation SANDSTONE (1948),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 1). 

Martinez, D., 1998d. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel Aboard USS QUICK (DMS 

32), Operation SANDSTONE (1948),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 1). 

Martinez, D., 1998e. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel Aboard USS GULL (AMS 16), 

Operation SANDSTONE (1948),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 4). 

Martinez, D., 1998f. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel Aboard USS TURNER (DD 

834),, USS CHARLES P. CECIL (DD 835), USS FURSE (DD 882), USS NEWMAN K. 

PERRY (DD883), and the Staff of Destroyer Division 132, Operation SANDSTONE 

68
 

(1948),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 15). 

Ortlieb, E., 1998. “Unit Dose Revision, USS LATONA (AF 35), Operation SANDSTONE 

(1948),” memorandum to D. Ellison, JAYCOR (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 13). 

SAIC, 1996. “Radiation Dose Assessment, USS TORRY (AG 140), Operation SANDSTONE 

(1948),” memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 10). 

Thomas, C., Stuart, J., Goetz, J., and Klemm, J., 1983. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval 

Personnel at Operation SANDSTONE, DNA-TR-83-13 (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Weitz, R., 1996. “Crew Doses for USS SWALLOW (AMS 36), Operation SANDSTONE 

(1948),” memorandum to L. Goodrich, JAYCOR (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 10). 

69
 

9. OPERATIONS AT PPG – III. 

OPERATION GREENHOUSE (1951) 

9.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

 Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation GREENHOUSE, which was 

conducted at Enewetak Atoll, are given in published reports by Thomas et al. (1982) and Thomas 

et al. (1987). The first report addressed exposures on ships and on residence islands at Enewetak 

Atoll to residual gamma radiation due mainly to fallout from shots at this operation,25 and the 

second report addressed exposures on residence islands during the post-operation period. In 

addition, Berkhouse et al. (1983) provided information on exposures of radiation-safety monitors 

on two residence islands following one of the shots at this operation. 

9.1.1 Exposures During Operation

Thomas et al. (1982) presented dose reconstructions for participants on seven ships and 

on three residence islands at Enewetak Atoll (Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan Island). The end date 

of calculations on the ships ranges from May 31 (the day Operation GREENHOUSE ended) to 

the end of October.26 Daily doses on residence islands were calculated from April 8 (the day of 

Shot DOG) through May 31.27 Fallout from three shots (DOG, EASY, and ITEM) contributed 

to doses on the ships and residence islands, but fallout from Shot GEORGE (May 9) did not. 

Doses due to fallout from Shot ITEM were the highest on the residence islands and most ships. 

Dose reconstructions by Thomas et al. (1982) apply only to ships’ crews and to personnel that 

were assigned to the residence islands at Enewetak Atoll; they do not apply to participants in a 

 25 Exceptions occurred on the USS SPROSTON, where external gamma doses at Shot EASY 

apparently were due to the passing atmospheric cloud, rather than fallout on the ship, and external doses 

on the day of Shot ITEM also appear to be due mainly to the passing cloud (Thomas et al., 1982). 

26 Calculations on ships were carried out until the monthly dose due to fallout from all shots 

combined decreased below 30 mrem (Thomas et al., 1982). 

27 Calculations on residence islands were terminated on May 31 on the basis of contemporaneous 

reports which indicated that heavy rains had washed away most of the radioactive material. However, 

those reports were later found to be unsubstantiated, and dose reconstructions on residence islands 

discussed in Section 9.1.2 were carried out beyond May 31 (Thomas et al., 1987). 

70
 

small boat pool, which operated from the USS CABILDO, or to aircrews stationed at Kwajalein

Atoll. 

 

9.1.1.1 Exposures on Ships. This section presents comparisons of reconstructed residual 

gamma doses on ships with film badge readings for participants on those ships. 

9.1.1.1.1 Comparisons in unit dose reconstructions. Comparisons of reconstructed 

residual gamma doses with film badge readings on six ships presented by Thomas et al. (1982) 

are summarized as follows:28

Shot DOG (April 8) – 

 USS CABILDO (April 8–13) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.060 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.58 rem (15 total badges) 

 USS CURTISS (April 7–10) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.136 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.11–0.42 rem (17 total badges) 

 USS LST-859 (April 7–13) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.209 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.40 rem (6 total badges) 

 USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER (April 7–16) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.137 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.17 rem (7 total badges) 

 USS SPROSTON (April 8–15) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.072 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.11 rem (8 total badges) 

 USS WALKER (April 8–14) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.056 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.18 rem (9 total badges) 

28 Reconstructed mean doses are tabulated values; film badge readings, which were not tabulated 

by Thomas et al. (1982), are estimated from Figures 5-1, 5-2, and 5-4 of that report. 

71
 

Shot EASY (April 21) – 

 USS CABILDO (April 20–27) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.024 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.065 rem (14 total badges) 

 USS CURTISS (April 21–26) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.033 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.02–0.28 rem (18 total badges) 

 USS LST-859 (April 20–25) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.025 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.095 rem (6 total badges) 

 USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER (April 21–27) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.021 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.095 rem (7 total badges) 

 USS SPROSTON (April 19–27) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.093 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.38 rem (8 total badges) 

Shot ITEM (May 25) – 

 USS CABILDO (May 24–28) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.15 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.32–2.0 rem (16 total badges) 

 USS CURTISS (May 25–26) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.128 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–0.28 rem (19 total badges) 

 USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER (May 24–27) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.35 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.31–2.2 rem (7 total badges) 

 USS SPROSTON (May 24–25) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.001 rem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0.08–0.18 rem (8 total badges) 

72
 

No film badge readings were reported for personnel on the USNS LT. ROBERT CRAIG at Shot 

DOG or the USS WALKER at Shots EASY and ITEM, and the USNS CRAIG was not present 

at other shots. The USS LST-859 was away from Enewetak Atoll at the time of Shot ITEM, and 

four badge readings during the period May 25–28 are zero. 

At the time of Shot GEORGE (May 9), all reconstructed mean doses due to fallout from 

Shots DOG and EASY are 10 mrem or less (Thomas et al., 1982). Reported film badge readings 

include 13 zeros on the USS CABILDO, 17 zeros on the USS CURTISS, six zeros and one 

reading of 0.28 rem on the USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER, eight zeros on the USS 

SPROSTON, and 15 zeros and readings of 0.04 and 0.08 rem on the USS WALKER. 

 In several comparisons summarized above where most film badge readings are at or 

above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 0.050 rem (see Section 1.4), use of a 3X upper 

bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that is less than a substantial 

number of badge readings without accounting for the bias of a factor of 1.4 in film badge 

readings at this operation (see Table 1.1). Badge readings that exceed the reconstructed mean 

dose by more than a factor of three in these cases are summarized as follows: 

• USS CABILDO at Shot DOG – five of 15 badge readings, with highest badge reading a 

factor of about 10 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.06 rem; 

• USS CURTISS at Shot EASY – nine of 18 badge readings, with highest badge reading a 

factor of about 8 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.033 rem; 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot EASY – three of seven badge readings, 

with highest badge reading a factor of about 5 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 

0.021 rem; 

• USS CABILDO at Shot ITEM – 12 of 16 badge readings, with highest badge reading a 

factor of about 13 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.15 rem; 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot ITEM – two of seven badge readings, with 

highest badge reading a factor of about 6 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 

0.35 rem; 

• USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM – all eight badge readings are about two orders of 

magnitude higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.001 rem. 

73
 

In addition, badge readings at Shot GEORGE of 0.28 rem on the USNS MOWER and 0.04 and 

0.08 rem on the USS WALKER are more than an order of magnitude higher than the 

reconstructed mean doses of 0.0054 and 0.0032 rem, respectively. 

When the bias factor of 1.4 in film badge readings at this operation is taken into account, 

adjusted badge readings that exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three 

in the six cases at Shots DOG, EASY, and ITEM listed above are summarized as follows: 

• USS CABILDO at Shot DOG – four of 15 adjusted badge readings, with highest adjusted 

badge reading a factor of about 7 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.06 rem; 

• USS CURTISS at Shot EASY – two of 18 adjusted badge readings, with highest adjusted 

badge reading a factor of about 6 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.033 rem; 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot EASY – one of seven adjusted badge 

readings is a factor of about 3.2 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.021 rem; 

• USS CABILDO at Shot ITEM – eight of 16 adjusted badge readings, with highest 

adjusted badge reading a factor of about 10 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 

0.15 rem; 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot ITEM – two of seven adjusted badge 

readings, with highest adjusted badge reading a factor of about 4.5 higher than 

reconstructed mean dose of 0.35 rem; 

• USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM – all eight adjusted badge readings are a factor of about 

60–130 higher than reconstructed mean dose of 0.001 rem. 

In addition, adjusted badge readings at Shot GEORGE of 0.20 rem on the USNS MOWER and 

0.03 and 0.06 rem on the USS WALKER are at least an order of magnitude higher than the 

reconstructed mean doses. 

In three cases listed above, exposure rates on a ship were not reported but were assumed 

to be determined by measurements on a nearby ship or residence island: exposure rates on the 

USS CURTISS and USNS MOWER at Shot EASY were assumed to be determined by 

measurements on Parry Island, and exposure rates on the USNS MOWER at Shot ITEM were 

assumed to be the same as on the USS CABILDO (Thomas et al., 1982). Exposure rates on the 

USS CABILDO and LST-859 at Shot EASY also were assumed to be determined by 

measurements on Parry Island, but there is good agreement between the reconstructed dose and 

74
 

film badge readings in those two cases, in contrast to the comparisons on the USS CURTISS and 

USNS MOWER at that shot. Thus, the presence or absence of measured exposure rates on a 

ship does not appear to be the most important factor in determining whether the highest adjusted 

film badge readings exceed reconstructed doses by more than a factor of three. 

Thomas et al. (1982) noted that reconstructed mean doses tend to systematically 

underestimate average film badge readings, as indicated in the comparisons summarized above. 

This tendency was explained, at least in part, by the duties of virtually all badged participants, 

which required them to be on the weather deck for a greater fraction of the day than was assumed 

in dose reconstructions that were intended to apply to average crew members. Thomas et al. 

(1982) also noted that most badged participants, including radiation-safety monitors and damage 

control and repair parties, probably were required to be on deck during periods of fallout, when 

an average crew member was assumed to be below deck, and that doses to badged participants 

during periods of fallout could have been about 50–60% of the daily dose assuming exposure on 

deck for 24 hours. For example, by assuming that the dose to more highly exposed personnel on 

the day fallout occurred was 60% of the dose assuming exposure on the weather deck for 

24 hours and that the dose on other days was 20% higher than the reconstructed dose for an 

average crew member due to the increased time spent on deck, Thomas et al. (1982) estimated 

that the mean dose to more highly exposed personnel on the USS CURTISS at Shot DOG 

(April 7–10) was a factor of about 1.4 higher than the reconstructed mean dose for an average 

crew member. When likely conditions of higher exposure of badged participants were taken into 

account, Thomas et al. (1982) judged that there was generally good agreement between average 

film badge readings and reconstructed mean doses. 

9.1.1.1.2 Comparisons based on more likely exposures of badged participants. In the six 

cases discussed in the previous section where substantial discrepancies between reconstructed 

doses and film badge readings were found and most badge readings are at or above a nominal 

minimum detectable dose of 0.050 rem, we considered the effect of increasing reconstructed 

doses as in the analysis of higher exposures on the USS CURTISS at Shot DOG by Thomas et al. 

(1982). If we assume that the dose to badged participants on shot day was 60% of the dose 

assuming exposure on the weather deck for 24 hours and that the dose to badged participants on 

subsequent days was 20% higher than the reconstructed dose for an average crew member, the 

75
 

increased reconstructed mean doses that we calculated from mean daily exposures on deck and 

mean daily doses tabulated by Thomas et al. (1982) and comparisons with film badge readings 

without accounting for the bias in badge readings are summarized as follows:29

• USS CABILDO at Shot DOG (April 8–13) – The reconstructed mean dose is increased to 

0.14 rem. Use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper bound that exceeds 14 of 15 

badge readings, and the highest badge reading exceeds the increased reconstructed mean 

dose by a factor of about 4. 

• USS CURTISS at Shot EASY (April 21–26) – The reconstructed mean dose is increased 

to 0.040 rem. Use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper bound that exceeds 11 of 

18 badge readings, and the highest badge reading exceeds the increased reconstructed 

mean dose by a factor of about 7. 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot EASY (April 21–27) – The reconstructed 

mean dose is increased to 0.025 rem. Use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper 

bound that exceeds six of seven badge readings, and the highest badge reading exceeds 

the increased reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about 4. 

• USS CABILDO at Shot ITEM (May 24–28) – The reconstructed mean dose is increased 

to 0.28 rem. Use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper bound that exceeds 12 of 16 

badge readings, and the highest badge reading exceeds the increased reconstructed mean 

dose by a factor of about 7. 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot ITEM (May 24–27) – The reconstructed 

mean dose is increased to 0.43 rem. Use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper 

bound that exceeds five of seven badge readings, and the highest badge reading exceeds 

the increased reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about 5. 

• USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM (May 24–25) – The reconstructed mean dose is 

increased to 0.003 rem. Use of a 3X upper bound factor gives an upper bound that 

exceeds none of the eight badge readings, and the highest badge reading exceeds the 

increased reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about 60. 

 29 An exposure in R is multiplied by 0.7 to obtain an estimate of the film badge-equivalent dose in 

rem that accounts for the shielding of the film badge by the body of the wearer (Thomas et al., 1982). 

76
 

Increases in reconstructed mean doses to badged participants, compared with mean doses given 

in the previous section, are a factor of about 1.2–3. With the possible exceptions of exposures on 

the USS CABILDO at Shot DOG and the USNS MOWER at Shot EASY, where only one badge 

reading in each case exceeds the increased reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of 

three, use of a 3X upper bound factor does not give upper bounds that exceed at least 95% of all 

unadjusted badge readings. A tendency for the increased reconstructed doses to underestimate a 

substantial number of badge readings is found in cases where doses are relatively high or 

relatively low and in cases where exposure rates on a particular ship were measured, rather than 

assumed to be determined by measurements on a nearby ship or residence island. 

When the bias factor of 1.4 in film badge readings at this operation is taken into account, 

comparisons of adjusted badge readings with the increased reconstructed mean doses that 

account for the greater times that badged participants presumably spent on the weather deck of 

ships are summarized as follows: 

• USS CABILDO at Shot DOG – None of the 15 adjusted badge readings exceed the 

increased reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

• USS CURTISS at Shot EASY – Two of 18 adjusted badge readings (11%) exceed the 

increased reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three, and the highest 

adjusted badge reading exceeds the increased reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 

about 5. 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot EASY – None of the seven adjusted badge 

readings exceed the increased reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

• USS CABILDO at Shot ITEM – Two of 16 adjusted badge readings exceed the increased 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three, and the highest adjusted badge 

reading exceeds the increased reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about 5. 

• USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER at Shot ITEM –Two of seven adjusted badge 

readings exceed the increased reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three, 

and the highest adjusted badge reading exceeds the increased reconstructed mean dose by 

a factor of about 4. 

77
 

• USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM – All eight adjusted badge readings exceed the increased 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three, and the highest adjusted badge 

reading exceeds the increased reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about 40. 

9.1.1.1.3 Comparisons based on film badge readings in NuTRIS. Comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings on ships discussed previously are based on badge 

readings reported by Thomas et al. (1982). We also investigated whether NuTRIS gives 

additional badge readings for participants on ships that could be compared with reconstructed 

doses. In all cases listed in Section 9.1.1.1.1 except exposures on the USS CURTISS and USS 

SPROSTON at Shot ITEM, either the number of badge readings in NuTRIS that we assumed are 

relevant differs from the number of readings reported by Thomas et al. (1982) and is greater than 

the number of reported readings in all cases but one, or the badge readings in NuTRIS do not all 

agree with reported readings. In addition, in the case of exposure on the USS WALKER at Shot 

ITEM, where a reconstructed dose is not shown in Figure 5-4 of Thomas et al. (1982) and no 

film badge readings were reported, several badge readings are given in NuTRIS. Since it is not 

certain that badge readings in NuTRIS that were not reported by Thomas et al. (1982) apply to 

exposures on ships that were considered in dose reconstructions, it is questionable whether the 

additional badge readings in NuTRIS are relevant. 

 NuTRIS also gives a few film badge readings on ships that apply throughout the period 

from Shot DOG to the end of Operation GREENHOUSE on May 31. These badge readings are 

compared with total reconstructed doses given by Thomas et al. (1982) as follows: 

 USS CABILDO – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.49 rem 

 – Badge readings of 0.179, 0.700, and 0.807 rem 

 USS CURTISS – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.79 rem 

 – Badge readings of 0.373, 0.511 (three readings), and 1.043 rem 

 USS SPROSTON – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.19 rem 

 – Badge readings of 0.816 rem (three readings) 

78
 

 USS WALKER – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.22 (0.26) rem 

 – Badge reading of 0.234 rem 

In each case, the highest badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about 

three or less when the bias factor of 1.4 in film badge readings is taken into account. However, it 

is not certain that the badge readings in NuTRIS are relevant, and there are very few readings in 

each case. In addition, when all three badge readings on the USS SPROSTON are the same, it is 

questionable whether those readings apply to badges that were worn by different participants. 

9.1.1.2 Exposures on Residence Islands. Reconstructed mean doses on residence islands 

at Enewetak Atoll for the period April 8 – May 31 given by Thomas et al. (1982) are 2.93 rem on 

Enewetak Island, 3.10 rem on Parry Island, and 2.57 rem on Japtan Island; these doses are high 

compared with reconstructed mean doses to average crew members or more highly exposed 

badged personnel on ships. Doses on residence islands were due mainly to fallout from Shots 

DOG and ITEM; the estimated dose due to fallout from Shot EASY is about 0.042 rem, and 

there was no fallout on residence islands from Shot GEORGE. Film badge readings for 

participants on the residence islands were not reported by Thomas et al. (1982). 

 Berkhouse et al. (1983) compared readings of film badges for radiation-safety monitors 

in Task Unit 3.1.5 on Parry or Japtan Island that recorded exposures during the first four days 

after Shot DOG and were not to be worn during missions to other locations with estimates of 

cumulative exposure that were based on other film badge readings at fixed locations outside 

buildings supplemented by information from pocket dosimeters. On Parry Island, film badge 

readings for monitors range from 0.56 to 1.4 rem, with a mean of 0.89 rem, and the estimated 

dose based on other dosimeter readings is 1.19 rem; on Japtan Island, badge readings for 

monitors range from 0.825 to 1.6 rem, with a mean of 1.04 rem, and the dose based on other 

dosimeter readings is 1.3 rem.30 

 30 NuTRIS gives one badge reading for radiation-safety monitors in Task Unit 3.1.5 of 0.23 rem 

on Parry Island for the period April 8–12 and badge readings of 1.225 and 1.25 rem on Japtan Island for 

the same period. Thus, if we assume that only those badge readings in NuTRIS that cover the entire 

period of interest are relevant, there appears to be little correspondence between badge readings noted by 

Berkhouse et al. (1983) and readings in NuTRIS. 

79
 

 NuTRIS gives film badge readings for many participants in units that were assigned to 

one of the residence islands at Enewetak Atoll. However, there are no more than four badge 

readings in any unit. More importantly, NuTRIS does not indicate whether recorded exposures 

occurred on a residence island or during a mission to another area. Therefore, comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with badge readings in NuTRIS probably are not meaningful. 

9.1.2 Exposures Following Operation

 Thomas et al. (1987) presented dose reconstructions for participants on the three 

residence islands at Enewetak Atoll (Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan Islands) during the period from 

June 1, 1951, through June 30, 1952, following completion of Operation GREENHOUSE. 

Monthly doses on each island during that period were calculated. Reconstructed mean doses for 

the entire period are 2.03 rem on Enewetak Island, 1.76 rem on Parry Island, and 1.45 rem on 

Japtan Island. Mean doses are about 55–70% of the reconstructed mean doses during the entire 

period of the operation from April 8 to May 31, 1951. Film badge readings for participants on 

residence islands during the post-operation period were not reported by Thomas et al. (1987), 

and NuTRIS does not give any badge readings during this period. 

9.2 SAIC Memoranda 

 Many memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units during Operation 

GREENHOUSE that were not considered in the unit dose reconstructions discussed in 

Section 9.1.1 were prepared by SAIC (Gminder, 1981; Thomas, 1988; Martinez, 1995a–i, 1996, 

1997; Cockayne, 1995a,b). Only one of those memoranda gives additional information on 

comparisons of reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. 

 Thomas (1988) addressed exposure of participants in a military police company on 

Enewetak Island and on two non-residence islands (Aomon and Engebi) at or closer to locations 

of detonations. Comparisons of reconstructed mean doses with average film badge readings 

given by Thomas (1988) are summarized as follows: 

80
 

 Enewetak Island – 

 April 8–19 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.45 rem 

 – Average film badge reading, 0.51 rem (5 total badges) 

 April 20 – May 3 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.08 rem 

 – Average film badge reading, 0.09 rem (6 total badges) 

 Aomon Island – 

 April 22 – May 1 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.66 rem 

 – Average film badge reading, 0.71 rem (28 total badges) 

 Engebi Island – 

 April 27 – May 3 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.125 rem 

 – Average film badge reading, 0.17 rem (10 total badges) 

 April 27 – May 17 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.205 rem 

 – Film badge reading, 0.33 rem 

 April 28 – May 3 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.09 rem 

 – Average film badge reading, 0.09 rem (5 total badges) 

 May 3–17 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.08 rem 

 – Average film badge reading, 0.12 rem (12 total badges) 

In all cases, the average film badge reading does not exceed the reconstructed mean dose by 

more than a factor of about 1.5 without accounting for the bias factor of 1.4 in badge readings. 

We also investigated whether NuTRIS gives film badge readings for the cases 

summarized above. Ranges of badge readings in NuTRIS are as follows: 

81
 

Enewetak Island – 

April 8–19, 0.41–0.55 rem (5 total badges) 

April 20 – May 3, 0.08–0.13 rem (6 total badges) 

Aomon Island – 

April 22 – May 1, 0.44–1.05 rem (28 total badges) 

Engebi Island – 

April 27 – May 3, 0.13–0.31 rem (8 total badges) 

April 27 – May 17, no badge readings 

April 28 – May 3, 0.07–0.165 rem (3 total badges) 

May 3–17, no badge readings 

In the cases where badge readings are given in NuTRIS, they are consistent with average badge 

readings reported by Thomas (1988),31 and they indicate that the highest badge reading exceeds 

the reconstructed mean dose by less than a factor of three in all cases without accounting for the 

bias in badge readings. 

9.3 Summary of Analysis

 Comparisons of reconstructed doses from external exposure to residual gamma radiation 

with relevant film badge readings can be made only for exposures during Operation 

GREENHOUSE (i.e., during the period April 8 – May 31, 1951). Comparisons cannot be made 

during the post-operation period, when substantial doses continued to be received by personnel 

stationed on residence islands (Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan). 

 Comparisons of reconstructed mean doses on ships with film badge readings given in 

published reports or SAIC memoranda and more limited comparisons on residence islands and 

other non-residence islands are summarized as follows: 

 31 There is no apparent explanation for the absence in NuTRIS of badge readings on Engebi 

Island during the periods April 27 – May 17 and May 3–17, when badge readings were reported by 

Thomas (1988). 

82
 

• In 11 of 15 cases of exposure on ships at Shots DOG, EASY, and ITEM, use of a 3X 

upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed external gamma doses that are at 

least upper 95% confidence limits when compared with film badge readings reported by 

Thomas et al. (1982) that are adjusted to account for the bias factor of 1.4 in badge 

readings at this operation, provided that reconstructed mean doses for average crew 

members are increased to better represent the presumed higher exposures of badged 

participants. The higher exposures were assumed to result from longer exposure times 

for badged participants on the weather deck compared with exposure times for average 

crew members (Thomas et al., 1982). 

• The four cases of exposure on ships at Shots DOG, EASY, and ITEM where use of a 3X 

upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed doses that are not at least upper 

95% confidence limits when reconstructed mean doses given by Thomas et al. (1982) are 

increased to better represent the presumed higher exposures of badged participants 

compared with average crew members include the USS CURTISS at Shot EASY and the 

USS CABILDO, USNS SGT. CHARLES E. MOWER, and USS SPROSTON at Shot 

ITEM. When the bias factor of 1.4 in film badge readings is taken into account, an upper 

bound factor of about 4–5 is required in the first three cases, and an upper bound factor of 

about 40 is required in the fourth case. In two of these cases, reconstructed doses were 

based on measured exposure rates on the ship. 

• Limited comparisons of reconstructed doses on residence or non-residence islands with 

film badge readings for participants (Berkhouse et al., 1983; Thomas, 1988) indicate that 

use of a 3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds of reconstructed doses that are at least 

upper 95% confidence limits. 

Discrepancies in the four cases on ships where some adjusted film badge readings exceed 

an increased reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three do not have an apparent 

explanation. Higher badge readings on the USS CURTISS at Shot EASY, where the 

reconstructed dose is relatively low, may have been due to exposure to radioactive sources that 

were used to calibrate survey instruments, since repair facilities for those instruments were 

located on that ship (Berkhouse et al., 1983); this also is a case where exposure rates on the ship 

were not measured but were assumed to be the same as on a nearby ship, and estimated exposure 

83
 

rates could be less reliable in such cases. A lack of measured exposure rates on a ship also is a 

concern in reconstructing doses on the USNS MOWER at Shot ITEM, but not on the USS 

CABILDO and SPROSTON at that shot. 

In regard to exposure on the USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM, where all film badge 

readings are much higher than the reconstructed mean dose, Cockayne (1998) considered the 

available dosimetry information and concluded that a total exposure of 1 R that was reported in 

medical records on the basis of a May 23, 1951, memorandum does not reflect the best available 

data and should be superseded for generic, unbadged crew members by reconstructed daily doses 

given by Thomas et al. (1982) and discussed in Section 9.1.1.1.1. However, the assessment by 

Cockayne (1998) did not address the eight badge readings of 0.08–0.18 rem on the USS 

SPROSTON during the period May 24–25 that were reported by Thomas et al. Furthermore, the 

large discrepancies between the badge readings and reconstructed mean dose cannot be 

explained by assuming that badged participants were exposed on the weather deck for a majority 

of the time. In the other cases where an assumption of higher exposure times on deck was used 

in reconstructing doses, the increase in mean dose is less than a factor of three. If a similar 

increase applies to badged participants on the USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM, as assumed in 

this analysis, all badge readings are still more than an order of magnitude higher than the 

reconstructed mean dose. There is no apparent explanation for the large discrepancy in this case. 

At Shot GEORGE, one of seven film badge readings on the USNS MOWER and one of 

17 badge readings on the USS WALKER are above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 

50 mrem and exceed the reconstructed mean dose of 10 mrem or less by large factors. However, 

given the absence of fallout on ships at that shot (Thomas et al., 1982), the high badge readings 

probably are anomalous and not indicative of exposures of average crew members. 

References 

Berkhouse, L., Davis, S.E., Gladeck, F.R., Hallowell, J.H., Jones, C.B., Martin, E.J., McMullan, 

F.W., and Osborne, M.J., 1983. Operation GREENHOUSE – 1951, DNA 6034F (Kaman 

Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

84
 

Cockayne, J., 1995a. “Dose Assessments for Project 3.4 Personnel, Operation GREENHOUSE 

(1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 30). 

Cockayne, J., 1995b. “Dose Assessments for 506th CIC Detachment, Operation GREENHOUSE 

(1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 31). 

Cockayne, J.E., 1998. “Medical Record Doses for USS SPROSTON (DDE 577),” memorandum 

to D.M. Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 23). 

Gminder, R., 1981. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel in the Army Task Group During 

Operation GREENHOUSE,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, 

VA) (January 7). 

Martinez, D., 1995a. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USNS GENERAL DANIEL 

I. SULTAN (TAP 120), Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(May 10). 

Martinez, D., 1995b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS GENESEE (AOG 8), 

Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 12). 

Martinez, D., 1995c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USCG Cutter PLANETREE 

(WAGL 307), Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(May 13). 

Martinez, D., 1995d. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS RIO GRANDE 

(AOG 3), Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(May 14). 

Martinez, D., 1995e. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS PICTOR (AF 54), 

Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 15). 

85
 

Martinez, D., 1995f. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS YOGs 61, 65 & 69; and 

USS YON 182, Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(May 18). 

Martinez, D., 1995g. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS CIMARRON (AO 22), 

Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 19). 

Martinez, D., 1995h. “Radiation Dose Assessment (Unbadged Periods) for Personnel in 

LSU 1345, Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (July 1). 

Martinez, D., 1995i. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS NEMASKET 

(AOG 10), Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(November 29). 

Martinez, D., 1996. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USNS GENERAL DAVID E. 

AULTMAN (TAP 156), Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to Cdr. Ely, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(June 25). 

Martinez, D., 1997. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USNS FRED C. 

AINSWORTH (T-AP 181), Operation GREENHOUSE (1951),” memorandum to M. 

Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 11). 

Thomas, C., 1988. “Radiation Dose Assessment for the 516th Military Police Company at 

Operation Greenhouse, 1951,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 14). 

Thomas, C., Gminder, R., Stuart, J., Weitz, R., Goetz, J., and Klemm, J., 1982. Analysis of 

Radiation Exposure for Naval Personnel at Operation GREENHOUSE, DNA-TR-82-15 

(Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

Thomas, C., Goetz, J., and Klemm, J., 1987. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Personnel on 

the Residence Islands of Enewetak Atoll after Operation GREENHOUSE, 1951 – 1952, 

DNA-TR-85-390 (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

86
 

10. OPERATIONS AT PPG – IV. 

OPERATION IVY (1952) 

10.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation IVY, which was conducted at 

Enewetak Atoll, are given in a published report by Thomas et al. (1983). Those dose 

reconstructions are concerned with exposure of naval units on ships and personnel based on 

Enewetak Atoll (Enewetak Island and Parry Island), Kwajalein Atoll, or Bikini Atoll to residual 

gamma radiation due mainly to secondary (late-time) fallout from Shot MIKE on November 1. 

Exposures to fallout from Shot KING on November 16 also were included in dose 

reconstructions but were much less important. 

10.1.1 Exposures on Ships 

Thomas et al. (1983) presented reconstructed cumulative doses for naval personnel on 

18 ships during the period October 31 – November 17 or 18, when Operation IVY essentially 

ended. Doses were estimated by integrating measured or assumed exposure rates over time and 

taking into account the shielding provided by a ship’s structure when participants were below the 

weather deck. Reconstructed mean doses during the entire period of the operation are low, 

ranging from 1 to 62 mrem, and are below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem (see 

Section 1.4) on 17 of the 18 ships. 

On 14 of the 18 ships, Thomas et al. (1983) compared reconstructed doses with film 

badge readings for personnel on those ships; there were no badge readings on the other four 

ships. These comparisons are summarized as follows:32

 32 Film badge readings are estimated from Figure 5-1 of Thomas et al. (1983). Reconstructed 

mean doses are obtained from Table 6-1 of that report when the period during which comparisons are 

made in Figure 5-1 extends to November 17 or 18; when the comparison period is shorter, which occurred 

on six ships, reconstructed mean doses are estimated from Figure 5-1. 

87
 

USS RENDOVA (October 31–November 5) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 6 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–2,280 mrem (208 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 18 

 – Badge readings of zero, 142 

USS OAK HILL (October 31–November 18) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 34 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–460 mrem (67 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 26 

 – Badge readings of zero, 14 

USS ARIKARA (October 31–November 7) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 15 mrem 

 – All badge readings, 0 (14 total badges) 

USS LIPAN (October 31–November 17) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 36 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 40–70 mrem (12 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 6 

USS DAVID C. SHANKS (October 31–November 10) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 23 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 26–50 mrem (8 total badges) 

USS AGAWAM (October 31–November 17) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 23 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–115 mrem (22 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 13 

 – Badge readings of zero, 3 

USS ESTES (October 31–November 18) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 24 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–1,630 mrem (98 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 63 

 – Badge readings of zero, 4 

88
 

USS ELDER (October 31–November 6) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 9 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–36 mrem (14 total badges) 

 – Badge readings of zero, 5 

USS CARPENTER (October 31–November 17) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 11 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 30–130 mrem (21 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 17 

USS O’BANNON (October 31–November 17) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 5 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–220 mrem (22 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 12 

 – Badge readings of zero, 3 

USS FLETCHER (October 31–November 17) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 13 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 40–115 mrem (20 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 15 

USS YUMA (October 31–November 17) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 9 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–130 mrem (12 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 10 

 – Badge readings of zero, 1 

USS CURTISS (October 31–November 6) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 3 mrem 

 – All badge readings, 0 (17 total badges) 

M/V HORIZON (October 31–November 6) – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 35 mrem 

 – Range of badge readings, 0–86 mrem (28 total badges) 

 – Badge readings above nominal detectable dose of 50 mrem, 9 

 – Badge readings of zero, 3 

89
 

Reconstructed doses on the USS LIPAN, ARIKARA, DAVID C. SHANKS, ELDER, and 

YUMA were based on measured exposure rates on nearby ships or islands. On the other nine 

ships, reconstructed doses were based on measured exposure rates on those ships. 

On six ships—the USS ARIKARA, LIPAN, DAVID C. SHANKS, ELDER, and 

CURTISS and the M/V HORIZON—film badge readings do not differ greatly from the 

reconstructed mean dose. Except on the USS ELDER, the highest badge reading on each of 

these ships is within a factor of three of the reconstructed mean dose without accounting for the 

bias of a factor of 1.5 in film badge readings at this operation (see Table 1.1). On the USS 

ELDER, the highest badge reading also is within a factor of three of the reconstructed mean dose 

when the bias in badge readings is taken into account. Since all badge readings on the USS 

ELDER are less than a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, a comparison of the 

reconstructed dose with badge readings is not meaningful. 

On the other eight ships listed above, a substantial fraction of film badge readings that 

exceed a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem are well above the reconstructed mean 

dose. Thomas et al. (1983) offered explanations of the higher film badge readings compared 

with reconstructed doses on all these ships except the USS AGAWAM. Those explanations are 

discussed below. Additional information obtained from NuTRIS also is discussed. 

Thomas et al. (1983) attributed the relatively few high film badge readings on the USS 

RENDOVA to exposure of participants who were issued badges when they were expected to 

enter contaminated areas other than those routinely encountered on that ship. Thomas et al. also 

noted that the large number of zero badge readings (68%) is indicative of low exposures of crew 

members. This explanation is consistent with information in NuTRIS, which indicates that 

nearly 90% of all badges with readings above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem 

were issued to members of air units or Task Group 132.3, which carried out the radiation safety 

program during Operation IVY (Gladeck et al., 1982); only nine badge readings above 50 mrem 

in NuTRIS do not apply to identified members of those units. A more detailed comparison of 

film badge readings in NuTRIS with badge readings shown in Figure 5-1 of Thomas et al. (1983) 

may not be meaningful when the end date of readings reported by Thomas et al. is November 5 

but the end date of all readings in NuTRIS is November 17 or later. The end dates in NuTRIS 

may be defaults that essentially correspond to the end of Operation IVY, rather than the end of 

periods of exposure. Nonetheless, if data in NuTRIS are indicative of the number of crew 

90
 

members on the USS RENDOVA who received unusually high doses, it appears that fewer than 

5% of all badge readings (about nine of 208 readings) for crew members exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three and are above 50 mrem. Given the very 

low reconstructed mean dose of 6 mrem, the number of such readings does not depend on 

whether the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account. 

Thomas et al. (1983) attributed the higher film badge readings on the USS OAK HILL to 

exposure of members of a boat pool who were issued badges when they were expected to enter 

contaminated areas other than those routinely encountered on that ship. Information in NuTRIS 

does not allow a distinction between badge readings for members of a boat pool and readings for 

other personnel on the USS OAK HILL; although a boat group is identified as a separate unit, 

NuTRIS does not give any badge readings for members of that group. Eight badge readings 

(12%) reported by Thomas et al. (1983) exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a 

factor of three when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account. 

Thomas et al. (1983) attributed the higher film badge readings on the USS ESTES to 

exposure of members of helicopter units who were issued badges when they were expected to 

enter contaminated areas other than those routinely encountered on that ship. Higher exposures 

were assumed to occur while members of those units were located near a contaminated 

helicopter pad on the ship’s weather deck, as well as during missions away from the ship. 

Exposures near the helicopter pad were not taken into account in reconstructing doses to an 

average crew member. The reconstructed mean dose to participants who spent time near the 

helicopter pad is 72 mrem. However, Thomas et al. (1983) did not distinguish between badge 

readings for members of helicopter units who were exposed away from the ship and members of 

those units who were exposed at the helicopter pad, and information in NuTRIS does not allow a 

distinction between badge readings for members of helicopter units and readings for other 

personnel on the USS ESTES. About 20 of the 98 badge readings (about 20%) reported by 

Thomas et al. (1983) exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the 

bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account. 

Thomas et al. (1983) speculated that nearly all of the higher film badge readings on the 

USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and FLETCHER may have been due to contamination of 

those ships’ hulls that occurred as they patrolled in areas where much of the fallout from Shot 

MIKE was deposited. However, the presence of contamination on the ships’ hulls was not 

91
 

verified, and there were no data that could be used to estimate the extent of contamination and 

associated doses. All but four badge readings on the USS CARPENTER, all but seven readings 

on the USS O’BANNON, and all but five readings on the USS FLETCHER reported by Thomas 

et al. (1983) are above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem and exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge 

readings is taken into account. 

Finally, Thomas et al. (1983) concluded that a comparison between the reconstructed 

dose to a crew member on the USS YUMA and film badge readings cannot be made. Records 

indicate that badges were turned in and processed on November 17. However, Thomas et al. 

(1983) argued that this turn-in date is unlikely to be correct, because the USS YUMA left 

Enewetak Atoll on November 8 and film badges probably were turned in prior to departure. If 

badges were not processed until November 17, recorded exposures would have included 

contributions from fallout at the atoll that were not received by crew members, who departed 

with the ship. All but two badge readings are above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 

50 mrem and exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the bias 

factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account. 

Thomas et al. (1983) did not offer an explanation for the higher film badge readings on 

the USS AGAWAM compared with the reconstructed mean dose but noted that badge readings 

are similar to reconstructed doses on the USS OAK HILL and LIPAN, which were anchored 

several miles southwest of the USS AGAWAM during the same period. In this case, however, 

only one of 22 badge readings exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of 

three when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account. 

On the basis of information discussed above, we offer the following opinions about the 

eight cases on ships where reconstructed mean doses generally are well below a substantial 

fraction of film badge readings. 

On the USS RENDOVA, it appears likely that fewer than 5% of all film badge readings 

for crew members (i.e., participants who were not members of air units or Task Group 132.3) 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. It also appears that members 

of units that received doses higher than many crew members can be identified. 

On the USS OAK HILL, the reconstructed mean dose may not differ greatly from film 

badge readings for crew members who were not members of a boat pool. However, members of 

92
 

the boat pool are not identified in NuTRIS. Therefore, given that a reconstructed mean dose of 

34 mrem or less is assigned in NuTRIS to nearly all unbadged participants on this ship, the dose 

to a member of the boat pool could be underestimated by more than a factor of three if a badge 

reading is not available. 

On the USS ESTES, film badge readings for most crew members who were not members 

of helicopter units may not exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

However, a reconstructed dose of 22 mrem, which is consistent with the mean dose of 24 mrem 

given by Thomas et al. (1983), is assigned in NuTRIS to all unbadged participants on this ship. 

Thus, it appears that the higher reconstructed mean dose of 72 mrem for participants who were 

exposed near the contaminated helicopter pad on the ship’s weather deck has not been assigned 

to any unbadged participant. Unless all members of helicopter units who were exposed near the 

contaminated pad have badge readings, the dose to unbadged members of those units could 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

The unsubstantiated assumption that higher film badge readings on the USS 

CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and FLETCHER could have been due to the presence of 

contamination on those ships’ hulls that was not considered in the dose reconstruction may be 

plausible. However, this explanation raises a concern about doses that would be assigned to 

unbadged participants. Reconstructed doses that are assigned to unbadged participants in 

NuTRIS are similar to the low reconstructed mean doses on those ships given by Thomas et al. 

(1983). However, all personnel on the USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and FLETCHER 

presumably were exposed during normal activities on those ships when Thomas et al. (1983) 

gives no indication to the contrary. If this were the case, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean doses would not give an upper bound that exceeds the dose to at least 95% of 

all participants. The extent of this discrepancy, as indicated by comparisons of reconstructed 

mean doses with film badge readings above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem that 

are adjusted to account for the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings, is summarized as follows: 

• On the USS CARPENTER, 17 of 21 adjusted badge readings above 50 mrem exceed 

three times the reconstructed mean dose. To obtain an upper bound that exceeds at least 

95% of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 8 is required. 

93
 

• On the USS O’BANNON, 15 of 22 adjusted badge readings above 50 mrem exceed three 

times the reconstructed mean dose. To obtain an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% 

of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 25 is required. 

• On the USS FLETCHER, 15 of 20 adjusted badge readings above 50 mrem exceed three 

times the reconstructed mean dose. To obtain an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% 

of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 6 is required. 

An alternative approach to ensure that doses to at least 95% of unbadged participants on those 

three ships are not underestimated would be to assign mean doses on the basis of distributions of 

film badge readings on each ship, rather than reconstructed mean doses given by Thomas et al. 

(1983). This approach may be preferable when the dose reconstruction did not consider the 

potentially most important source of exposure (contamination on the ships’ hulls). 

We believe it is questionable that film badge readings for participants on the USS YUMA 

are much higher than actual exposures of crew members during the period up to the time of 

departure from Enewetak Atoll on November 8. The USS YUMA was located near Kwajalein 

Atoll on November 2–4 when the heaviest fallout from Shot MIKE occurred and was stationed at 

Enewetak Atoll when lower levels of fallout from that shot occurred on November 7–8 (Thomas 

et al., 1983). Since there was no record of measurements of exposure rates on the USS YUMA, 

exposures during the period November 2–4 were estimated on the basis of average exposure 

rates on Kwajalein Atoll. Given that the maximum exposure rate on the atoll was about three 

times higher than the average exposure rate (Thomas et al., 1983), the average exposure rate on 

the atoll could have been substantially lower than the average exposure rate on the ship. 

Furthermore, reconstructed cumulative exposures on ships at Enewetak Atoll due to fallout that 

occurred on November 7–8 and November 16–17 (Thomas et al., 1983; Table 2-1) indicate that 

cumulative doses at that location during the period November 7–18 due only to fallout after the 

USS YUMA arrived at Enewetak Atoll were less than 10 mrem. If the reconstructed dose while 

the ship was located near Kwajalein Atoll is a reasonable estimate, doses due to fallout that 

occurred after the ship’s arrival at Enewetak Atoll on November 7 would need to be substantially 

higher than 10 mrem to explain readings of ten of the total of 12 film badges that exceed a 

nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem. On the basis of these considerations, it may not 

be reasonable to conclude that the reconstructed dose did not substantially underestimate doses 

94
 

to crew members. An upper bound factor of about 7 is required to obtain an upper bound that 

exceeds at least 95% of the film badge readings. 

On the USS AGAWAM, where Thomas et al. (1983) did not offer an explanation of the 

higher film badge readings compared with the reconstructed dose, a discussion in Section 2.2.5 

of that report suggests that measurements of exposure rates that were used to reconstruct doses 

on that ship were sparse. As noted previously, however, only one of 22 badge readings exceeds 

the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge 

readings is taken into account. Thus, use of a 3X upper bound factor is adequate in this case. 

10.1.2 Exposures on Residence Islands

Thomas et al. (1983) estimated doses to participants on residence islands at Enewetak, 

Kwajalein, and Bikini Atolls by integrating measured exposure rates over time and taking into 

account the shielding provided by buildings when participants were indoors. Reconstructed 

mean doses during the period October 31 – November 17 or 18 are low, ranging from 2 to 

59 mrem, and are below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem on three of the four 

residence islands. 

Thomas et al. (1983) did not report any film badge readings for participants on residence 

islands. Although NuTRIS gives badge readings for participants on those islands, many badge 

readings apply to time periods sufficiently short that they probably were mission badges, and it is 

not possible to determine on the basis of information in NuTRIS whether badge readings during 

longer time periods apply to exposures on residence islands only. Therefore, comparisons of 

reconstructed mean doses with badge readings in NuTRIS probably are not meaningful. 

10.2 SAIC Memoranda 

Several memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units during Operation IVY 

that were not considered in the unit dose reconstructions discussed in Section 10.1 were prepared 

by SAIC (Gminder, 1981; Thomas, 1989a,b; Martinez, 1995a,b; Weitz, 2000). Only one of 

those memoranda gives additional information on comparisons of reconstructed external gamma 

doses with film badge readings. 

95
 

Thomas (1989b) addressed exposures of participants in a military police company on 

Enewetak or Parry Island and on two non-residence islands (Runit and Dridrilbwij) at or closer 

to locations of detonations. However, reconstructed doses for specific individuals apply to the 

entire time this company was stationed at Enewetak Atoll, whereas film badge readings for some 

of those participants reported by Thomas (1989b) apply only to periods of about 10 days or less 

and many readings apply to a single day. Thus, reconstructed doses for individual members of 

this company cannot be compared with badge readings. 

Reconstructed cumulative doses to participants in another unit that was stationed on 

Enewetak and Parry Island were given by Gminder (1981). However, reconstructed doses are 

much higher than later estimates by Thomas et al. (1983) and Thomas (1989a). Therefore, we 

presume that the dose reconstruction by Gminder (1981) has been superseded. 

10.3 Summary of Analysis 

Published unit dose reconstructions provide comparisons of reconstructed doses from 

external exposure to residual gamma radiation at Operation IVY with relevant film badge 

readings only in cases of exposure to fallout on ships. An SAIC memorandum provides 

additional information about exposures on Enewetak or Parry Island, but a meaningful 

comparison of reconstructed doses with film badge readings cannot be made when reconstructed 

doses apply to longer time periods than the badge readings and some badge readings include 

exposures at other locations. 

On 14 ships, reconstructed mean doses that were intended to apply to average crew 

members can be compared with film badge readings. On seven ships, there is good agreement 

between reconstructed mean doses and film badge readings when the preponderance of badge 

readings below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem on six of those ships and the 

bias factor of 1.5 in film badge readings at this operation are taken into account, and use of a 3X 

upper bound factor is adequate. Furthermore, on three of the seven ships where reconstructed 

mean doses generally are substantially lower than film badge readings (the USS RENDOVA, 

OAK HILL, and ESTES), most of the higher badge readings probably apply to personnel in units 

that received higher exposures than typical crew members during special activities that were not 

taken into account in dose reconstructions (Thomas et al., 1983). We believe that use of a 3X 

96
 

upper bound factor gives upper bounds that are at least 95% confidence limits of doses to 

average crew members on those three ships. 

On four ships, however, reconstructed mean doses consistently underestimate film badge 

readings that presumably apply to crew members. On three ships—the USS CARPENTER, 

O’BANNON, and FLETCHER—most badge readings exceed the reconstructed mean dose by 

more than a factor of three when the bias factor of 1.5 in film badge readings is taken into 

account. An upper bound factor of about 8 on the USS CARPENTER, 25 on the USS 

O’BANNON, and 6 on the USS FLETCHER is required to give upper bounds that are at least 

95% confidence limits. These large discrepancies could be due to unsubstantiated contamination 

on those ships’ hulls that could not be considered in dose reconstructions (Thomas et al., 1983). 

An assumption of an inadequate exposure scenario would not be an important concern if 

distributions of film badge readings were used to estimate doses to unbadged participants on 

those ships. However, information in NuTRIS and the Standard Operating Procedures Manual

(DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-4) indicates that reconstructed mean doses reported by Thomas et al. 

(1983) are assigned to all unbadged participants on those ships. This procedure probably results 

in substantial underestimates of mean doses and upper bounds to those participants. 

On the fourth ship—the USS YUMA—where exposure rates were assumed to be 

determined by measurements on Kwajalein Atoll and on other ships at Enewetak Atoll, the high 

film badge readings compared with the reconstructed mean dose were attributed to exposures 

between the time this ship left Enewetak Atoll, when badges presumably were turned in, and the 

time more than a week later when badges presumably were processed (Thomas et al., 1983). 

However, estimates of exposures on other ships during that period may not be sufficient to 

explain the high badge readings, and it may not be reasonable to conclude that the reconstructed 

mean dose does not substantially underestimate doses to crew members. An upper bound factor 

of about 7 is required to give an upper bound that is at least a 95% confidence limit. 

It also is important to emphasize that doses to crew members on ships at Operation IVY 

were low. On the USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, FLETCHER, and YUMA, where 

reconstructed mean doses generally are substantially less than film badge readings (i.e., use of a 

3X upper bound factor gives upper bounds that do not exceed at least 95% of all badge readings) 

and there is no evident explanation of the discrepancies, the highest badge reading reported by 

Thomas et al. (1983) is 220 mrem on the USS O’BANNON, and all reported badge readings on 

97
 

the other three ships are 130 mrem or less. Exposures on ships at this operation do not provide 

an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor at higher residual gamma 

doses. We also note that some discrepancies between reconstructed doses and film badge 

readings on ships may reflect difficulties in measuring low exposure rates and the need to 

estimate exposures on the USS YUMA, where measurements were lacking, on the basis of 

measurements on nearby ships or islands (Thomas et al., 1983; DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-4). 

Overall, however, discrepancies do not tend to occur more frequently on ships where exposure 

rates were not measured. 

References

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Gladeck, F. R., Hallowell, J.H., Martin, E.J., McMullan, F.W., Miller, R.H., Pozega, R., Rogers, 

W.E., Rowland, R.H., Shelton, C.F., Berkhouse, L., Davis, S., Doyle, M.K., and Jones, 

C.B., 1982, Operation IVY: 1952, DNA 6036F (Kaman Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

Gminder, R., 1981. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel in Task Group 132.2, Joint Task 

Force 132, During Operation IVY,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., 

McLean, VA). 

Martinez, D., 1995a. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS GENESSEE (AOG 8), 

Operation IVY (1952),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Martinez, D., 1995b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS TOLOVANA (AO 64), 

Operation IVY (1952),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Thomas, C., 1989a. “Augmented Radiation Doses for Participants at Operation IVY,” 

memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Thomas, C., 1989b. “Radiation Dose Assessment, 516th Military Police Company, Operation 

IVY,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

98
 

Thomas, C., Stuart, J., Goetz, J., and Klemm, J., 1983. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval 

Personnel at Operation IVY, DNA-TR-82-98 (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA). 

Weitz, R., 2000. “Dose Assessment for Members of Cargo Handling Battalion #4, Kwajalein 

Atoll, Operation IVY (1952),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

99
 

11. OPERATIONS AT PPG – V. 

OPERATION CASTLE (1954) 

11.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

Dose reconstructions for military units at Operation CASTLE, which was conducted at 

Bikini and Enewetak Atolls, are given in published reports by Thomas et al. (1984), Goetz et al. 

(1987), and Thomas et al. (1991). All dose reconstructions are concerned with exposure to 

residual gamma radiation due to fallout from the six shots at this operation (Shot BRAVO on 

March 1, Shot ROMEO on March 27, Shot KOON on April 7, Shot UNION on April 26, Shot 

YANKEE on May 5, and Shot NECTAR on May 14). The initial dose reconstructions by 

Thomas et al. (1984) considered exposures on 16 ships where available film badge readings were 

insufficient to assess doses to all crew members and exposures on residence islands at Enewetak 

and Kwajalein Atolls where badge readings were lacking. Dose reconstructions by Thomas et al. 

(1991) extended the analyses by Thomas et al. (1984) to include eight additional ships where 

available film badge readings were insufficient to assess doses to all crew members. The dose 

reconstruction by Goetz et al. (1987) considered a special case of service personnel stationed on 

Rongerik Atoll who received unusually high doses due to fallout from Shot BRAVO. 

11.1.1 Exposures on Ships

11.1.1.1 Comparisons Based on Film Badge Readings in Unit Dose Reconstructions. Of 

the 16 ships that were considered in dose reconstructions performed by Thomas et al. (1984), 

reconstructed doses to an average crew member were compared with film badge readings on 

only three ships (the USS ESTES, PHILIP, and SIOUX), whereas comparisons were provided on 

all eight ships that were considered in dose reconstructions performed by Thomas et al. (1991). 

The relevant film badge readings are readings of cohort badges that were issued to selected 

individuals and were assumed to represent doses to other crew members who performed similar 

duties in the same area on a ship. Mission badges that were issued to participants when they 

were expected to enter contaminated areas other than those encountered on ships were not 

included in comparisons with reconstructed doses. 

100
 

Reconstructed mean doses to average crew members on 11 ships during defined time 

periods are compared with film badge readings on the basis of information given in Thomas et 

al. (1984; 1991) as follows:33

 USS ESTES – 

 February 28 – March 9 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.32 rem34

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–6.0 rem (49 total badges) 

 March 10 – May 3 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.56 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–2.0 rem (48 total badges) 

 May 4 – May 14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.027 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.54 rem (52 total badges) 

 February 28 – May 14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.93 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.5–8.0 rem (39 individuals) 

USS PHILIP – 

 February 25 – March 5 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 2.00 rem35

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.5–6.5 rem (35 total badges) 

 March 6 – May 2 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.04 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–1.1 rem (34 total badges) 

 33Reconstructed mean doses are tabulated values and exclude doses to participants who were 

involved in decontamination activities on the USS ESTES or USS PHILIP after Shot BRAVO on 

March 1. Ranges of film badge readings, which were not tabulated, are estimated from histograms given 

in figures (Thomas et al., 1984; 1991); these ranges may overestimate actual ranges of badge readings. 

On the USS ESTES, PHILIP, and SIOUX, entries for the period from February 24, 25, or 28 through 

May 14 or 16 are reconstructed mean doses for the entire period of the operation and sums of film badge 

readings for the relatively few participants with badge readings for all three shorter periods. 

34 Reconstructed mean dose during decontamination activities on March 1 is 0.28 rem. 

35 Reconstructed mean dose during decontamination activities on March 1 is 0.43 rem. 

101
 

 May 3 – May 14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.42 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.05–0.25 rem (25 total badges) 

 February 25 – May 14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 3.6 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 1.4–4.2 rem (16 individuals) 

USS SIOUX – 

 February 24 – March 7 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.31 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.15–0.75 rem (15 total badges) 

 March 8 – April 11 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.80 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–0.95 rem (10 total badges) 

 April 12 – May 16 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.64 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.3–0.9 rem (14 total badges) 

 February 24 – May 16 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.8 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.8–2.3 rem (9 individuals) 

USS RECLAIMER – 

 April 13 – April 19 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.026 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.2 rem (13 total badges) 

 April 20 – April 27 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.033 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.4 rem (42 total badges) 

 April 28 – May 3 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.13 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.5 rem (82 total badges) 

102
 

USS SHEA – 

 March 30 – May 2 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.32 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.4 rem (21 total badges) 

USS COCOPA – 

 February 23 – March 6 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.80 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.4–1.1 rem (7 total badges) 

 March 10 – April 29 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.87 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–1.2 rem (12 total badges) 

 May 1 – May 7 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.22 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–1.0 rem (11 total badges) 

 May 8 – May 18 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.07 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–1.0 rem (12 total badges) 

USS MENDER – 

 March 27 – April 27 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.59 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–0.6 rem (3 total badges) 

 April 30 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.25 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–0.4 rem (5 total badges) 

 May 1 – May 10 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.35 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–0.6 rem (10 total badges) 

103
 

USS MOLALA – 

 February 28 – March 5 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.069 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.25 rem (81 total badges) 

 March 13 – March 30 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.35 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–0.45 rem (12 total badges) 

 March 31 – April 11 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.58 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–1.19 rem (81 total badges) 

 April 12 – May 2 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.14 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.1–1.3 rem (57 total badges) 

 May 4 – May 7 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.17 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.80 rem (82 total badges) 

 May 8 – May 16 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.43 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.9 rem (78 total badges) 

USS TAWAKONI – 

 February 28 – March 7 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.24 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.5 rem (10 total badges) 

 March 12 – May 3,4 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.45 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.5 rem (9 total badges) 

 May 3,4 – May 8 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.18 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.8 rem (7 total badges) 

104
 

USS PC-1546 – 

 February 24 – March 6 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.74 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.5–0.8 rem (4 total badges) 

 March 7 – April 30 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.69 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.4 rem (4 total badges) 

USS LST-1146 – 

 March 19 – April 3 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.19 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.3 rem (12 total badges) 

In several cases, exposure rates were not measured on a ship, and reconstructed doses were based 

in part on measurements on nearby ships or islands. These cases include exposures on the USS 

RECLAIMER and TAWAKONI during all periods, the USS MOLALA during the first and last 

period, and the USS PC-1546 during the second period (Thomas et al., 1991). 

In several comparisons summarized above, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that does not exceed at least 95% of the film 

badge readings without accounting for the bias of a factor of 1.3 in badge readings at this 

operation (see Table 1.1). Unadjusted badge readings that exceed the reconstructed mean dose 

by more than a factor of three, as estimated from information given in histograms (Thomas et al., 

1984; 1991), are summarized as follows: 

• USS ESTES (February 28 – March 9) – four of 49 badge readings exceed the upper 

bound for an average crew member, with the highest badge reading exceeding the 

reconstructed mean dose of 1.32 rem by a factor of about 4.5, but only two badge 

readings (< 5%) exceed the upper bound for members of a decontamination crew; 

• USS ESTES (May 4–14) – about 48 of 52 badge readings, with the highest badge reading 

exceeding the reconstructed mean dose of 0.027 rem by a factor of about 20; 

• USS ESTES (February 28 – May 14) – four of 39 badge readings exceed the upper bound 

for an average crew member, with the highest badge reading exceeding the reconstructed 

105
 

mean dose of 1.93 rem by a factor of about 4, but no more than two badge readings (5%) 

exceed the upper bound for members of a decontamination crew;36

• USS RECLAIMER (April 20–27) – 16 of 42 badge readings, with the highest badge 

reading exceeding the reconstructed mean dose of 0.033 rem by a factor of about 10; 

• USS COCOPA (May 1–7) – at least four of 11 badge readings, with the highest badge 

reading exceeding the reconstructed mean dose of 0.22 rem by a factor of about 4; 

• USS COCOPA (May 8–18) – at least nine of 12 badge readings, with the highest badge 

reading exceeding the reconstructed mean dose of 0.07 rem by a factor of about 13; 

• USS MOLALA (April 12 – May 2) – at least 23 of 57 badge readings, with the highest 

badge reading exceeding the reconstructed mean dose of 0.14 rem by a factor of about 9; 

• USS MOLALA (May 4–7) – about eight of 82 badge readings, with the highest badge 

reading exceeding the reconstructed mean dose of 0.17 rem by a factor of about 4.5. 

The extent to which the highest film badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more 

than a factor of three tends to decrease as the reconstructed mean dose increases. In the two 

cases on the USS ESTES, where reconstructed mean doses are the highest, fewer than 5% of all 

unadjusted badge readings would exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of 

three if the highest badge readings apply to members of a decontamination crew. 

When the bias factor of 1.3 in film badge readings at this operation is taken into account, 

adjusted badge readings that exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three 

in the eight cases listed above are summarized as follows: 

• USS ESTES (February 28 – March 9) – Two of 49 adjusted badge readings (< 5%) 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose for an average crew member by more than a factor of 

three, and no adjusted badge readings exceed the reconstructed mean dose for members 

of a decontamination crew by more than a factor of three. 

• USS ESTES (May 4–14) – About 43 of 52 adjusted badge readings (83%) exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. To obtain an upper bound that 

 36 Film badge readings in NuTRIS indicate that only one set of badge readings that cover the 

entire period of the operation exceeds three times the reconstructed mean dose of 2.21 rem for members 

of a decontamination crew. 

106
 

exceeds at least 95% of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 10 is 

required. 

• USS ESTES (February 28 – May 14) – No more than one of 39 adjusted badge readings 

(< 5%) exceeds the reconstructed mean dose for an average crew member by more than a 

factor of three, and no adjusted badge readings exceed the reconstructed mean dose for 

members of a decontamination crew by more than a factor of three. 

• USS RECLAIMER (April 20–27) – About six of 42 adjusted badge readings (14%) 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. To obtain an upper 

bound that exceeds at least 95% of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of 

about 5 is required. 

• USS COCOPA (May 1–7) – Two of 11 adjusted badge readings (18%) exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. To obtain an upper bound that 

exceeds at least 95% of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 3.3 is 

required. 

• USS COCOPA (May 8–18) – At least nine of 12 adjusted badge readings (75%) exceed 

the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. To obtain an upper bound 

that exceeds at least 95% of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of about 8 

is required. 

• USS MOLALA (April 12 – May 2) – About 20 of 57 adjusted badge readings (35%) 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. To obtain an upper 

bound that exceeds at least 95% of all adjusted badge readings, an upper bound factor of 

about 5 is required. 

• USS MOLALA (May 4–7) – About four of 82 adjusted badge readings (< 5%) exceed 

the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

Thus, use of a 3X upper bound factor is adequate in the first and third cases on the USS ESTES 

and the second case on the USS MOLALA but is inadequate in the other five cases. In those five 

cases, the required upper bound factor ranges from slightly greater than 3 to about 10. 

11.1.1.2 Consideration of Film Badge Readings in NuTRIS. Comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings on ships presented in the previous section are based 

107
 

on badge readings summarized in histograms by Thomas et al. (1984; 1991). We also 

investigated whether NuTRIS gives additional badge readings for participants on ships that could 

be compared with reconstructed doses. 

An important characteristic of data in NuTRIS for participants on ships at Operation 

CASTLE is that the same badge reading, with the same badge number, often is assigned to 

several individuals during a given time period. This indicates that NuTRIS does not distinguish 

between doses to participants who were issued film badges and doses to unbadged participants in 

a defined cohort. Given this limitation, the following discussion of film badge readings in 

NuTRIS for participants on ships focuses on the number of distinct readings at different doses, 

not the total number of doses that are assigned on the basis of badge readings. 

We first considered cases discussed in the previous section where Thomas et al. (1984; 

1991) compared film badge readings with reconstructed doses. The primary purpose was to 

investigate whether NuTRIS gives additional badge readings not summarized in histograms in 

the published reports that exceed a reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. No 

such badge readings are given in NuTRIS in cases of exposure on the USS ESTES, PHILIP, and 

SIOUX that were considered by Thomas et al. (1984). However, NuTRIS gives additional high 

badge readings in some cases that were considered by Thomas et al. (1991), including badge 

readings that exceed the highest readings shown in histograms in cases of exposure on the USS 

RECLAIMER (April 28 – May 3), USS COCOPA (May 1–7 and May 8–18), USS MENDER 

(May 1–10), and USS MOLALA (February 28 – March 5, April 12 – May 2, May 4–7, and 

May 8–16). The number of distinct high badge readings in NuTRIS in these cases ranges from 

one to five. 

Most of the higher badge readings noted above were reported by Thomas et al. (1991) but 

were not included in comparisons with reconstructed doses. Some of those readings were 

excluded on the grounds that they represent exposures during special operations, such as retrieval 

and handling of contaminated instruments or mines in Bikini Lagoon, and other readings were 

excluded on the grounds that they are much higher than readings that apply to typical crew 

members. Since only a few higher badge readings in NuTRIS were not included in comparisons 

with reconstructed doses by Thomas et al. (1991) and it is questionable whether those badge 

readings apply to typical crew members, the additional badge readings are not taken into account 

in evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor on ships at this operation. However, the 

108
 

higher badge readings in NuTRIS raise questions about whether all relevant badge readings were 

included in comparisons with reconstructed doses by Thomas et al. (1991). 

We then considered cases where Thomas et al. (1984) did not provide comparisons of 

reconstructed doses on ships with film badge readings. As noted in the previous section, Thomas 

et al. (1984) provided comparisons on only three of the 16 ships (the USS ESTES, PHILIP, and 

SIOUX) where dose reconstructions were performed; available badge readings on those ships 

were judged sufficient to allow meaningful comparisons. We investigated whether badge 

readings in NuTRIS for participants on the other 13 ships could be compared with reconstructed 

doses given by Thomas et al. (1984). On all ships except the USS LST-825 and LST-975, where 

NuTRIS does not give any badge readings, NuTRIS gives a substantial number of badge 

readings for specified time periods that are sufficiently long that the readings may not apply to 

mission badges. Comparisons of distinct badge readings with reconstructed mean doses in cases 

where at least five distinct readings are given in NuTRIS are summarized as follows:37

USS APACHE – 

 February 28 – April 4 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.96 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.075–0.795 rem (12 readings) 

 March 12 – May 8 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.87 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.04–1.2 rem (10 readings) 

 April 14 – May 8 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.17 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.05–0.44 rem (11 readings) 

 37 In cases where NuTRIS gives hundreds of film badge readings, only a representative sample of 

badge readings was used to estimate the range of badge readings and the total number of distinct readings. 

These cases include badge readings for participants on the USS BAIROKO, BELLE GROVE, CURTISS, 

EPPERSON, NICHOLAS, and RENSHAW. 

109
 

USS BAIROKO – 

 February 28 – March 11 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.89 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.15–1.67 and 4.4 rem (35 readings) 

 March 11 – April 29 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.70 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.45 and 1.695 rem (14 readings) 

 April 5–29 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.16 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.02–0.29 rem (13 readings) 

 May 1–15 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.14 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.05–0.335 rem (11 readings) 

 May 4–15 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.11 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.12–0.435 rem (14 readings) 

 USS BELLE GROVE – 

 February 28 – March 6 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.01 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.45–1.88 rem (19 readings) 

 March 6 – April 12 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.68 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.20–0.94 rem (24 readings) 

 April 13–27 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.068 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.10 rem (5 readings) 

 April 27 – May 11 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.14 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.02–0.31 and 1.05 rem (16 readings) 

110
 

 USS CURTISS – 

 February 28 – March 6 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.31 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.47 rem (17 readings) 

 March 8 – May 1 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.14 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.60 rem (13 readings) 

 USS EPPERSON – 

 March 9–30 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.25 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.05–0.83 rem (16 readings) 

 March 31 – May 5 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.08 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.11 rem (5 readings) 

 May 5–14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.009 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.015–0.20 rem (7 readings) 

 USS FRED C. AINSWORTH – 

 March 1–7 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.35 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.02–0.25 rem (10 readings) 

 USS GYPSY – 

 March 1–7 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 1.58 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 1.0–3.1 rem (8 readings) 

111
 

 USS LST-551 – 

 February 28 – March 6 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.19 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.04–0.11, 0.83, and 1.05 rem (9 readings) 

 April 19 – May 16 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.076 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.215–0.375 rem (8 readings) 

 USS LST-762 – 

 March 10–16 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.048 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.13–0.43 rem (8 readings) 

 USS NICHOLAS – 

 March 19 – April 2 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.19 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.355 rem (11 readings) 

 May 4–14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.055 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.085–0.29 rem (9 readings) 

 USS RENSHAW – 

 March 1–9 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.15 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.10–0.905 rem (19 readings) 

 March 10 – April 29 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.36 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.625 rem (19 readings) 

 April 29 – May 14 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.28 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.13–0.35 rem (9 readings) 

112
 

In several cases, exposure rates were not measured on a ship, and reconstructed doses were based 

partly on measurements on Enewetak Atoll. These cases include exposures on the USS 

EPPERSON during the last period, the USS LST-551 during both periods, the USS LST-762, the 

USS NICHOLAS during the first period, and the USS RENSHAW during the first period. 

 Of the 27 cases summarized above, there are six cases where use of a 3X upper bound 

factor on the reconstructed mean dose does not appear to give an upper bound that exceeds at 

least 95% of all distinct badge readings when the bias factor of 1.3 in badge readings at this 

operation is taken into account. These cases are summarized as follows: 

• USS EPPERSON (May 5–14) – Six of seven adjusted badge readings exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose of 0.009 rem by more than a factor of three, and the highest 

adjusted badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 17. 

• USS LST-551 (February 28 – March 6) – Two of nine adjusted badge readings exceed 

the reconstructed mean dose of 0.19 rem by more than a factor of three, and the highest 

adjusted badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 4. 

• USS LST-551 (April 19 – May 16) – Three of eight adjusted badge readings exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose of 0.076 rem by more than a factor of three, and the highest 

adjusted badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 4. 

• USS LST-762 (March 10–16) – Four of eight adjusted badge readings exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose of 0.048 rem by more than a factor of three, and the highest 

adjusted badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 7. 

• USS NICHOLAS (May 4–14) – One of nine adjusted badge readings exceeds the 

reconstructed mean dose of 0.055 rem by a factor of 4. 

• USS RENSHAW (March 1–9) – Two of 19 adjusted badge readings exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose of 0.15 rem by more than a factor of three, and the highest 

adjusted badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 5. 

In all these cases, reconstructed mean doses and film badge readings tend to be lower than in the 

other cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper 

bound that exceeds all badge readings in NuTRIS. When the reconstructed mean dose is at least 

113
 

0.31 rem, the highest badge reading in NuTRIS exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by less than 

a factor of three.38 

Of the six cases summarized above, perhaps the clearest case where use of a 3X upper 

bound factor appears to be inadequate involves exposure on the USS RENSHAW during the 

period March 1–9. There is a substantial number of distinct badge readings, and the highest 

readings do not appear to be outliers compared with other higher readings that exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose by less than a factor of three. The reconstructed dose in this case was 

based on measured exposure rates on residence islands at Enewetak Atoll. In the other five 

cases, either there are relatively few badge readings (all five cases have fewer than 10 distinct 

readings), the highest adjusted badge readings in three cases do not exceed the reconstructed 

mean dose by much more than a factor of three, or it is possible that the highest badge readings 

are outliers that do not apply to typical crew members (on the LST-551 during the period 

February 28 – March 6, the two highest badge readings are at least a factor of 7.5 and 9.5 higher 

than any other reading). 

Thomas et al. (1984) did not provide an explanation of why film badge readings on the 

11 ships discussed above were not reported and compared with reconstructed doses, other than a 

statement which implied that available badge readings were insufficient to allow meaningful 

comparisons. The number of badge readings does not appear to be an important limitation, 

because the number of readings in NuTRIS in many of those cases is comparable to or greater 

than the number of readings on the USS SIOUX that were reported by Thomas et al. (1984) and 

compared with reconstructed doses. Given the doubt about whether film badge readings in 

NuTRIS that were not reported by Thomas et al. (1984) can be compared with reconstructed 

doses on the 11 ships, these comparisons are not used in our evaluation of the adequacy of a 3X 

upper bound factor on ships. However, badge readings on the 11 ships given in NuTRIS raise 

questions about whether all relevant badge readings were taken into account in comparisons with 

reconstructed doses on all ships that were considered by Thomas et al. (1984). 

 38 It also is possible that more than one badge reading at the same dose given in NuTRIS 

represents readings of more than one badge, and this possibility presumably is less likely at higher badge 

readings. If this situation occurred in any cases summarized above, the number of badge readings that 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three would be reduced. However, we 

cannot evaluate this possibility on the basis of information in NuTRIS. 

114
 

11.1.2 Exposures on Residence Islands

Thomas et al. (1984) gives reconstructed mean doses on residence islands during the 

period March 1 – May 31 of 1.09 rem at Enewetak Atoll and 0.32 rem at Kwajalein Atoll. In a 

subsequent dose reconstruction at Kwajalein Atoll in an SAIC memorandum (Raine, 1998), the 

reconstructed mean dose was increased to 0.73 rem. Film badge readings for participants on 

residence islands during that period were not reported by Thomas et al. (1984) or Raine (1998). 

Limited information on film badge readings at Enewetak Atoll is given by Martin and 

Rowland (1982). During the period following Shot BRAVO on March 1, readings of two badges 

that were placed at different locations are 0.075 and 0.11 R; the period of exposure was not 

specified. These badge readings are less than the reconstructed mean dose during periods ending 

March 2 or later (Thomas et al., 1984). During the period March 24 – April 9, readings of ten 

film badges that were placed at different locations range from 0.265 to 1.57 R. The 

reconstructed mean dose during that period is 0.51 rem (Thomas et al., 1984), and the highest 

badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of about three. 

NuTRIS gives film badge readings for many participants in various units that were 

stationed on Enewetak Atoll. Those badge readings cover many time periods, ranging from a 

day or two to the entire period of the operation. Many badges readings in NuTRIS, especially 

badges that were issued for periods of a few days or less, presumably apply to mission badges 

that recorded exposures at locations away from Enewetak Atoll. In addition, badges that were 

issued for longer time periods may have recorded exposures at other locations as well as at 

Enewetak Atoll. Given the doubt about whether film badges with readings in NuTRIS recorded 

exposures at Enewetak Atoll only, comparisons of those badge readings with reconstructed doses 

given by Thomas et al. (1984) may not be meaningful, even in cases where badges were issued 

for an extended period. A similar situation occurs with film badge readings in NuTRIS for 

members of a plane patrol unit that was stationed at Kwajalein Atoll. 

11.1.3 Exposures on Rongerik Atoll

Participants who were stationed on Rongerik Atoll were exposed to high levels of fallout 

from Shot BRAVO on March 1–2. External doses to specific individuals were reconstructed by 

115
 

Goetz et al. (1987) on the basis of measured exposure rates at outdoor and indoor locations on 

March 10, assumptions about the variation in exposure rates over time, as estimated from data 

obtained at Bikini Atoll, and information about locations and times of exposure of specific 

individuals, as obtained from interviews with participants after they were evacuated. 

Reconstructed doses range from 35 to 51 rem, depending on when evacuation occurred and 

fraction of the time an individual spent inside various structures on the atoll. 

Available film badge readings also were considered by Goetz et al. (1987). However, 

interpretation of those readings was not straightforward when badges were not worn 

continuously by specific individuals but were often placed at certain indoor or outdoor locations. 

In addition, there were inconsistencies among the sources of information on badge readings 

concerning assignment of specific badges and in some of the reported readings. 

Film badge readings range from 37.5 to 98 rem. The highest reading applies to a badge 

that was mounted outdoors on a tent pole during the entire period of exposure, and many lower 

readings apply to badges that were stored in a refrigerator. By taking into account the assumed 

activity scenarios for exposed individuals and protection factors during indoor exposures, Goetz 

et al. (1987) concluded that reconstructed doses were about 10–14% higher than comparable film 

badge readings. Thus, even though there were difficulties in interpreting available information 

on badge readings, reconstructed doses are in good agreement with badge readings in this case of 

unusually high exposure. This is a noteworthy result when reconstructed doses could not be 

based on measured exposure rates at the time of exposure. 

11.2 SAIC Memoranda 

Many memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units during Operation CASTLE 

that were not considered in the unit dose reconstructions discussed in Section 11.1 were prepared 

by SAIC (Thomas and Klemm, 1987, 1992; Goetz, 1989; Klemm, 1989; Thomas, 1990, 1991, 

1993a,f; Martinez, 1994, 1995a–k,m–u, 1996a,b, 2001; Ortlieb, 1995a,b; Cockayne, 1997a,b; 

Raine, 1998, 2000a,b). Earlier memoranda (Thomas et al., 1982; Goetz, 1982; Gminder, 1982; 

Thomas, 1983) presumably were superseded by published unit dose reconstructions discussed in 

Section 11.1. Only three memoranda give additional information on comparisons of 

reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. 

116
 

Thomas and Klemm (1987) addressed exposure of crew members on the USS LST-1157. 

Comparisons of reconstructed mean doses with distinct readings of permanent film badges that 

apply during extended periods of exposure are summarized as follows: 

USS LST-1157 – 

 April 5 – May 1 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.155 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.14 rem (11 readings) 

 May 2–15 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.313 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0.125–0.76 and 1.57 rem (14 readings) 

In the first time period, the reconstructed mean dose is higher than all badge readings. In the 

second time period, only one of the 14 distinct badge readings exceeds the reconstructed mean 

dose by more than a factor of three. When the bias factor of 1.3 in film badges at this operation 

is taken into account, the highest adjusted badge reading in the second period exceeds the 

reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 4. The reconstructed dose during the first period was 

based on measured exposure rates on the ship, whereas the reconstructed dose during the second 

period was based on measurements on Parry Island. 

Raine (1998) addressed exposure of participants who were stationed on Majuro Atoll; 

this dose reconstruction superseded a previous dose reconstruction by Thomas (1990). A 

comparison of the reconstructed mean dose given by Raine (1998) with film badge readings for a 

particular time period reported by Thomas (1990) is summarized as follows: 

Majuro Atoll – 

 March 25 – April 20 – 

 – Reconstructed mean dose, 0.11 rem 

 – Range of film badge readings, 0–0.47 rem (14 total badges) 

Only one badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

Furthermore, when the bias factor of 1.3 in film badge readings is taken into account, the highest 

badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by a factor of 3.3, which is only marginally 

117
 

greater than 3. Thus, a possible inadequacy of a 3X upper bound factor probably is not 

significant in this case. 

11.3 Summary of Analysis

Published unit dose reconstructions and an SAIC memorandum provide many 

comparisons of reconstructed mean doses from external exposure to residual gamma radiation at 

Operation CASTLE with film badge readings in cases of exposure to fallout on ships. However, 

except for exposures on Rongerik Atoll to high levels of fallout from Shot BRAVO, only limited 

information that can be used to compare reconstructed mean doses with film badge readings on 

residence islands and other atolls is available in published reports and SAIC memoranda. 

Reconstructed mean doses on ships were compared with film badge readings reported in 

published unit dose reconstructions and an SAIC memorandum in a total of 37 cases. When the 

bias factor of 1.3 in badge readings at this operation is taken into account, these comparisons are 

summarized as follows: 

• In 32 of the 37 cases on ships, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean 

dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all film badge readings or exceeds 

all but one of the badge readings when there were relatively few readings. In three of 

these cases, there are fewer than five badge readings, and comparisons with reconstructed 

doses in those cases may not be meaningful. 

• In 5 of the 37 cases on ships (one case each on the USS ESTES, RECLAIMER, and 

MOLALA and two cases on the USS COCOPA), use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that does not exceed at least 95% of all 

film badge readings. To give upper bounds of reconstructed doses that exceed at least 

95% of all film badge readings or all but one badge reading when there are relatively few 

readings, the required upper bound factor is about 10 on the USS ESTES during the 

period May 4–14, 5 on the USS RECLAIMER during the period April 20–27, 3.3 on the 

USS COCOPA during the period May 1–7, 8 on the USS COCOPA during the period 

May 8–18, and 5 on the USS MOLALA during the period April 12 – May 2. 

118
 

In all five cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor is inadequate, reconstructed mean doses 

and film badge readings tend to be low compared with reconstructed mean doses and badge 

readings in the 32 cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor is adequate. Reconstructed mean 

doses in the five cases are 0.22 rem or less and almost all badge readings are 1 rem or less, 

whereas in several cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor is adequate, reconstructed mean 

doses are above 1 rem and the highest badge readings are about 4 rem or higher. We also noted 

that the required upper bound factor of 3.3 in one case on the USS COCOPA is only slightly 

greater than 3. This comparison probably does not indicate a significant discrepancy between 

the reconstructed dose and film badge readings. In four of the five cases, reconstructed doses 

were based on measured exposure rates on that ship; only on the USS RECLAIMER was the 

reconstructed dose based on measured exposure rates on nearby ships or islands. 

Limited information that can be used to compare reconstructed mean doses on Enewetak, 

Kwajalein, and Majuro Atolls with film badge readings suggests that use of a 3X upper bound 

factor gives upper bounds that exceed doses that were received by at least 95% of all participants 

at those locations. However, this conclusion may not be definitive when very few comparisons 

could be made on the basis of film badge readings in published reports or SAIC memoranda. In 

the case of very high exposures on Rongerik Atoll, however, reconstructed doses are in good 

agreement with film badge readings. 

Extensive film badge readings for participants on ships or residence islands given in 

NuTRIS also were investigated. Badge readings in NuTRIS were not used in evaluating the 

adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in estimating upper bounds of reconstructed doses, mainly 

because there is doubt about whether badge readings in NuTRIS that were not given in published 

reports or SAIC memoranda apply to conditions of exposure that were taken into account in dose 

reconstructions. However, the additional badge readings in NuTRIS raise questions about 

whether an analysis based only on badge readings that were given in published reports or SAIC 

memoranda provides an accurate accounting of cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor is 

inadequate. This concern seems especially important on 11 ships where film badge readings 

were not reported by Thomas et al. (1984) and compared with reconstructed doses, even though 

a substantial number of badge readings are given in NuTRIS, and an explanation for the 

omission of badge readings in NuTRIS was not provided. If badge readings in NuTRIS are 

relevant, use of a 3X upper bound factor could be inadequate in six of an additional 27 cases on 

119
 

ships, including exposures on the USS EPPERSON during the period May 5–14, USS LST-551 

during the periods February 28 – March 6 and April 19 – May 16, USS LST-762 during the 

period March 10–16, USS NICHOLAS during the period May 4–14, and USS RENSHAW 

during the period March 1–9. 

Finally, it is important to emphasize that although use of a 3X upper bound factor was 

found to be inadequate in a number of cases on ships at Operation CASTLE, these inadequacies 

probably are mitigated by the use of cohort badges to estimate doses to unbadged participants 

(Thomas et al., 1984, 1991; DTRA, 2008, Appendix B.5). By use of cohort badging, 

reconstructed doses that may significantly underestimate doses to participants on ships in some 

cases generally are not assigned to unbadged participants. 

References

Cockayne, J., 1997a. “Resolution of USS NICHOLAS (DDE 449) Badging Period Issues,” 

memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 6). 

Cockayne, J., 1997b. “USS RENSHAW (DDE 499) First Period Fixes; Operation CASTLE 

(1954),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 12). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Gminder, R., 1982. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel on Kwajalein Atoll During 

Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) 

(August 19). 

Goetz, J., 1982. “Estimation of Radiation Dose to Shipboard Personnel, Shot BRAVO, 

Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to Navy Nuclear Test Personnel Review (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (June 28). 

Goetz, J., Klemm, J., Phillips, J., and Thomas, C., 1987. Analysis of Radiation Exposure – 

Service Personnel on Rongerik Atoll, Operation Castle – Shot Bravo, DNA-TR-86-120 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

120
 

Goetz, J., 1989. “Extension of Dose Tables, Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to Cdr. Bell, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(August 2). 

Klemm, J., 1989. “Dose Augmentation for Airmen in USS Bairoko, Operation Castle,” 

memorandum to Cdr. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 6). 

Klemm, J., 1992. “Exposure Potential to Engineering Crew from Radioactive Samples in 

NICHOLAS,” memorandum to Capt.. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 10). 

Martin E.J., and Rowland, R.H., 1982. CASTLE Series, 1954, DNA 6035F (Kaman Tempo, 

Santa Barbara, CA). 

Martinez, D., 1994. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS TOMBIGBEE 

(AOG 11), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 25). 

Martinez, D., 1995a. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS WANDANK 

(ATA 204), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 15). 

Martinez, D., 1995b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS GENESEE (AOG 8), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 17). 

Martinez, D., 1995c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS ELKHORN (AOG 7), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 18). 

Martinez, D., 1995d. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS DELIVER (ARS 23), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 19). 

Martinez, D., 1995e. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS UTE (ATF 76), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 20). 

121
 

Martinez, D., 1995f. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS COMSTOCK 

(LSD 19), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 21). 

Martinez, D., 1995g. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS NAVASOTA 

(AOG 106), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 24). 

Martinez, D., 1995h. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS YO 120, Operation 

CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 1). 

Martinez, D., 1995i. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS MISSPILLION 

(AO 105), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 2). 

Martinez, D., 1995j. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS PATAPSCO (AOG 1), 

19 April 1954 Through 31 May 1955, Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to 

M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (May 2). 

Martinez, D., 1995k. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS AREQUIPA (AF 31), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 3). 

Martinez, D., 1995m. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS GRAINGER 

(AK 184), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 4). 

Martinez, D., 1995n. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS MANATEE (AO 58), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 5). 

Martinez, D., 1995o. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS NAMAKAGON 

(AOG 53), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 6). 

Martinez, D., 1995p. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS UNADILLA 

(ATA 182), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 7). 

122
 

Martinez, D., 1995q. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS NICHOLAS 

(DDE 449), 18 July 1954 Through 31 May 1955, Operation CASTLE (1954),” 

memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 9). 

Martinez, D., 1995r. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel at Ponape Island and Kusaie 

Island, Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 11). 

Martinez, D., 1995s. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USNS LEO (T-AKA 60), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 29). 

Martinez, D., 1995t. “Daily Dose Table for Personnel in USS MERAPI (AF 38), Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 27). 

Martinez, D., 1995u. “Daily Dose Table for Personnel in USS LST 1157, Post-Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 3). 

Martinez, D., 1996a. “Daily Dose Table for Personnel at Majuro Atoll, Operation CASTLE 

(1954),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 31). 

Martinez, D., 1996b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USNS GENERAL M. M. 

PATRICK (T-AP 150), Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(July 12). 

Martinez, D., 2001. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USNS LEO (T-AKA 60), 

Operation CASTLE (1954),” memorandum to Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 8). 

Ortlieb, E., 1995a. “Sub-Categories of Personnel of the Task Group 7.3 Boat Pool at Operation 

CASTLE and Resultant Radiation Dose Calculations,” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(December 11). 

123
 

Ortlieb, E., 1995b. “Calculation and Assignment of Radiation Doses for Naval Personnel at 

Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 11). 

Raine, D., 1998. “Revised Radiation Dose Calculations for Personnel on Kwajalein and Majuro 

Atolls during Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special 

Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(June 23). 

Raine, D., 2000a. “Radiation Dose Calculations for Personnel on Johnston Island during 

Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 25). 

Raine, D., 2000b. “Revised Radiation Dose Calculations for Personnel aboard USS 

NAVASOTA (AOG 106) during Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (December 29). 

Thomas, C., 1983. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel on the Residence Islands of 

Enewetak Atoll During Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (May 4). 

Thomas, C., 1990. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Majuro Atoll during Operation CASTLE – 

1954,” memorandum to Capt. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 4). 

Thomas, C., 1991. “Dosimetry Analysis for Crew of B-36 (#1086) at Operation CASTLE (RE 

William Adamson’s Dose Reconstruction of 13 March 1991),” memorandum to Capt. 

Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, 

VA) (April 16). 

Thomas, C., 1993a. “Radiation Dose Assessment for the Crew in USS PC 1145 at Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 10). 

Thomas, C., 1993b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for the Crew in USS PC 1141 at Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 11). 

124
 

Thomas, C., 1993c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for the Crew in USS PC 1172 at Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 12). 

Thomas, C., 1993d. “Generic Dose Assessment for USS FARIBAULT (AK 179) at Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 15). 

Thomas, C., 1993e. “Radiation Dose Assessment for USS SILVERSTEIN (DE 534) at 

Operation CASTLE,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 10). 

Thomas, C., 1993f. “Dose Assessment for USS DOUGLAS A. MUNRO (DE 422) at Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 12). 

Thomas, C., Klemm, J., and Goetz, J., 1982. “Dose Reconstruction for Military Personnel on 

Rongerik Atoll, Marshall Islands, 1–2 March 1954,” memorandum to Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (February 23). 

Thomas, C., Goetz, J., Klemm, J., and Weitz, R., 1984. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for 

Naval Personnel at Operation CASTLE, DNA-TR-84-6 (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Thomas, C., Goetz, J., Klemm, J., and Ortlieb, E., 1991. Analysis of Radiation Exposure for 

Additional Naval Personnel at Operation CASTLE – Supplemental Report, DNA-TR-89-

256 (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA). 

Thomas, C., and Klemm, J., 1987. “Radiation Dose Determination, USS LST-1157, Operation 

CASTLE,” memorandum to Nuclear Test Personnel Review (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 24). 

125
 

12. OPERATIONS AT PPG – VI. 

OPERATION WIGWAM (1955) 

12.1 Unit Dose Reconstructions 

Operation WIGWAM consisted of a single deep underwater test at a location about 

500 miles southwest of San Diego, California. Participants on a few ships, including members of 

a boat pool, were potentially exposed to fallout from that shot (Weary et al., 1981). 

There are no published dose reconstructions for military units at Operation WIGWAM, 

nor are any unit dose reconstructions given in SAIC memoranda. Therefore, comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings cannot be made. However, since all participants 

apparently were issued film badges and participants who were located in areas where exposure 

could have occurred were issued additional badges on a daily basis (Weary et al., 1981), there 

has been no evident need for unit dose reconstructions to be performed. 

12.2 Information on Doses to Participants 

Information on film badge readings for participants at Operation WIGWAM is 

summarized by Weary et al. (1981). About 91% of all badges that were issued have a reading 

below 0.1 rem, in which case a mean dose of zero has been assigned, readings of 3.4% of the 

badges were unavailable, 5% have a reading that ranges from 0.1 to 0.165 rem, and 0.5% have a 

reading above 0.165 rem; the highest reading, which applies to a member of an aviation support 

group, is 0.425 rem. It is thus apparent that doses at this operation generally were low. 

Distributions of film badge readings on selected ships where there are non-zero readings are 

summarized in Table 12.1. 

An SAIC memorandum (Booker, 1998) indicates that a mean dose and upper bound of 

zero have been assigned to participants with a film badge reading of zero (i.e., < 0.1 rem), except 

in cases of exposure on ships where at least 5% of the badge readings exceed the assumed 

threshold for a non-zero dose of 0.1 rem. In the exceptional cases on ships, an upper bound of 

0.1 rem has been assigned to participants with a badge reading of zero; this upper bound applies 

to members of a boat pool and to personnel on the M/V HORIZON and the USS BOLSTER, 

126
 

CHANTICLEER, GEORGE EASTMAN, and TAWASA. On the USS WRIGHT, where 36 of 

839 badge readings are 0.1 rem or above, an upper bound dose of zero has been assigned to 

participants with a badge reading of zero on the grounds that less than 5% of the readings exceed 

0.1 rem; all non-zero readings on that ship are 0.165 rem or less (Weary et al., 1981). 

Table 12.1. Distributions of film badge readings for military participants on selected

ships at Operation WIGWAMa

Ship Number of 

badgesb

Unavailable 

badge readings 

Readings 

< 0.1 remc

Readings 

≥ 0.1 rem 

USS GEORGE 

EASTMAN 49 1 42 6 

USS GRANVILLE S. 

HALL 48 0 47 1 

M/V HORIZON 59 10 18 31 

Boat pool 230 18 181 31 

USS CHANTICLEER 96 0 15 81 

USS TAWASA 73 0 35 38 

USS BOLSTER 91 0 65 25 

USS WRIGHT 974 45 839 36 

USS FRANK E. EVANS 269 27 241 1 

USS ALFRED A. 

CUNNINGHAM 268 12 252 4 

USS CURTISS 573 17 551 5 

USS MCKEAN 256 3 248 5 

USS MOUNT 

MCKINLEY 552 9 538 5 

a

 See Table 4-1 and Appendix J, Table J-3 of Weary et al. (1981). 

b

 In some cases, reported number of film badges is not equal to sum of the number of badge 

readings in each category; reasons for these discrepancies are unknown to us. 

c

 Dose of zero has been assigned when film badge reading is less than 0.1 rem.

Information in NuTRIS indicates that when a film badge reading is unavailable for a 

participant on a ship, a non-zero dose that is based on a dose reconstruction is assigned, except 

on the USS FRANK E. EVANS where there is only one non-zero badge reading. Although the 

127
 

basis for a reconstructed dose is not indicated in NuTRIS and we are not aware of any SAIC 

memoranda that discuss dose reconstructions, non-zero reconstructed doses in NuTRIS range 

from 0.032 rem on the USS MCKEAN to 0.282 rem on the M/V HORIZON. In a few cases, 

including on the M/V HORIZON and USS WRIGHT, the reconstructed dose is substantially 

above the mean of all non-zero badge readings given by Weary et al. (1981). 

12.3 Discussion of Assigned Doses 

Although the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor cannot be evaluated in cases of 

exposure at Operation WIGWAM, because of the absence of dose reconstructions in published 

reports or SAIC memoranda, we believe that three observations are warranted on the basis of 

available information on doses that have been assigned to participants at this operation in cases 

where a badge reading is unavailable or a badge reading is less than 0.1 rem. 

First, in cases where a badge reading is unavailable and a reconstructed dose is given in 

NuTRIS, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed dose gives an upper bound that 

probably exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings on all ships. 

Second, in cases where an upper bound dose of 0.1 rem has been assigned to participants 

with a badge reading of zero, that dose equals or exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings on 

some ships but not on others. However, if a mean dose of 0.1 rem, rather than zero, were 

assigned to those participants, use of a 3X upper bound factor on that mean dose would give an 

upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings on all ships. Use of a 3X upper 

bound factor also should be adequate if a mean dose equal to a nominal minimum detectable 

dose of 0.050 rem (see Section 1.4) were assigned. 

Finally, in cases where an upper bound dose of zero has been assigned to participants 

with a badge reading of zero on the grounds that less than 5% of the badge readings on a ship 

exceed the threshold for a non-zero dose of 0.1 rem, this upper bound may be justifiable when 

there are very few non-zero badge readings (e.g., on the USS FRANK E. EVANS). However, 

we believe that assigning an upper bound dose of zero is difficult to justify when a substantial 

number of badge readings, albeit less than 5%, are above 0.1 rem (e.g., on the USS WRIGHT), 

because assigning an upper bound dose of zero does not give a participant the benefit of the 

doubt in estimating dose. We believe that a more justifiable approach would be to assume a 

128
 

mean dose equal to the nominal minimum detectable dose of 0.050 rem. If such a mean dose 

were assigned, use of a 3X upper bound factor should be adequate in all cases. 

References 

Booker, R., 1988. “WIGWAM Upper Bounds,” memorandum to J. Franconeri, JAYCOR 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 27). 

Weary, S.E., Ozeroff, W.J., Sperling, J.L., Collins, B., Lowery, C.W., and Obermiller, S.K., 

1981. Operation WIGWAM, DNA 6000F (JAYCOR, Alexandria, VA). 

129
 

13. OPERATIONS AT PPG – VII. 

OPERATION REDWING (1956) 

13.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

There are no published dose reconstructions for military units at Operation REDWING, 

which consisted of 17 tests that were conducted at Enewetak and Bikini Atolls between May 5 

and July 22, 1956. However, as discussed in Section 13.3, several dose reconstructions that 

apply to participants on residence islands or ships are given in SAIC memoranda. 

13.2 Discussion of Film Badge Dosimetry 

A comprehensive film badge dosimetry program was conducted during Operation 

REDWING in an effort to provide complete information on external gamma exposures for each 

participant (Bruce-Henderson et al., 1982; McRaney, 1992, 1993). A permanent badge, which 

was to be worn at all times, was issued to each participant who entered a test area. In addition, 

mission badges were issued to participants who were involved in special activities with a known 

potential for radiation exposure, such as cloud sampling and recovery of equipment from 

contaminated areas; these badges were worn only for the duration of a special activity. 

Most permanent badges that were worn for periods of about four weeks or more during 

the operation were found to be damaged due to effects of high heat and humidity, and damaged 

film generally was difficult to read (Bruce-Henderson et al., 1982; McRaney, 1992, 1993; NRC, 

1989). Damaged film often was badly watermarked and showed evidence of severe light leaks. 

Since environmental damage resulted in increases in optical density on the film that also would 

have been caused by exposure to radiation, damaged film would indicate an exposure higher than 

the actual exposure if effects of environmental damage were not taken into account. McRaney 

(1993) estimated that the increase in optical density on damaged film was equivalent to an 

exposure of several hundred mrem. 

Potential overestimates of exposure by several hundred mrem due to environmental 

damage impact an ability to estimate doses reliably on the basis of film badge readings, and they 

limit the extent to which badge readings can be compared with reconstructed doses for the 

130
 

purpose of evaluating the adequacy of applying a 3X upper bound factor to reconstructed mean 

doses. For example, a review and evaluation of film badges for participants on several ships 

(McRaney, 1993) discussed in the following section indicated that, in the worst cases, only a 

small fraction of badge readings above 0.1 rem were considered to be reliable. The fraction of 

reliable readings was judged to approach 50% in the best cases. 

As a result of problems with permanent film badges at this operation, SAIC analysts 

generally evaluate the condition of film badges and the validity of readings on a case-by-case 

basis (DTRA, 2008; Standard Method ED01, Section 5.1.1.2). Reconstructed doses are used in 

lieu of badge readings when readings are judged to be questionable. However, readings of 

badges judged to be questionable may be used to estimate upper bounds of doses when a 

participant’s exposure scenario is highly uncertain. 

13.3 SAIC Memoranda 

Many memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units during Operation 

REDWING were prepared by SAIC (Gminder, 1984; Thomas, 1984a,b, 1985a–c, 1987, 1991, 

1992; Goetz, 1985, 1989; McRaney, 1992, 1993; Klemm, 1994; Martinez, 1994a–c, 1995a–d, 

1996a–k,m–q, 1997; Stiver, 2004). As described below, four of those memoranda give 

information on comparisons of reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. 

Goetz (1985) noted that reconstructed doses for participants in Task Group 7.2 on 

Enewetak Island during the period August 7 – September 30 agree very well with film badge 

readings. Doses during that period were due primarily to fallout from Shot TEWA on July 21. 

Reconstructed doses for participants who spent most of the time indoors range from 0.44 to 

0.954 rem, with an average of 0.70 rem, and reconstructed doses for participants who spent most 

of the time outdoors range from 0.585 to 1.275 rem, with an average of 0.93 rem. However, 

badge readings were not reported by Goetz (1985), and NuTRIS does not give any badge 

readings for participants in this unit during this time period. Therefore, we could not evaluate 

the comparison of reconstructed doses with film badge readings discussed by Goetz (1985). 

Thomas (1985c) noted that reconstructed doses for participants in Task Group 7.2 on 

Enewetak Island and in Task Group 7.1 and Headquarters staff of Joint Task Force 7 on Parry 

Island during the period April 13 – August 6 agree well with means of film badge readings for 

131
 

that period, provided it is assumed that decontamination activities were carried out on Parry 

Island, as indicated in radiological safety reports, but were not carried out on Enewetak Island 

even though levels of contamination should have been similar on the two islands at Enewetak 

Atoll.39 Doses during that period were due primarily to fallout from Shot TEWA. Means of 

badge readings given by Thomas (1985c) are 3.22 rem for Task Group 7.2 on Enewetak Island 

and 2.43 rem and 2.52 rem for Task Group 7.1 and Headquarters staff of Joint Task Force 7, 

respectively, on Parry Island. Reconstructed doses for participants who spent most of the time 

indoors or outdoors on either island are 2.09 and 2.78 rem, respectively, if decontamination is 

assumed and 2.74 and 3.65 rem, respectively, if decontamination is not assumed. NuTRIS does 

not give any badge readings for participants on Enewetak Island that cover the time period of 

interest. On Parry Island, NuTRIS gives badge readings for 11 participants during this period; 

the sum of readings for those participants ranges from 1.41 to 5.45 rem. 

It should be noted that the assumption by Thomas (1985c) that decontamination did not 

occur on Enewetak Island was based on the better agreement between reconstructed doses and 

the mean film badge reading compared with the extent of agreement when decontamination was 

assumed. A comparison based on that assumption does not provide an independent test of the 

validity of reconstructed doses on Enewetak Island. However, even if the assumption that 

decontamination did not occur is incorrect, the mean film badge reading on Enewetak Island 

does not exceed reconstructed doses by more than about 15–55%. In addition, on the basis of 

limited information on film badge readings in NuTRIS, it appears that the highest total doses 

based on those readings are within a factor of three of the lowest reconstructed dose without 

accounting for the bias of a factor of 1.3 in film badge readings at this operation (see Table 1.1). 

McRaney (1992, 1993) compared reconstructed doses with film badge readings for 

participants on some ships as part of an evaluation of the extent of environmental damage to film 

at Operation REDWING. These comparisons are summarized as follows: 

• On the USNS FRED C. AINSWORTH during the period June 22 – July 23, the average 

dose indicated by 80 badges with undamaged film (44% of all badges included in the 

evaluation) is about 0.13 rem, and the highest badge reading is 0.38 rem. The 

 39 Radiological safety reports apparently did not mention whether decontamination activities were 

carried out on Enewetak Island. Previous dose reconstructions for participants on Enewetak Island 

(Thomas, 1984a,b) assumed that decontamination activities were carried out there. 

132
 

reconstructed mean dose is about 0.22 rem.40 Several badges judged to be damaged have 

readings between 0.4 and 0.7 rem. During the period April 28 – June 22, only five films 

(3% of all evaluated badges) were judged to be undamaged; four readings are 0.13 rem or 

less, and one reading is 0.30 rem. The reconstructed mean dose is about 0.11 rem. Many 

badges judged to be damaged have readings between 0.4 and 1.6 rem. In both time 

periods, the highest readings of undamaged badges are within a factor of three of the 

reconstructed mean dose without accounting for the bias factor of 1.3 in badge readings. 

Reconstructed doses were based on comprehensive survey data on this ship. 

• On the USS JAMES E. KYES during the period April 23 – June 21, only three of 212 

film badge readings included in the evaluation were judged to be reliable; those readings 

are between 0.04 and 0.11 rem. The reconstructed mean dose is less than 0.01 rem. 

When the bias factor of 1.3 in badge readings is taken into account, the highest reliable 

reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of 8. Questionable 

badge readings range from less than 0.1 to greater than 1.6 rem. During the period 

June 21 – July 23, 60 of the 207 evaluated film badge readings were judged to be reliable; 

85% of those readings are less than 0.2 rem, and the highest reading is 0.28 rem. The 

reconstructed mean dose, as given by Thomas (1992), is about 0.1 rem. The highest 

reliable badge reading is within a factor of three of the reconstructed mean dose without 

accounting for the bias in badge readings. Questionable badges have readings between 

0.1 and 0.9 rem. Reconstructed doses were based on survey data on nearby ships and 

islands and knowledge of ship locations. 

• On the USS SHELTON during the period April 20 – June 12, 15% of the film badge 

readings included in the evaluation were judged to be reliable; most of those readings are 

less than 0.1 rem, eight readings (about 4% of the total and 30% of the reliable readings) 

are greater than 0.1 rem, and the highest reading is 0.315 rem. The reconstructed mean 

dose is less than 0.01 rem. When the bias factor of 1.3 in badge readings is taken into 

account, the eight reliable badge readings above 0.1 rem exceed the reconstructed mean 

dose by more than a factor of 8. To exceed at least 95% of all reliable badge readings, an 

 40 This reconstructed dose applies to crew members who remained on board the ship during the 

entire period. The reconstructed mean dose for crew members who went on liberty to Enewetak Island on 

July 22 is 0.25 rem. This additional dose could account for some of the higher readings of undamaged 

film badges (McRaney, 1993). 

133
 

upper bound factor of at least 20 probably is required. Questionable badge readings 

range from less than 0.1 to 1.5 rem. During the period June 12 – July 24, evaluated film 

badge readings judged to be reliable are between 0.4 and 1.1 rem. McRaney (1993) 

compared these readings with a “threshold dose” of 0.48 rem, which was calculated on 

the basis of the upper bound of the reconstructed dose for a typical crew member and 

uncertainties in badge readings.41 On the basis of information available to us, it is 

difficult to compare film badge readings with a reconstructed mean dose during this 

period. Questionable badge readings range from 0.5 to greater than 1.6 rem. Doses 

during this period were attributed to relatively high levels of fallout from Shot TEWA 

while the ship was anchored at Enewetak Atoll. Reconstructed doses were based on 

survey data on nearby ships and islands and knowledge of ship locations. 

• On the USS BADOENG STRAIT during the period April 19, 20 – June 13, 14, only one 

film badge reading included in the evaluation was judged to be reliable; that reading is 

between 0.2 and 0.3 rem. The “threshold dose” calculated by McRaney (1993) is 

0.22 rem.42 Questionable badge readings range from 0.2 to greater than 1.6 rem. During 

the period June 13, 14 – July 26, the few evaluated film badge readings judged to be 

reliable are between 0.1 and 0.3 rem. Neither a “threshold dose” nor a reconstructed 

mean dose was given by McRaney (1993); the reconstructed mean dose given by Thomas 

(1991) is 0.22 rem. Questionable badge readings range from 0.2 to 1.6 rem. In both time 

periods, the highest reliable badge reading probably is within a factor of three of the 

reconstructed mean dose without accounting for the bias in badge readings. McRaney 

(1993) did not describe the basis for dose reconstructions. 

• On the USS ESTES during the period April 23–25 – June 25–28, only two film badge 

readings included in the evaluation were judged to be reliable; those readings are between 

0.2 and 0.3 rem. The “threshold dose” calculated by McRaney (1993) is 0.22 rem.43 

 41 A reconstructed mean dose is not given by McRaney (1993), nor is a table of daily doses on 

this ship given in other SAIC memoranda (Thomas, 1991, 1992; Martinez, 1994a,b). The reconstructed 

mean dose presumably is at least 20% less than the threshold dose as defined by McRaney (1993). 

42 The threshold dose given by McRaney (1993) appears to be inconsistent with a higher 

reconstructed mean dose for this period of 0.27 rem given by Thomas (1991). 

43 The threshold dose given by McRaney (1993) appears to be inconsistent with a higher 

reconstructed mean dose for this period of about 0.27 rem given by Thomas (1992). 

134
 

Questionable badge readings range from 0.2 to greater than 1.6 rem. During the period 

June 25–28 – July 25, only about four evaluated film badge readings were judged to be 

reliable; those readings are between 0.1 and 0.2 rem. Neither a “threshold dose” nor a 

reconstructed mean dose was given by McRaney (1993); the reconstructed mean dose 

given by Thomas (1992) is 0.14 rem. Questionable badge readings range from 0.1 to 

1.1 rem. In both time periods, the highest reliable badge reading probably is within a 

factor of three of the reconstructed mean dose without accounting for the bias in badge 

readings. McRaney (1993) did not describe the basis for dose reconstructions. 

• On the USS ABNAKI during the period April 24 – June 18, only one film badge reading 

included in the evaluation was judged to be reliable; that reading is between 0.6 and 

0.7 rem. Neither a “threshold dose” nor a reconstructed mean dose was given by 

McRaney (1993); the reconstructed mean dose given by Thomas (1991) is 0.63 rem. The 

one reliable badge reading is within a factor of three of the reconstructed mean dose 

without accounting for the bias in badge readings. Questionable badge readings range 

from 0.6 to 1.6 rem. During the period June 20 – July 24, no evaluated film badge 

readings were judged to be reliable. The reconstructed mean dose given by Thomas 

(1991) is 0.28 rem. Questionable badge readings range from 0.3 to 0.9 rem. McRaney 

(1993) did not describe the basis for dose reconstructions. 

The analyses by McRaney (1992, 1993) summarized above provide comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings for participants on ships in a total of 11 cases. In 

eight cases, the highest badge reading among the readings that were judged to be reliable is 

within a factor of three of the reconstructed mean dose. In two cases on the USS JAMES E. 

KYES and USS SHELTON during the first time period, the highest badge readings that were 

judged to be reliable exceed the reconstructed mean dose by nearly an order of magnitude or 

more when the bias factor of 1.3 in badge readings is taken into account; the reconstructed mean 

dose in both cases is low (less than 0.01 rem). Possible causes of the highest readings in those 

two cases were not discussed by McRaney (1993). However, the comparison on the USS 

JAMES E. KYES during the first time period probably is not meaningful when only three film 

badge readings were judged to be reliable. On the USS SHELTON during the second time 

period, a comparison is difficult when only a “threshold dose”, which was based in part on the 

135
 

upper bound of the reconstructed dose, was given by McRaney (1993) and the reconstructed 

mean dose is not known to us. If the reconstructed mean dose is about 0.3 rem or higher, fewer 

than 5% of the evaluated film badge readings that were judged to be reliable would exceed the 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the bias in badge readings is taken 

into account. 

13.4 Summary of Analysis

There are no published dose reconstructions for military units at Operation REDWING, 

and only limited information that can be used to compare reconstructed doses on residence 

islands or ships with film badge readings is available in SAIC memoranda. The extent to which 

reconstructed doses and film badge readings can be compared at this operation is inherently 

limited by the environmental damage to many badges, which resulted in substantial 

overestimates of dose compared with actual doses received. 

In the few cases where reconstructed doses on residence islands are compared with film 

badge readings in SAIC memoranda, there apparently is good agreement between the two. 

However, an independent evaluation of the extent of agreement and the adequacy of using a 3X 

upper bound factor on reconstructed mean doses is somewhat difficult when no information on 

film badge readings is given in one case and only mean badge readings are given in the other 

cases. We also noted that only a few film badge readings in one case are given in NuTRIS. 

Reconstructed doses were compared with film badge readings on several ships on the 

basis of information in SAIC memoranda. In nearly all cases where the reconstructed mean dose 

is at least 0.1 rem, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper 

bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings that were judged to be reliable. There is 

some doubt about this conclusion in one case where the reconstructed mean dose was not given 

in an SAIC memorandum, but it appears unlikely that the highest badge reading exceeds the 

reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the bias factor of 1.3 in badge 

readings at this operation is taken into account. In the two cases where the reconstructed mean 

dose is less than 0.01 rem, the highest badge readings exceed the reconstructed mean dose by 

nearly a factor of ten or more. However, only one badge reading above 0.1 rem was judged to be 

reliable in one case, and many more readings above 0.1 rem were judged to be questionable 

136
 

compared with the few reliable readings in the other case. Therefore, the significance of the few 

highest badge readings in those two cases is difficult to assess. 

In general, we believe that it is difficult to reach firm conclusions about the adequacy of a 

3X upper bound factor in reconstructing external gamma doses at Operation REDWING. In 

addition to the constraint imposed by limited information on comparisons of reconstructed mean 

doses with film badge readings in SAIC memoranda, these comparisons depend on judgments 

about the reliability of badge readings, i.e., whether environmental damage precludes a reliable 

reading of radiation exposure. Given the somewhat subjective nature of those judgments, it is 

possible that higher badge readings that give reasonably realistic estimates of dose were 

excluded on the grounds that they were believed to be unreliable. This concern is discussed in a 

report by the National Research Council (NRC, 2003). 

References

Bruce-Henderson, S., Gladeck, F.R., Hallowell, J.H., Martin, E.J., McMullan, F.W., Miller, 

R.H., Rogers, W.E., Rowland, R.H., Shelton, C.F., Sturman, P., Berkhouse L., Davis, S., 

DeSantis, H., Dean, P., Doyle, M.K., and Patterson, D.S., 1982. Operation REDWING: 

1956, DNA 6037F (Kaman Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.1 (March 31). 

Gminder, R., 1984. “Radiation Dose Estimates for Personnel on Kwajalein Atoll During 

Operation REDWING,” memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) 

(February 22). 

Goetz, J., 1985. “Radiation Dose for TG 7.2, Operation REDWING,” memorandum to Cdr. 

Devine, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (June 3). 

Goetz, J., 1989. “Extension of Dose Tables, Operation REDWING,” memorandum to Cdr. Bell, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(September 1). 

137
 

Klemm, J., 1994. “Extended Cumulative Doses for Operations REDWING and 

GREENHOUSE,” memorandum to H. Maier, JAYCOR (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 31). 

Martinez, D., 1994a. “Radiation Dose Rates, Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to 

M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (August 10). 

Martinez, D., 1994b. “Radiation Dose Summary, Shipboard Personnel, Operation REDWING 

(1956),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 23). 

Martinez, D., 1994c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS ALAMO (LSD 33), 

post-Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 26). 

Martinez, D., 1995a. Attachment giving daily dose tables on USS SILVERSTEIN (DE 534), 

USS McGINTY (DE 3655, and USS SHELTON (DE 790) to “Radiation Dose 

Assessment,” memorandum from D. Ellison, JAYCOR, to J. Klemm, SAIC (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 9). 

Martinez, D., 1995b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS MERAPI (AF 38), 

post-Operation REDWING (1956–7),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 11). 

Martinez, D., 1995c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS KISHWAUKEE 

(AOG 9), post-Operation REDWING (1956–7),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(December 24). 

Martinez, D., 1995d. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS KARIN (AF 33), postOperation REDWING (1956–7),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 30). 

Martinez, D., 1996a. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS TOMBIGBEE 

(AOG 11), post-Operation REDWING (1957),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 1). ). 

138
 

Martinez, D., 1996b. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS CABILDO (LSD 16), 

post-Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 2). 

Martinez, D., 1996c. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS HITCHITI (ATF 103), 

post-Operation REDWING (1956–7),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 3). 

Martinez, D., 1996d. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS BELLE GROVE 

(LSD 2), post-Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 4). 

Martinez, D., 1996e. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS NATCHAUG 

(AOG 54), post-Operation REDWING (1957),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 4). 

Martinez, D., 1996f. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS NEMASKET 

(AOG 10), post-Operation REDWING (1956–7),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 6). 

Martinez, D., 1996g. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS MARSH (DE 699), 

post-Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 7). 

Martinez, D., 1996h. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS SUSSEX (AK 213), 

post-Operation REDWING (1957),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 8). 

Martinez, D., 1996i. “Personnel in United States Coast Guard Cutter BLACKHAW 

(WAGL 390), post-Operation REDWING (1957),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 10). 

Martinez, D., 1996j. “Daily Dose Tables for Personnel at Wotho and Ujelang Atolls, and 

Statement of Potential for Dose Accrual at Utirik Atoll, Operation REDWING (1956),” 

139
 

memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 6). 

Martinez, D., 1996k. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USS CROOK COUNTY 

(LST 611) After Departure from Enewetak Atoll, Operation REDWING (1956),” 

memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (July 10). ). 

Martinez, D., 1996m. “Radiation Dose Assessment, Personnel in USNS BERNALILLO 

COUNTY (T-LST 306), Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, 

Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (August 15). 

Martinez, D., 1996n. “Daily Dose Tables for Personnel at Rongerik Atoll, Operation 

REDWING (1956,” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Special Weapons Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 20). 

Martinez, D., 1996o. “Radiation Dose Assessment, Personnel in USNS GEORGE EASTMAN 

(YAG 39) and USS GRANVILLE S. HALL (YAG 40) While Enroute to CONUS from 

Operation REDWING (1956),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Special Weapons 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 23). 

Martinez, D., 1996p. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USCGC BASSWOOD 

(WAGL 388), post-Operations GREENHOUSE (1951) and REDWING (1956),” 

memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 20). 

Martinez, D., 1996q. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USCGC PLANETREE 

(WAGL 307), post-Operation REDWING (1957),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, 

Defense Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (September 26). 

Martinez, D., 1997. “Radiation Dose Assessment for Personnel in USCGC IRONWOOD 

(WAGL 297), post-Operation GREENHOUSE (1952), Operation REDWING (1956), 

and post-Operation REDWING (1957),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special 

Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(January 21). 

140
 

McRaney, W., 1992. “Evaluation of REDWING Dosimeter Films,” memorandum to M. Owais, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(July 17). 

McRaney, W., 1993. “REDWING Dosimetry,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (September 15). 

NRC (National Research Council), 1989. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

(National Academy Press, Washington, DC). 

NRC (National Research Council), 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC). 

Stiver, J., 2004. Attachment giving daily dose tables on Enewetak and Japtan Islands 

(Enewetak), Parry Island (Enewetak), and Eneu Island (Bikini) to “RE: Flocchini 

Request,” memorandum to J. Franconeri, Titan Corporation (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 1). 

Thomas, C., 1984a. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel on the Residence Islands of 

Enewetak Atoll During Operation REDWING,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (July 6). 

Thomas, C., 1984b. “Radiation Exposure for Air Force Personnel Assigned to the Residence 

Islands of Enewetak Atoll During Operation REDWING,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (July 12). 

Thomas, C., 1985a. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel on the Residence Islands of 

Enewetak Atoll During Operation REDWING—Revised Memo of 6 July 1984,” 

memorandum to File (Science Applications, Inc., McLean, VA) (July 22). 

Thomas, C., 1985b. “Radiation Exposure for Air Force Personnel Assigned to the Residence 

Islands of Enewetak Atoll During and After Operation REDWING—Revised Memo of 

12 July 1984,” memorandum to File (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (July 22). 

Thomas, C., 1985c. “Revision of SAI Memorandums, ‘Calculated Radiation Doses for 

Personnel on the Residence Islands of Enewetak Atoll During Operation REDWING, 

6 July 1984, and ‘Radiation Exposures for Air Force Personnel Assigned to the 

Residence Islands of Enewetak Atoll During and After Operation REDWING, 12 July 

141
 

1984,” memorandum to Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (July 6). 

Thomas, C., 1987. “Calculated Radiation Doses for Personnel on the Residence Islands of 

Enewetak Atoll, May–June 1956, Operation REDWING,” memorandum to Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(December 2). 

Thomas, C., 1991. “Preliminary dose tables for USS ABNAKI (ATF-96), USS BADOENG 

STRAIT (CVE-16), USS CURTISS (AV-4), and the residence islands of Enewetak Atoll 

at Operation REDWING,” memorandum to Capt. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 26). 

Thomas, C., 1992. “Preliminary Dose Tables for Ships at Operation REDWING,” memorandum 

to Capt. Flor, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (March 25). 

142
 

14. OPERATIONS AT PPG – VIII. 

OPERATION HARDTACK I (1958) 

14.1 Published Unit Dose Reconstructions

There are no published dose reconstructions for military units at Operation 

HARDTACK I, which consisted of 32 tests that were conducted at Enewetak and Bikini Atolls 

between May 6 and August 18, 1958, and three high-altitude tests (a balloon shot between 

Enewetak and Bikini Atolls and two rocket shots at Johnston Island) that were conducted on 

April 28, July 31, and August 11. However, as discussed in Section 14.3, many dose 

reconstructions that apply to participants on residence islands or ships are given in SAIC 

memoranda. 

14.2 Discussion of Film Badge Dosimetry 

A film badge was issued to all participants who entered a test area during Operation 

HARDTACK I in an effort to provide complete information on external gamma exposures for 

each participant (Gladeck et al., 1982). In contrast to the experience in using film badges at 

Operation REDWING (see Section 13.2), film badges that were issued for periods as long as six 

months did not show indications of significant damage (Gladeck et al., 1982; NRC, 1989), and 

readings generally have been considered to be reliable indicators of external gamma dose. 

14.3 SAIC Memoranda 

Many memoranda that addressed exposures of particular units during Operation 

HARDTACK I were prepared by SAIC (Weitz and Thomas, 1985; Thomas, 1987; McRaney, 

1989, 1992a,b, 1993a,b, 1995; Weitz 1994, 1995a–k,m–t, 1996a–g, 1997a–c, 1998, 1999a,b; 

Weitz and McRaney, 1995). Some of those memoranda give information on comparisons of 

reconstructed external gamma doses with film badge readings. Comparisons on residence 

islands or ships are discussed separately in the following sections. 

143
 

14.3.1 Exposures on Residence Islands

Reconstructed doses for participants in camps on residence islands at Enewetak Atoll 

(Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan Islands) and Bikini Atoll (Eneu Island) are given by Weitz and 

Thomas (1985), Thomas (1987), and Weitz (1994; 1995a). Reconstructed doses given by Weitz 

(1995a) presumably represent current estimates.44 Reconstructed doses apply to participants 

who spent most of the time on or near a residence island; they do not apply to participants w

engaged in such activities as shot preparation, decontamination of land or equipment, 

observation of experiments or recovery of experimental equipment on contaminated islands, 

radiation surveys, or cloud sampling. 

ho 

 

Weitz and Thomas (1985) gives film badge readings for participants on Enewetak Atoll 

that apply to time periods starting in April and ending between the end of May and about 

August 5; mean badge readings and standard deviations of distributions of badge readings are 

plotted for 17 cases involving exposure of various subgroups of personnel in a Navy boat pool 

and boat pool detachment, who were billeted on residence islands or on barges that were docked 

near residence islands, and Army personnel in Task Group 7.2. The highest mean badge 

readings and their standard deviations are 2.18 ± 0.25 rem through June 30 for four participants 

on Japtan Island and about 2.4 ± 0.5 rem through July 12 for six participants in a Navy group. 

The reconstructed cumulative doses for those two groups given by Weitz (1995a) are 1.47 and 

1.52 rem, respectively. Although the two highest mean badge readings are about 50–60% higher 

than the corresponding reconstructed mean doses, it appears in both cases that use of a 3X upper 

bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds all badge 

readings without accounting for the bias of a factor of 1.5 in film badge readings at this operation 

(see Table 1.1). Use of a 3X upper bound factor also gives upper bounds that exceed at least 

44 Reconstructed doses at Enewetak Atoll given by Weitz (1995a) are lower than doses given by 

Weitz and Thomas (1985). Reconstructed cumulative doses during each month through August 1958 

given by Weitz (1995a) are compared with doses given by Weitz and Thomas (1985) in parentheses as 

follows: May – 1.20 (1.64) rem; June – 0.27 (0.56) rem; July – 0.17 (0.33) rem; August – 0.08 (0.18) rem. 

At Bikini Atoll, the same comparisons are as follows: May – 0.63 (0.18) rem; June – 0.20 (0.04) rem; 

July – 0.23 (0.37) rem; August – 0.06 (0.10) rem. Thus, at Bikini Atoll, reconstructed doses given by 

Weitz (1995a) are higher during the first two months but are lower during the last two months. Reasons 

for the differences in reconstructed doses were not discussed by Weitz (1995a), who noted only that all 

documented instances of fallout on residence islands at the two atolls were taken into account. 

144
 

95% of all badge readings in the other 15 cases that have lower mean badge readings; the 

number of readings in those cases ranges from three to 55. 

Weitz (1995a) compared reconstructed mean doses with film badge readings for 

participants in an Army administrative detachment that was stationed on Enewetak Island. These 

comparisons for a number of common badging periods for participants in this unit are given in 

Table 14.1. During the first six periods, the reconstructed mean dose is comparable to or greater 

than the mean badge reading, and use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose 

gives an upper bound that far exceeds the estimated upper bound (95th percentile) of the 

distribution of badge readings without accounting for the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings. 

During the last two periods, the reconstructed mean dose is substantially less than the mean 

badge reading, but use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an 

upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings when the bias in badge readings is 

taken into account. Weitz (1995a) also noted that the average sum of badge readings for the 

entire period through August 4 of 1.88 rem does not differ greatly from the reconstructed mean 

dose during the entire period of 1.65 rem. 

Table 14.1. Comparison of film badge readings for participants in Army administrative 

detachment on Enewetak Island with reconstructed mean doses

a

Start date End date Number of 

badges 

Mean badge reading 

(upper bound) (rem)b

Reconstructed 

dose (rem) 

April 4 June 7 20 1.29 (1.61) 1.29 

April 12 May 31 34 0.65 (0.81) 1.20 

April 12 June 5 12 0.86 (1.18) 1.27 

April 12 June 17 16 1.31 (1.57) 1.39 

April 12 June 27 50 1.20 (1.56) 1.45 

April 12 June 28 50 1.33 (1.67) 1.46 

June 27 August 4 50 0.59 (0.69) 0.20 

June 28 August 4 50 0.65 (0.86) 0.19 

a

 See Table 2 of Weitz (1995a). 

b

 Upper bound of distribution of film badge readings is intended to be 95th percentile and is 

calculated on the basis of standard deviation given by Weitz (1995a) multiplied by 1.645. 

145
 

Weitz (1995a) compared reconstructed mean doses with film badge readings for 

participants in a Navy boat pool that was stationed on Eneu Island at Bikini Atoll. These 

comparisons for a number of common badging periods for participants in this unit are given in 

Table 14.2. In all cases, the reconstructed mean dose is comparable to or greater than the mean 

badge reading, and use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an 

upper bound that far exceeds the estimated upper bound (95th percentile) of the distribution of 

badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

Table 14.2. Comparison of film badge readings for participants in Navy boat pool on Eneu 

Island at Bikini Atoll with reconstructed mean doses

a

Start date End date Number of 

badges 

Mean badge reading 

(upper bound) (rem)b

Reconstructed 

dose (rem) 

April June 6 65 0.18 (0.26) 0.69 

June 6 July 7 15 0.16 (0.23) 0.29 

June 6 July 25 35 0.33 (0.45) 0.36 

June 6 July 31/August 1 11 0.41 (0.52) 0.38 

a

 See Table 4 of Weitz (1995a). 

b

 Upper bound of distribution of film badge readings is intended to be 95th percentile and is 

calculated on the basis of standard deviation given by Weitz (1995a) multiplied by 1.645. 

Weitz (1995a) also noted that film badge readings for participants in unidentified units on 

Japtan Island at Enewetak Atoll are about 60% higher than badge readings on Enewetak or Parry 

Island during comparable exposure periods. On the basis of this comparison, reconstructed mean 

doses on Japtan Island were assumed to be 60% higher than tabulated doses on Enewetak Atoll. 

NuTRIS was accessed to investigate whether there are additional film badge readings that 

could be compared with reconstructed mean doses on residence islands. However, we could not 

distinguish between badge readings for units that were included in comparisons given by Weitz 

and Thomas (1985) and Weitz (1995a) discussed above and units that were not included, and we 

could not always determine whether a given unit participated in special activities that were not 

taken into account in dose reconstructions. Thus, we have assumed that comparisons in the 

SAIC memoranda are reasonably representative of all comparisons that could be made. 

146
 

14.3.2 Exposures on Ships 

Information in SAIC memoranda that can be used to compare reconstructed doses on 

ships with film badge readings is summarized as follows: 

• McRaney (1992b) gives a reconstructed dose on the USS DE HAVEN during the period 

May 12 – August 5 of 0.36 rem. The single film badge reading reported by McRaney 

(1992b) that applies to this time period is 0.62 rem.45

• McRaney (1993a) gives a reconstructed dose on the USS BOXER during the period from 

the beginning of the operation through June 30 of about 0.67 rem. The mean film badge 

reading for 980 participants during that period is 0.735 rem, and the 95th percentile of the 

distribution of badge readings given by Weitz (1995b) is 1.1 rem. Use of a 3X upper 

bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds more 

than 95% of all badge readings without accounting for the bias in badge readings. 

• Weitz (1995c) gives a reconstructed dose on the USS REHOBETH during the period 

April 19 – May 28 of 0.32 rem. The mean film badge reading for about 160 participants 

during that period is 0.27 rem, and the 95th percentile of the distribution of badge 

readings that we calculated from the reported standard deviation is 0.47 rem. Only one 

badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. When 

the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account, no badge readings exceed 

the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

• Weitz (1995e) gives a reconstructed dose on the USS MOCTOBI during the period 

April 9 – June 16 of 0.74 rem. The mean film badge reading for 38 participants during 

that period is 0.73 rem, and the 95th percentile of the distribution of badge readings that 

we calculated from the reported standard deviation is 1.01 rem. For a smaller group of 

15 participants, the mean badge reading (95th percentile) during that period is 0.64 

(0.82) rem, and a second set of readings during the period June 15–16 is 0.54 (0.80) rem; 

 45 During the period beginning on or before May 12 and ending on August 5–12, NuTRIS gives 

213 film badge readings that range from 0.22 to 1.76 rem. Fewer than 5% of those badge readings exceed 

the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings 

is taken into account. We have no information to indicate why the many badge readings in NuTRIS were 

not reported by McRaney (1992b). 

147
 

we presume that the latter readings represent exposures during special activities that were 

not experienced by most crew members and were not taken into account in the dose 

reconstruction. The distribution of badge readings in the first group given by Weitz 

(1995e) indicates that no badge readings exceed the reconstructed mean dose for an 

average crew member by as much as a factor of three without accounting for the bias in 

badge readings. 

• Weitz (1995g) gives a reconstructed dose on the USS HOOPER ISLAND during the 

period April 20 – June 23 of 0.50 rem. The mean film badge reading for about 350 

participants during that period is 0.47 rem, and the 95th percentile of the distribution of 

badge readings that we calculated from the reported standard deviation is 0.80 rem. Only 

one film badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of 

three. When the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account, no badge 

readings exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

• Weitz and McRaney (1995) gives a reconstructed dose on the USS LANSING during the 

period May 21 – June 13 of essentially zero on the basis of reports that this ship received 

no fallout while stationed at Enewetak Atoll. All personnel on this ship apparently were 

issued film badges during this time period. A majority (54%) of all film badges recorded 

a dose of zero. The remaining badge readings range from 50 to 146 mrem, with an 

average of 76 mrem. Weitz and McRaney (1995) concluded that the non-zero badge 

readings probably resulted from exposure to residual contamination during shore liberty 

on residence islands at Enewetak Atoll that received fallout from two shots at this 

operation prior to the ship’s arrival at Enewetak. During later operations at Johnston 

Island during the periods July 15 – August 1 and August 7–12, Weitz and McRaney 

(1995) estimated an upper bound dose of about 0.4 rem for crew members who were 

involved in recovery, temporary storage, and transfer of an instrumented pod that was 

attached to a missile used in a high-altitude test; the estimated upper bound was based on 

measured exposure rates near an instrument pod. However, no records of film badges 

that were issued to crew members during these time periods were located. 

In the first five cases summarized above, reconstructed doses were based on measured exposure 

rates on the ship. In the four cases where a reconstructed dose was compared with a substantial 

148
 

number of film badge readings, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose 

gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings regardless of whether the 

bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings is taken into account. In the last case, it is likely that doses 

from exposure on the ship during the period May 21 – June 13 were essentially zero, in 

agreement with the reconstructed dose, even though a substantial number of film badge readings 

are above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem (see Section 1.4). Given that all crew 

members apparently were badged during the period when the reconstructed dose on the ship 

applies, a possible discrepancy between the reconstructed dose and film badge readings above 

50 mrem should not be significant.46 The reconstructed dose in all cases is less than 1 rem. 

Many other SAIC memoranda discuss assumptions that were used in dose reconstructions 

on ships and present distributions of film badge readings for crew members. However, 

information in those memoranda does not allow a comparison of reconstructed doses with badge 

readings. In some cases, reconstructed doses were based in part on assumptions about exposure 

rates that were adjusted to achieve agreement between the reconstructed dose and mean film 

badge reading or similar assumptions on a nearby ship (Weitz, 1995d,h–k,m,n,p; 1996a–d; 

1997c; 1998; 1999a). In other cases, assumptions about exposure rates that were developed on 

the basis of available data and used to reconstruct doses during a period covered by film badge 

readings are described, but the reconstructed dose during that period was not reported (Weitz, 

1995f,s,t; 1996e–g; 1997b; 1999b). In all these cases, the mean film badge reading was used in 

lieu of a reconstructed dose during the covered period, and reconstruction doses were used only 

to estimate doses during later periods that were not covered by badge readings. The approaches 

in all these cases are understandable when nearly all crew members had badge readings during 

times spent in a test area and a reconstructed dose during those times is not needed. However, 

when unadjusted reconstructed doses during periods covered by film badges were not reported, 

the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor cannot be evaluated. It could be informative, for 

example, to compare unadjusted reconstructed doses with film badge readings in cases where 

mean badge readings are greater than 1 rem (Weitz, 1995j,t; 1996e,f). 

 46 Weitz and McRaney (1995) recommended that all assigned doses to crew members on the USS 

LANSING during the period May 21 – June 13 should be based on film badge readings, rather than the 

reconstructed dose. 

149
 

14.4 Summary of Analysis

There are no published dose reconstructions for military units at Operation 

HARDTACK I. However, information in several SAIC memoranda can be used to compare 

reconstructed doses on residence islands or ships with film badge readings. 

Many comparisons of reconstructed doses on residence islands at Enewetak and Bikini 

Atolls with film badge readings indicate that there is good agreement between the two, and that 

use of a 3X upper bound factor on a reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds 

at least 95% of all badge readings when the bias factor of 1.5 in badge readings at this operation 

is taken into account. These cases provide comparisons that cover most of the time period of 

exposures on residence islands during this operation. 

In all cases where reconstructed doses on ships can be compared with a substantial 

number of film badge readings, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed dose gives 

an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings. However, given that only a few 

comparisons could be made on ships, we believe that it would be informative to compare 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings in several additional cases where reconstructed 

doses were not reported in SAIC memoranda if information on reconstructed doses is available, 

especially when the mean badge reading is greater than 1 rem. 

References

Gladeck, F.R., Gould, K.G., Hallowell, J.H., Martin, E.J., McMullan, F.W., Miller, R.A., 

Osborn, M.J., Shelton, C.F., Berkhouse, L., Calhoun, F.S., Davis, S.E., Doyle, M.K., 

Jones, C.B., and Yurechko, J., 1982. Operation HARDTACK I – 1958, DNA 6038F 

(Kaman Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

McRaney, W., 1989. “Radiation Dose for Personnel at Johnston Island during Operation 

HARDTACK I – 1978,” memorandum to Cdr. Flor, Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 10). 

McRaney, W., 1992a. “Post-Operation (Sailing Home) Crew Doses for Selected Ships at 

Operation HARDTACK I,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 9). 

150
 

McRaney, W., 1992b. Untitled Radiation Dose Assessment for participant on USS DE HAVEN 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 10). 

McRaney, W., 1993a. “Radiation Dose Assessment—Typical Crewmember, USS BOXER 

(CVS 21), Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (July 7). 

McRaney, W., 1993b. “Sailing Home Doses for USS JOYCE (DER 317) and USS PERKINS 

(DDR 877), Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(August 2). 

McRaney, W., 1995. “Sailing Home Dose—USS BONITA (SSK 3), Operation 

HARDTACK I,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 22). 

NRC (National Research Council), 1989. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

(National Academy Press, Washington, DC). 

Thomas, C., 1987. “Revised Tables for the 16 July 1985, SAIC memorandum, ‘Dose Estimates 

for Land-Based Personnel, Operation HARDTACK I’,” memorandum to Nuclear Test 

Personnel Review, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 21). 

Weitz, R., 1994. “Dose Table for Residence Islands of Enewetak Atoll during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 19). 

Weitz, R., 1995a. “Dose Estimates for Residence Islands during Operation HARDTACK I,” 

memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 30). 

Weitz, R., 1995b. “Dose Assessment for USS BOXER (CVS 21) Personnel during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 31). 

Weitz, R., 1995c. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS REHOBETH (AGS 50) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 3). 

151
 

Weitz, R., 1995d. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS MONTICELLO (LSD 35) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 6). 

Weitz, R., 1995e. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS MOCTOBI (ATF 105) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 31). 

Weitz, R., 1995f. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS RENVILLE (APA 227) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 1). 

Weitz, R., 1995g. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS HOOPER ISLAND (ARG 17) during 

and after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (May 8). 

Weitz, R., 1995h. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS BELLE GROVE (LSD 2) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 19). 

Weitz, R., 1995i. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS MERAPI (AF 38) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (June 23). 

Weitz, R., 1995j. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS TAKELMA (ATF 113) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 4). 

Weitz, R., 1995k. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS CACAPON (AO 52) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 11). 

Weitz, R., 1995m. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS COLLETT (DD 730) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (October 18). 

Weitz, R., 1995n. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS JOHN R. CRAIG (DD 885) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 1). 

152
 

Weitz, R., 1995o. “Dose Assessment for Personnel Embarked on USS CABILDO (LSD 16) 

during Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 10). 

Weitz, R., 1995p. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS BENNER (DDR 807) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (November 20). 

Weitz, R., 1995q. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS SAFEGUARD (ARS 25) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 8). 

Weitz, R., 1995r. “Dose Assessment for Personnel Embarked on USS CARTER HALL (LSD 3) 

during Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 12). 

Weitz, R., 1995s. “Dose Assessment for Personnel on USNS FRED C. AINSWORTH (T-AP 

181) during and after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, 

Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(December 18). 

Weitz, R., 1995t. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS GRASP (ARS 24) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (December 23). 

Weitz, R., 1996a. “Dose Assessment for Personnel aboard USS LAWRENCE COUNTY 

(LST 887) during and after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. 

Ely, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, 

VA) (January 9). 

Weitz, R., 1996b. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS FLOYD B. PARKS (DD 884) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 16). 

Weitz, R., 1996c. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS NAVARRO (APA 215) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 17). 

153
 

Weitz, R., 1996d. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS CHANTICLEER (ASR 7) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (January 25). 

Weitz, R., 1996e. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS CHOWANOC (ATF 100) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (February 13). 

Weitz, R., 1996f. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS MUNSEE (ATF 107) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 15). 

Weitz, R., 1996g. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS STERLET (SS 392) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to Cdr. M. Ely, Defense Nuclear 

Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (April 25). 

Weitz, R., 1997a. “Dose Assessment for Personnel aboard USS CAPE ESPERANCE (T-CVU 

88) during Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense 

Special Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(June 20). 

Weitz, R., 1997b. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS BOLSTER (ARS 38) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special 

Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(August 25). 

Weitz, R., 1997c. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS PERKINS (DDR 877) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special 

Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(December 24). 

Weitz, R., 1998. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS MANSFIELD (DD 728) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Special 

Weapons Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(July 1). 

Weitz, R., 1999a. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS ORLECK (DD 886) during and after 

Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Threat 

154
 

Reduction Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(April 9). 

Weitz, R., 1999b. “Dose Assessment for Personnel aboard USS CREE (ATF 84) during and 

after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Schaeffer, Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(May 25). 

Weitz, R., and McRaney, W., 1995. “Dose Assessment for Crew of USS LANSING (DER 388) 

during and after Operation HARDTACK I (1958),” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(August 29). 

Weitz, R., and Thomas, C., 1985. “Dose Estimates for Land-Based Personnel, Operation 

Hardtack I – Revised Memo of 18 January 1981,” memorandum to File (Science 

Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (July 16). 

155
 

15. OPERATIONS AT PPG – IX. 

OPERATION DOMINIC I (1962)

15.1 Unit Dose Reconstructions

Operation DOMINIC I consisted of 35 tests that were conducted near Christmas or 

Johnstone Island, including 29 airdrop airburst shots, five high-altitude rocket shots, and a 

Polaris-launched airburst shot, and one underwater test that was conducted at a location about 

370 miles southwest of San Diego, California (Berkhouse et al., 1983). Except at the underwater 

test, there was little or no fallout or residual radioactive material near surface ground zero. 

There are no published dose reconstructions for military units at Operation DOMINIC I, 

and only two dose reconstructions for specific units are given in SAIC memoranda. Those dose 

reconstructions are discussed in Section 15.3. 

15.2 Discussion of Film Badge Dosimetry

Film badges were issued to all participants who were stationed on Christmas and 

Johnstone Islands or on ships that were involved in tests. However, many badges were not 

sealed properly and were found to be damaged due to effects of moisture, light, and heat 

(Berkhouse et al., 1983; NRC, 1989). Many badges indicated exposures above 0.4 rem even 

when there was little or no possibility of exposure and readings should have been zero. The 

NRC (1989) report concluded that unless a participant was involved in certain activities, any 

indicated film badge exposure was likely to have been caused by environmental damage. 

Activities that could have involved exposure are described in the following section. 

15.3 SAIC Memoranda

Several memoranda that addressed exposures during Operation DOMINIC I were 

prepared by SAIC (Goetz, 1998; McRaney, 1992, 1994a,b; Edwards, 1995; Stiver, 2002). Some 

of those memoranda addressed the general concern that most non-zero film badge readings were 

caused by environmental damage, rather than exposure to radiation (Goetz, 1998; McRaney, 

156
 

1992, 1994a,b). In the other memoranda, a dose of zero was assigned to particular units on the 

basis of the consideration that there was no potential for exposure (Edwards, 1995; Stiver, 2002). 

The NTPR Program’s current policy on assigning doses to participants with film badge 

readings is given in the Standard Operating Procedures Manual (DTRA, 2008; Appendix B-10); 

see also McRaney (1994a,b). To account for the problem of environmental damage to many film 

badges, as well as knowledge of exposure environments, a dose of zero is assigned, regardless of 

a badge reading, unless a participant was a member of one of the following groups: 

• Cloud sampling aircrews or ground crews that worked on contaminated aircraft; 

• Crew members of the USS SIOUX, which was involved in sampling a radioactive pool of 

water following the underwater test; 

• Personnel that were involved in recovery or handling of radioactive instrumented pods, 

rocket nose cones, or other activated or contaminated material (e.g., target rafts) at 

several tests; 

• Radiation-safety monitors; 

• Personnel that were involved in recovery or decontamination operations after any missile 

incident that resulted in plutonium contamination of any portion of Johnstone Island, or 

deposition of plutonium-contaminated debris on that island or on any ship that operated 

in the vicinity. 

This policy is in accordance with a previous recommendation (NRC, 1989). SAIC memoranda 

do not give reconstructed doses for any of these groups. 

 In the two cases where a reconstructed mean dose of zero is given in SAIC memoranda 

(Edwards, 1995; Stiver, 2002), film badge readings were not reported, nor are any badge 

readings given in NuTRIS. Even if badge readings were available, however, non-zero readings 

above a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem (see Section 1.4) would be considered 

unreliable and should not be compared with a reconstructed dose (McRaney, 1994a). 

15.4 Summary

Although all participants at Operation DOMINIC I were issued film badges, there are no 

opportunities to compare reconstructed doses with film badge readings. Doses to most 

157
 

participants probably were essentially zero, and many film badges experienced environmental 

damage that compromised their readings. In addition, reconstructed doses have not been 

reported for units that could have received substantial exposures. 

References

Berkhouse, L., Davis, S.E., Gladeck, F.R., Hallowell, J.H., Jones, C.B., Martin, E.J., Miller, 

R.A., McMullan, F.W., and Osborne, M.J., 1983. Operation DOMINIC I—1962, DNA 

6040F (Kaman Tempo, Santa Barbara, CA). 

DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual for 

Radiation Dose Assessment, Revision 1.2 (October 31). 

Edwards, R., 1995. Untitled Radiation Dose Assessment for participant in Patrol Squadron Six 

(VP-6) (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) (March 20). 

Goetz, J., 1988. “Radiation Exposures for Shipboard Personnel, Operation Dominic I,” 

memorandum to C. Chapman, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications 

International Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 11). 

McRaney, W., 1992. “DOMINIC I Film Badge Results,” memorandum to M. Owais, Defense 

Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA) 

(September 14). 

McRaney, W., 1994a. “Interpretation of DOMINIC I Film Badge Readings,” memorandum to 

M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International Corporation, 

McLean, VA) (August 23). 

McRaney, W., 1994b. “Radiation Dose Assessment—DOMINIC I Participants (Generic),” 

memorandum to M. Owais, Defense Nuclear Agency (Science Applications International 

Corporation, McLean, VA) (August 24). 

NRC (National Research Council), 1989. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

(National Academy Press, Washington, DC). 

Stiver, J., 2002. “Radiation Dose Assessment for USS ST. CLAIR COUNTY (LST 1096) 

Personnel, Operation DOMINIC I (1962). 

158
 

16. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This section presents a summary of comparisons of reconstructed doses from external 

exposure to gamma rays with film badge readings for military participants at atmospheric 

nuclear weapons tests, as presented in Sections 2–15. The purpose of these comparisons is to 

evaluate the adequacy of a generic 3X upper bound factor that has been applied to reconstructed 

mean doses or point estimates of dose with no uncertainty to obtain upper bounds since 2003. 

The adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor is evaluated on the basis of comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings reported in published unit dose reconstructions or 

SAIC memoranda. Additional film badge readings given in NuTRIS are discussed but were not 

used in this analysis (see Section 1.5). 

We evaluated the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor on the basis of comparisons of 

reconstructed doses for specific military units at a particular test or tests at a particular operation 

with distributions of film badge readings for participants in those units. Use of a 3X upper 

bound factor is considered to be adequate in a specific case if the resulting upper bound of a 

reconstructed dose exceeds at least 95% of all film badge readings. Performing evaluations on a 

unit-by-unit basis conforms to the way dose reconstructions are presented and compared with 

film badge readings in published reports and SAIC memoranda, and it facilitates an identification 

of the kinds of exposure scenarios in which use of a 3X upper bound factor may not be adequate. 

No attempt has been made to evaluate the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor on the basis of 

aggregations of comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings in two or more 

cases, even when different cases involved units that were exposed under similar conditions. 

In evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor, we have assumed that the 

relationship between a reading of a film badge that was worn by a participant in roentgen (R) and 

the corresponding dose to the whole body in rem, which is the quantity calculated in dose 

reconstructions, should be taken into account. This assumption is based on the view that upper 

bounds of reconstructed external gamma doses should be at least upper 95% confidence limits of 

true doses, rather than upper 95% confidence limits of doses that are estimated by assuming that 

a badge reading in R gives a whole-body dose in rem, as is assumed in dose assessments in the 

NTPR Program. Badge readings in R generally overestimate whole-body doses in rem, and the 

bias in badge readings can be significant. In several comparisons, we found that an upper bound 

159
 

factor somewhat greater than three would be required to give upper bounds of reconstructed 

doses that exceed at least 95% of all film badge readings if the bias in badge readings is ignored, 

but that a 3X upper bound factor is adequate if the bias in badge readings is taken into account. 

Bias factors for film badges at the various operations range from 1.1 to 2.1 (see Table 1.1). 

In comparing reconstructed doses for a given unit with film badge readings, a judgment 

must be made about the minimum number of badge readings that would allow a meaningful 

comparison. This issue arises in several cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation where 

only a few badge readings were reported in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC 

memoranda. In this analysis, we have assumed that comparisons are meaningful only in cases 

where at least five relevant badge readings were reported. This assumption is somewhat 

arbitrary, but we believe that meaningful comparisons with reconstructed doses probably can be 

made on the basis of as few as five badge readings. For example, five badge readings could give 

a reasonable indication of the distribution of doses and could allow an identification of an outlier. 

Given that use of a 3X upper bound factor should give upper bounds of reconstructed 

doses that exceed at least 95% of all relevant film badge readings, judgment also is required in 

evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor when there are fewer than 20 badge 

readings. In such cases, we judged that a 3X upper bound factor is adequate if no more than one 

badge reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

External gamma doses that were received by participants varied widely, from essentially 

zero to several rem. In this report, we categorized doses above 1 rem as relatively high and 

doses below 1 rem as relatively low. Although this categorization is somewhat arbitrary, it 

allows an identification of cases of greater importance with respect to adjudicating claims for 

compensation for cancer or other radiogenic diseases on the basis of estimates of dose. This 

categorization also allows an evaluation of whether inadequacies in use of a 3X upper bound 

factor are more frequent at relatively low doses than at higher doses. 

In the following two sections, summaries of comparisons of reconstructed external 

gamma doses with film badge readings are presented for operations at NTS and PPG separately. 

This separation is based on a consideration that conditions of exposure and challenges in 

reconstructing doses often were significantly different at the two test sites. A concluding section 

summarizes the nature of exposure situations in which use of a 3X upper bound factor was found 

to be inadequate and discusses how those inadequacies might be addressed. It is important to 

160
 

emphasize that judgments about the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor are subjective in some 

cases, in that they depend on how the available information on reconstructed doses and film 

badge readings is interpreted and those interpretations are not always unambiguous. 

16.1 Summary of Evaluations at NTS

At NTS, nearly all comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings involved 

forward observers at locations close to ground zero at the time of a detonation, observers or 

maneuver troops at locations close to ground zero at times shortly after a detonation, or members 

of other units that engaged in a variety of activities on the ground in forward areas at times 

before or after a detonation (e.g., damage evaluators, engineering support units, signal units). A 

few comparisons involved aircrews and helicopter crews, but there are no comparisons for cloud 

samplers or ground crews that handled cloud samples or were exposed to contaminated aircraft. 

An important characteristic of exposures at NTS is that they generally were episodic. For 

example, exposures of observers, maneuver troops, and other ground units occurred mainly 

during short periods of time spent in forward areas on the test site, and doses during times spent 

at off-site locations were insignificant. Thus, exposures often occurred at about the same time 

that field survey data were obtained at or near locations of exposure, and a need to extrapolate 

measured exposure rates over long periods of time did not arise. Another important 

characteristic is that exposure rates due to fallout or neutron activation products in surface soil at 

NTS usually did not vary greatly over small distances or spatial variations usually were 

sufficiently well understood on the basis of measurements and calculations. 

The following sections summarize the results of our analysis of cases involving exposure 

to initial or residual gamma radiation at NTS. 

16.1.1 Exposures to Initial Gamma Radiation 

The results of our analysis of exposures to initial gamma radiation at NTS on the basis of 

reconstructed doses and film badge readings given in published unit dose reconstructions or 

SAIC memoranda are summarized as follows: 

161
 

• In all cases where reconstructed initial gamma doses to forward observers were compared 

with film badge readings, including readings of badges that were placed at various 

locations but were not worn by participants as well as badges that were worn by those 

observers, use of a 3X upper bound factor on a reconstructed mean dose gives an upper 

bound that exceeds all badge readings. 

Use of a 3X upper bound factor was found to be more than adequate at 18 shots in four 

operations (all operations considered in this analysis except TUMBLER-SNAPPER), and at 

varying distances from ground zero. This is a significant result when doses to some forward 

observers exceeded 10 rem. 

16.1.2 Exposures to Residual Gamma Radiation 

The results of our analysis of exposures to residual gamma radiation at NTS on the basis 

of reconstructed doses and film badge readings given in published unit dose reconstructions or 

SAIC memoranda are summarized in Table 16.1 and as follows: 

• In 38 cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation, reconstructed doses were compared 

with readings of at least five film badges. In 34 cases, including 11 cases where the 

reconstructed mean dose and most badge readings are above 1 rem, use of a 3X upper 

bound factor on a reconstructed mean or high-sided dose gives an upper bound that 

exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings. In three of the four cases where use of a 3X 

upper bound factor does not appear to be adequate, reconstructed doses and most badge 

readings are at or below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, and we do not 

believe that discrepancies between reconstructed doses and badge readings are significant 

in such cases. The one remaining case where use of a 3X upper bound factor is not 

adequate, which is discussed below, involved exposure of a small group of participants in 

Task Force WARRIOR (Project 50.1) at Operation PLUMBBOB, Shot SMOKY; most 

badge readings in that group are above 1 rem. 

162
 

Table 16.1. Summary of comparisons of reconstructed doses from exposure to residual

gamma radiation with film badge readings at NTSa 

Doses < 1 rem Doses > 1 rem 

Operation Yes No Yes No 

BUSTER-JANGLE 8 2b 1c

TUMBLER-SNAPPER 3 

UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE 6 

TEAPOT 3d

PLUMBBOB 9 1b 4 1 

a

 Comparisons are based on readings of at least five film badges that were reported in published 

unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. “Yes” means that use of 3X upper bound factor on 

reconstructed mean or high-sided dose gives upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings; 

“No” means that use of 3X upper bound factor gives reconstructed upper bound that does not exceed at 

least 95% of all badge readings. 

b

 Reconstructed mean or high-sided dose and many film badge readings are below nominal 

minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem. Comparisons in these cases are not considered meaningful. 

c

 Not included is a case involving exposure of an engineering support unit following Shot 

UNCLE where reconstructed mean dose is 1.4 rem but all film badge readings are less than 0.3 rem. It is 

likely that all badge readings apply to participants who were exposed at locations different from locations 

of exposure assumed in the dose reconstruction, and a comparison of the reconstructed dose with badge 

readings probably is not meaningful (see Section 2.2). 

d

 In three additional cases involving exposure of observers, a substantial number of film badge 

readings are given in NuTRIS, and use of a 3X upper bound factor is adequate when reconstructed doses 

are compared with those badge readings in all cases. However, the significance of these comparisons is 

difficult to evaluate when published report on unit dose reconstructions indicated that film badge records 

were inadequate in those cases and no badge readings were reported (see Section 5.1.2.2). 

In the case involving Task Force WARRIOR, use of a 3X upper bound factor on the 

reconstructed mean doses, which depend on a participant’s activities, gives upper bounds that 

exceed at least 95% of the film badge readings for all members of the task force. However, all 

badge readings in a small group of less than 5% of the members are about an order of magnitude 

higher than reconstructed mean doses and are a factor of about 2–5 higher than all other badge 

readings in the task force. To give an upper bound of a reconstructed dose that exceeds at least 

95% of all badge readings in the small group, an upper bound factor of about 5–12 is required, 

depending on a participant’s activities. A plausible explanation of this large discrepancy is that 

the radiation environment in which this group was exposed at Shot SMOKY was characterized 

incorrectly, due to a lack of field survey data in the area where higher exposures occurred and the 

163
 

unexpected presence of fallout from Shot SMOKY during the group’s maneuver in that area (see 

Section 6.1.2.1). However, the large discrepancy between reconstructed doses and film badge 

readings in the small group in Task Force WARRIOR apparently does not have potentially 

important consequences in regard to estimating doses to members of that group. Information in 

NuTRIS indicates that all doses that have been assigned to those participants are based on film 

badge readings, and that none of those participants has been assigned a much lower 

reconstructed mean dose or upper bound. 

Three cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged to be adequate are 

discussed further below. 

In a case involving observers at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, Shot DOG (see 

Section 2.1.2.2), the high-sided reconstructed dose and more than 95% of all film badge readings 

are below a nominal minimum detectable dose, but a small fraction of badge readings exceed the 

reconstructed dose by more than a factor of ten. The unusually high badge readings were 

attributed to unauthorized and documented excursions of a few participants who proceeded 

closer to ground zero than most observers. Regardless of the cause of the high badge readings, 

this discrepancy does not have important consequences when all observers at this shot apparently 

have a badge reading and there should be no need to assign a reconstructed dose to any observer. 

In a case involving observers at Operation TUMBLER-SNAPPER, Shot FOX (see 

Section 3.1.2), information in NuTRIS indicates that the reconstructed mean dose has been 

assigned to unbadged observers in spite of evidence that the reconstructed dose is too low. We 

believe that the mean of all film badge readings should be assigned to unbadged observers. 

In a case involving observers and maneuver troops at Operation TUMBLER-SNAPPER, 

Shot GEORGE (see Section 3.1.2), a judgment that use of a 3X upper bound factor is adequate 

depends somewhat on an assumption that all film badge readings apply to maneuver troops, who 

apparently received higher doses than observers. However, when the large bias in badge 

readings at that operation is taken into account, an upper bound factor of only slightly greater 

than three is required even if some of the highest badge readings apply to observers. 

Furthermore, all badge readings are low (0.3 rem or less). We do not believe that a possible 

inadequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in this case is significant. 

Four additional cases that were not included in our analysis are mentioned in Table 16.1. 

One case at Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, where the reconstructed dose was above 1 rem, was 

164
 

excluded on the basis of an argument by SAIC analysts that available film badge readings apply 

to exposures that were not taken into account in the dose reconstruction. In three cases at 

Operation TEAPOT, a substantial number of film badge readings are given in NuTRIS but no 

readings were reported in the published unit dose reconstruction, which stated that film badge 

data were inadequate to provide meaningful comparisons with reconstructed doses. However, 

there was no apparent reason why the badge readings in NuTRIS were considered inadequate. 

Given that the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor could be evaluated in very few cases at 

Operation TEAPOT, we believe that useful information might be obtained from a further 

investigation of whether film badge readings in NuTRIS are relevant in those three cases. 

Overall, the analyses at NTS indicate that use of a 3X upper bound factor on a 

reconstructed mean or high-sided dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all film 

badge readings in nearly all cases where meaningful comparisons could be made. In the one 

case where there is a large and meaningful discrepancy of about an order of magnitude between 

reconstructed mean doses and film badge readings, we do not believe that the discrepancy 

indicates an important problem with methods of dose reconstruction at NTS. Rather, the most 

plausible explanation in that case is that the discrepancy is due mainly to an inadequate 

characterization of the radiation environment in which unexpectedly high exposures occurred. 

That case represents a situation, which occurred rarely at NTS, where exposure rates were not 

measured near locations of exposure at times shortly after a detonation and, thus, the dose 

reconstruction had to be based on an extrapolation of measured exposure rates at distant 

locations and in other directions from ground zero. 

Comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings are lacking for participants 

in some units at NTS that could have received relatively high doses. For example, there are no 

reconstructed doses for cloud samplers or ground crews that handled cloud samples or 

contaminated aircraft. However, this could be an important concern only if participants in those 

units do not have badge readings during periods of exposure. We did not investigate whether 

film badge readings for those participants are available. 

In addition, there are no film badge readings for about 1,000 participants in Task Force 

RAZOR at Operation TEAPOT (see Section 5.1.2). This could be an important concern when 

reconstructed mean doses to various units in that task force range from 0.5 to 1.8 rem. However, 

since use of a 3X upper bound factor was found to be adequate in several cases involving 

165
 

maneuver units at Operations UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE and PLUMBBOB where doses were 

above 1 rem, we have no reason to believe that use of a 3X upper bound factor would be 

inadequate in obtaining upper bounds of reconstructed doses to members of that task force. 

16.2 Summary of Evaluations at PPG 

At PPG, nearly all comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings involved 

crew members on ships or participants stationed on residence islands. With one exception, dose 

reconstructions have not been performed at PPG for cloud samplers, other aircrews, or ground 

crews that handled cloud samples or were exposed to contaminated aircraft. Furthermore, there 

are few comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings in cases of exposure on 

contaminated non-residence islands and a general absence of comparisons in other situations 

where mission badges were issued to participants who entered contaminated areas for short time 

periods and for specific purposes (e.g., to retrieve equipment following a test). 

Exposures at PPG often differed from exposures at NTS in important ways. Many 

exposures to fallout on ships or residence islands or to contamination on a ship’s hull were 

protracted over periods of days or weeks. Thus, dose reconstructions often had to be based on 

extrapolations of measured exposure rates over long periods of time. Furthermore, exposure 

rates on a ship or an island during or after a fallout episode were not always reported, and 

exposure rates in those cases had to be estimated on the basis of measurements on nearby ships 

or islands. Although fallout depositions at locations of exposure on residence islands probably 

were nearly uniform in most cases, given the considerable distances of those islands from 

locations of detonations, and concentrations of fallout in air presumably were uniform over the 

area of a ship, fallout depositions on ship surfaces probably were highly non-uniform in many 

cases, due to the effects of a ship’s superstructure on wind flow at the air-ship interface. Finally, 

exposure of participants on ships or islands to initial gamma radiation did not occur at PPG. 

In this analysis, reconstructed doses and comparisons with film badge readings were 

considered at nine operations at PPG. However, comparisons at Operations SANDSTONE, 

WIGWAM, and DOMINIC I are not reiterated in this summary. Levels of fallout on ships and 

islands at Operation SANDSTONE were low, and since all reconstructed doses and nearly all 

badge readings are below a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem in cases where 

166
 

comparisons could be made, comparisons are not meaningful. At Operations WIGWAM and 

DOMINIC I, doses to most participants were low (below about 0.1 rem), and information on 

dose reconstructions and film badge readings did not permit comparisons to be made. 

In the following sections, comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings 

are summarized for units on ships and other units separately. Exposure environments generally 

were more complex and uncertain on ships than on islands, and challenges in reconstructing 

doses were greater on ships. 

16.2.1 Exposures on Ships

The results of our analysis of exposures to residual gamma radiation on ships at PPG on 

the basis of reconstructed doses and film badge readings given in published unit dose 

reconstructions or SAIC memoranda are summarized in Table 16.2 and as follows: 

• In 93 cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation on ships, reconstructed doses were 

compared with readings of at least five film badges.47 In 73 cases, including all five 

cases where most film badge readings are above 1 rem, use of a 3X upper bound factor 

on a reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all film 

badge readings. In 15 cases, use of a 3X upper bound factor is not adequate. The 

remaining five cases were excluded on the grounds that the reconstructed mean dose and 

readings of all film badges or all badges but one are below a nominal minimum 

detectable dose of 50 mrem and comparisons in those cases are not meaningful. 

Discussions in the following sections consider judgments that were involved in evaluating some 

of the comparisons on ships, the 15 cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged to be 

inadequate, and the five cases that were excluded from the analysis. 

 47 At PPG, a single case is defined by exposure on a single day or succession of days, as 

determined by periods covered by reconstructed doses and film badge readings, without regard for 

whether multiple cases on the same ship or residence island involved the same individuals. 

167
 

Table 16.2. Summary of comparisons of reconstructed doses from exposure to residual

gamma radiation with film badge readings at PPG – I. Comparisons on ships

a 

Doses < 1 rem Doses > 1 rem 

Operation Yes No Yes No 

CROSSROADS 13b 1(?) 

GREENHOUSEc 11 4 

IVYd 10 4 

CASTLE 24e 5f 5 

REDWING 5g 1 

HARDTACK I 5h 

a

 Comparisons are based on readings of at least five film badges that were reported in published 

unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. “Yes” means that use of 3X upper bound factor on 

reconstructed mean dose gives upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings; “No” means 

that use of 3X upper bound factor gives reconstructed upper bound that does not exceed at least 95% of 

all badge readings. 

b

 In two cases of exposure at Shot ABLE, reconstructed mean doses and all film badge readings 

are below nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem. 

c

 Five cases of exposure at Shot GEORGE where reconstructed mean dose and readings of all 

film badges or all badges but one are below nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem are not 

included (see text). 

d

 Reconstructed mean doses on all ships where film badge readings were available are below 

nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem; in ten cases, substantial numbers of badge readings are 

above nominal minimum detectable dose. 

e

 Included in this total are three cases where there were fewer than 20 film badge readings and 

only one badge reading exceeds reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three (see text). 

f

 In one case, upper bound factor required to give reconstructed upper bound dose that exceeds at 

least 95% of all film badge readings is only slightly greater than 3 and there were only 11 badge readings. 

Possible inadequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in this case probably is not significant. 

g

 In one case, reconstructed mean dose could not be compared with film badge readings on the 

basis of information available to us. However, on the basis of “threshold dose” calculated by SAIC 

analyst from upper bound of reconstructed dose and uncertainties in badge readings, highest reliable 

badge reading probably does not exceed reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three (see 

Section 13.3). 

h

 In one case, reconstructed dose is essentially zero based on absence of fallout on a ship, and 

majority of film badges recorded zero dose. Agreement of reconstructed dose with film badge readings is 

based on assumption that substantial number of badge readings above 50 mrem represent exposures 

during shore liberty, rather than on the ship. Possible discrepancy between reconstructed dose and film 

badge readings is not significant when all crew members on the ship were badged (see Section 14.3.2). 

168
 

16.2.1.1 Operation CROSSROADS. The one case at Operation CROSSROADS where 

use of a 3X upper bound factor appears to be inadequate involved a single day’s exposure of a 

boarding party that was billeted on the support ship USS RECLAIMER (see Section 7.1 and 

Table 7.1). All six badge readings are well above the reconstructed dose, and the highest badge 

readings exceeds the reconstructed dose by a factor of about 6 when the bias in badge readings is 

taken into account. The high badge readings were attributed to exposures during additional 

reported boardings that could not be reconciled with records of the ship’s activities on that date 

and were not taken into account in the dose reconstruction. Given the uncertainty in the 

activities of badged participants, this comparison is marked as questionable in Table 16.2. 

In four cases involving boarding parties on the target ship USS INDEPENDENCE, we 

assumed that reconstructed doses should be reduced by a factor of 0.34 to account for the 

likelihood that members of boarding parties spent most of the time below the weather deck (see 

Section 7.1 and Table 7.2). With that reduction, use of a 3X upper bound factor is still adequate 

in all four cases when the bias in film badge readings is taken into account. 

We caution that comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings at this 

operation may not be definitive when comparisons could be made in relatively few cases, most 

film badges were turned in within one day of their issuance, and there was little potential for high 

doses on most days and in most exposure situations (see Section 7.3). 

16.2.1.2 Operation GREENHOUSE. In comparing reconstructed doses with film badge 

readings on ships at Operation GREENHOUSE, we accepted an argument by SAIC analysts that 

the tendency for reconstructed doses to systematically underestimate badge readings can be 

explained, at least in part, by the duties of virtually all badged participants, which resulted in 

exposures substantially higher than exposures of average crew members that were the focus of 

dose reconstructions (see Section 9.1.1.1.1). In the four cases where use of a 3X upper bound 

factor is inadequate when reconstructed doses are increased to account for the presumably higher 

exposures of badged participants (the USS CURTISS at Shot EASY and the USS CABILDO, 

USNS MOWER, and USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM), the highest film badge readings range 

from 0.18 to 2.4 rem, and the required upper bound factor is about 4–5 in three cases and about 

40 on the USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM. In two of those cases, exposure rates were not 

measured on the ship but were assumed to be determined by measurements on a nearby ship or 

169
 

island. If reconstructed doses were not increased to account for the presumably higher exposures 

of badged participants, use of a 3X upper bound factor would be inadequate in two additional 

cases. The required upper bound factor would be about 4 in one case and 7 in the other. The 

required upper bound factor also would increase in the four cases summarized above. 

On the USS SPROSTON at Shot ITEM, the large discrepancy between the reconstructed 

mean dose, which is about 0.003 rem when the presumably higher exposures of badged 

participants are taken into account, and readings of all eight film badges of 0.08–0.18 rem seems 

inexplicable when the dose reconstruction was based on reported exposure rates on that ship. 

SAIC analysts did not offer an explanation of the large discrepancy. 

In two cases at Shot GEORGE where reconstructed doses are 10 mrem or less, a single 

badge reading exceeds a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem and is much higher than 

the reconstructed mean dose; there is a total of seven badge readings in one case and 17 in the 

other (see Section 9.1.1.1.1). Given the absence of fallout on ships at Shot GEORGE and the 

preponderance of badge readings of zero, we presume that the two high badge readings are 

anomalous and do not represent exposures of other unbadged crew members. Since the 

reconstructed doses and most badge readings are less than a nominal minimum detectable dose, 

these cases, as well as the other three cases at Shot GEORGE where all badge readings are zero, 

are not included in the comparisons summarized in Table 16.2. 

16.2.1.3 Operation IVY. Doses at Operation IVY generally were low, and we accepted 

arguments by SAIC analysts that unusually high film badge readings on the USS RENDOVA, 

OAK HILL, and ESTES apply to participants who were involved in activities apart from most 

crew members that were not taken into account in dose reconstructions (see Section 10.1). In 

those cases, most badge readings are less than a nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem 

or exceed the reconstructed mean dose by less than a factor of three. However, in four cases on 

the USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, FLETCHER, and YUMA where most badge readings 

exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three and are above a nominal 

minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, we did not accept arguments that badge readings should 

be discounted; the highest badge readings in those cases range from 0.12 to 0.22 rem. 

On the USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and FLETCHER, it is plausible, as argued by 

SAIC analysts, that the large discrepancies between reconstructed doses and film badge readings 

170
 

are due to unsubstantiated contamination on these ship’s hulls that was not considered in dose 

reconstructions. However, this explanation invalidates the procedure of assigning reconstructed 

mean doses to unbadged participants on those ships (see Section 10.3), because all participants 

would have been exposed to that contamination and their doses would be underestimated. We 

believe that a better procedure would be to assign mean doses to unbadged participants on those 

ships on the basis of means of the distributions of film badge readings. If this procedure is not 

used, the upper bound factor that should be applied to reconstructed mean doses is about 6–8 on 

the USS CARPENTER and FLETCHER and about 25 on the USS O’BANNON when the bias in 

badge readings is taken into account. 

In the case on the USS YUMA, we questioned an assumption by SAIC analysts that film 

badges recorded exposures that were not received by crew members, and we noted that 

reconstructed doses were based on measured exposure rates on a nearby island that could have 

misrepresented exposure rates on this ship. As on the USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and 

FLETCHER, we believe that reconstructed mean doses should be assigned to unbadged 

participants on the USS YUMA on the basis of the mean of the distribution of film badge 

readings. If this procedure is not used, the upper bound factor that should be applied to the 

reconstructed mean dose is about 7 when the bias in badge readings is taken into account. 

The cases on the USS CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and FLETCHER summarized above 

do not call into question methods of dose reconstruction on ships when the presumably most 

important source of exposure could not be taken into account. However, these cases and the case 

on the USS YUMA do call attention to the potential for misuse of reconstructed doses in 

assigning doses to unbadged participants. 

16.2.1.4 Operation CASTLE. In some cases at Operation CASTLE where there are 

fewer than 20 film badge readings, most badge readings are above a nominal minimum 

detectable dose of 50 mrem and at least one reading exceeds the reconstructed mean dose by 

more than a factor of three (see Sections 11.1.1.1 and 11.2). As noted previously, we judged that 

a 3X upper bound factor is inadequate in those cases only if at least two badge readings exceed 

the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. 

The five cases at Operation CASTLE where use of a 3X upper bound factor is inadequate 

involved exposures at various shots (see Section 11.1.1.1). In only one of the five cases was a 

171
 

reconstructed dose based on measured exposure rates on a nearby ship or island. The highest 

film badge readings range from 0.4 to 1.3 rem. The upper bound factor that is required to give a 

reconstructed upper bound dose that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings when the bias in 

badge readings is taken into account is about 10 on the USS ESTES during the period May 4–14, 

8 on the USS COCOPA during the period May 8–18, 5 on the USS RECLAIMER during the 

period April 20–27 and on the USS MOLALA during the period April 12 – May 2, and 3.3 on 

the USS COCOPA during the period May 1–7. As noted in Table 16.2, the possible inadequacy 

of a 3X upper bound factor in the last case probably is not significant. Except in the two cases 

on the USS COCOPA, more than 40 badge readings were reported in published unit dose 

reconstructions; the number of readings in those cases provides confidence that the comparisons 

are valid indicators of the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor. 

In several cases at Operation CASTLE where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged 

to be adequate, unusually high film badge readings in NuTRIS were not included in comparisons 

with reconstructed doses given in published unit dose reconstructions (see Section 11.1.1.2). 

Although the justifications for excluding those badge readings given by SAIC analysts may be 

valid, some readings apparently were excluded only on the grounds that they are much higher 

than readings that apply to typical crew members. We believe that the higher badge readings in 

NuTRIS is these cases raise questions about whether all relevant badge readings were included in 

comparisons with reconstructed doses in published unit dose reconstructions. 

In an additional 27 cases on 13 ships at Operation CASTLE, film badge readings were 

not reported in published unit dose reconstructions, but at least five distinct badge readings are 

given in NuTRIS (see Section 11.1.1.2). In six of those cases, the highest badge readings in 

NuTRIS exceed the reconstructed mean dose by more than a factor of three. The published unit 

dose reconstructions do not provide an explanation of why badge readings in NuTRIS were not 

reported and compared with reconstructed doses. These additional cases were not taken into 

account in evaluating the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor at this operation. However, these 

cases also raise questions about whether all relevant film badge readings were taken into account 

in comparisons with reconstructed doses in published unit dose reconstructions. 

Although use of a 3X upper bound factor was found to be inadequate in several cases on 

ships at Operation CASTLE, it is important to emphasize that discrepancies between 

reconstructed doses and film badge readings on ships at this operation should not important in 

172
 

adjudicating claims for compensation when cohort film badge readings are used to assign doses 

to unbadged participants. 

16.2.1.5 Operation REDWING. Environmental damage to film badges was an important 

problem at Operation REDWING, and we accepted all judgments by an SAIC analyst about 

badges that give reliable estimates of dose. In the one case on the USS SHELTON during the 

period April 20 – June 12 where use of a 3X upper bound factor on the reconstructed mean dose 

gives an upper bound that does not exceed at least 95% of the film badge readings that were 

judged to be reliable, an upper bound factor of at least 20 probably is required (see Section 13.3). 

An explanation of this discrepancy was not offered by the SAIC analyst. The reconstructed dose 

in this case was based on measured exposure rates on nearby ships or islands. 

16.2.1.6 Operation HARDTACK I. At Operation HARDTACK I, comparisons of 

reconstructed doses with film badge readings on ships were straightforward. In all cases where 

comparisons could be made, reconstructed doses were based on measured exposure rates on the 

ship. However, reconstructed doses could be compared with film badge readings in only a few 

cases. In many more cases, dose reconstructions were performed but results were not reported in 

SAIC memoranda (see Section 14.3.2). In some of those cases, reconstructed doses were based 

in part on assumptions about exposure rates that were adjusted to achieve agreement between the 

reconstructed dose and a mean film badge reading or similar assumptions on a nearby ship, but 

neither the reconstructed dose that would be obtained on the basis of unadjusted exposure rates 

nor the magnitude of the adjustments was reported. In other cases, the reconstructed dose during 

a period covered by film badge readings was not reported, and the mean badge reading was used 

in lieu of a reconstructed dose during the covered period. Since all participants at this operation 

were issued film badges, the primary purpose of dose reconstructions was to estimate doses 

during periods after badges were turned in and contaminated ships left the test area. 

16.2.1.7 Summary of Evaluations on Ships. Overall, the analyses on ships at PPG 

summarized in Table 16.2 indicate that use of a 3X upper bound factor on a reconstructed mean 

dose does not give an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all film badge readings in slightly 

more than 15% of the cases where meaningful comparisons could be made. The required upper 

173
 

bound factor is only slightly greater than three in one case, which probably is not a significant 

discrepancy, about 4–5 in five cases, about 6–8 in five cases, and about 10 or more in four cases. 

Although comparisons could be made in many cases on ships, the number of cases at Operation 

HARDTACK I is limited. We believe that additional comparisons of reconstructed doses with 

film badge readings on ships at that operation would be informative if such comparisons are 

feasible. Other cases could be included if reconstructed doses that were estimated independently 

of badge readings but were not reported in SAIC memoranda are available. 

Given the substantial number of cases on ships where use of a 3X upper bound factor was 

judged to be inadequate, we investigated whether the occurrence of those cases is correlated with 

the magnitude of doses or the lack of measured exposure rates on a ship. We considered all 

cases summarized in Table 16.2 except cases at Operation CROSSROADS, where causes of 

contamination and conditions of exposure on target ships were unique compared with exposures 

on ships at other operations. Special consideration was given to the four cases at Operation IVY 

where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged to be inadequate, because the inadequacies 

probably are due mainly to factors that could not be taken into account in dose reconstructions 

and did not occur in other comparisons on ships at other operations. In investigating correlations 

with dose, we considered three ranges of dose: < 0.1 rem, 0.1–1 rem, and > 1 rem; doses were 

assigned to one of those categories on the basis of the reconstructed mean dose. Results of this 

investigation are summarized as follows: 

• Cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged to be inadequate do not clearly 

tend to occur more frequently when mean reconstructed doses are below 0.1 rem 

compared with the frequency of occurrence when doses are 0.1–1 rem. The only clear 

tendency is that inadequacies do not occur at doses above 1 rem. 

• Cases where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged to be inadequate generally tend 

to occur more frequently when exposure rates on a ship had to be estimated on the basis 

of measurements on nearby ships or islands compared with the frequency of occurrence 

when exposure rates were measured on a ship. However, the five cases at Operation 

CASTLE do not conform to the general tendency, because exposure rates were 

measured on the ship in four cases. 

174
 

We also investigated whether the upper bound factor that would be required to give an 

upper bound of a reconstructed dose that exceeds at least 95% of all film badge readings in cases 

where use of a 3X upper bound factor was judged to be inadequate is correlated with the 

reconstructed mean dose or the lack of measured exposure rates on a ship. Cases on the USS 

CARPENTER, O’BANNON, and FLETCHER at Operation IVY were excluded on the grounds 

that the presumably most important source of exposure on those ships could not be characterized 

in dose reconstructions and, therefore, the magnitude of a required upper bound factor is not 

meaningful in regard to identifying possible problems with methods of dose reconstruction in 

cases of exposure to fallout on ships. When these cases are excluded, results of this investigation 

are summarized as follows: 

• The required upper bound factor tends to be higher when reconstructed mean doses are 

below 0.1 rem. In all cases where the reconstructed mean dose is above 0.1 rem, the 

required upper bound factor is about 5 or less, whereas all cases where the required upper 

bound factor is greater than 5 occurred at doses below 0.1 rem. 

• The required upper bound factor does not tend to be higher when exposure rates were 

measured on a ship. For example, exposure rates were measured on a ship in three of the 

four cases where the required upper bound factor is about 8 or higher, and exposure rates 

were not measured on a ship in half of the six cases where the required upper bound 

factor is about 5 or lower. 

The first of these results conforms to expectations, but the second does not. 

16.2.2 Exposures of Other Units

 This section summarizes comparisons of reconstructed doses from exposure to residual 

gamma radiation with film badge readings for units at PPG that were not exposed on ships. Most 

of these comparisons involved participants who were exposed on residence islands for extended 

periods of time. A few comparisons involved participants who were exposed on other islands 

where test activities took place or as members of air crews. Those comparisons generally 

involved exposure for shorter periods of time. 

175
 

The results of our analysis of exposures of other units at PPG to residual gamma radiation 

on the basis of reconstructed doses and film badge readings given in published unit dose 

reconstructions or SAIC memoranda are summarized in Table 16.3 and as follows: 

• In all 41 cases where reconstructed doses were compared with at least five film badge 

readings, use of a 3X upper bound factor on a reconstructed mean dose gives an upper 

bound that exceeds at least 95% of all film badge readings. In 18 cases, most film badge 

readings are greater than 1 rem. 

Some of these cases are discussed below. 

Table 16.3. Summary of comparisons of reconstructed doses from exposure to residual

gamma radiation with film badge readings at PPG – II. Comparisons for units

on islands and other units not on ships

a 

Doses < 1 rem Doses > 1 rem 

Operation Yes No Yes No 

CROSSROADS 1b

GREENHOUSE 7 1 

IVY 

CASTLE 2 1 

REDWING 3c

HARDTACK I 13 13 

a

 Comparisons are based on readings of at least five film badges that were reported in published 

unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. “Yes” means that use of 3X upper bound factor on 

reconstructed mean dose gives upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings; “No” means 

that use of 3X upper bound factor gives reconstructed upper bound that does not exceed at least 95% of 

all badge readings. 

b

 Case involved crew members on photographic aircraft. All reconstructed doses are at or below 

nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem, and all film badge readings are zero. 

c

 In all cases, only mean film badge readings, but not their distributions, were reported in SAIC 

memorandum.

The case at Operation CROSSROADS is the only one in Table 16.3 that may not have 

involved exposure on a residence island or other island only. The reconstructed dose and film 

badge readings in that case are too low to allow a meaningful comparison. 

176
 

The one case at Operation CASTLE where doses are above 1 rem involved participants 

stationed on Rongerik Atoll who were exposed to very high levels of fallout from Shot BRAVO 

(see Section 11.1.3). Doses in that case, which are about 35–50 rem, are more than an order of 

magnitude higher than doses in other comparisons at PPG, and reconstructed doses differ from 

comparable film badge readings by less than 15%. 

In the three cases at Operation REDWING where only mean film badge readings, but not 

their distributions, were reported in an SAIC memorandum, we assumed that the highest badge 

reading is no more than a factor of two above the mean. This assumption is supported by the 

distribution of badge readings in NuTRIS in one case (see Section 13.3). In another case on a 

residence island at this operation, an SAIC memorandum reported that there was good agreement 

between reconstructed doses and film badge readings, but the memorandum does not give 

information on badge readings. NuTRIS also does not give any badge readings during the time 

period covered by the dose reconstruction. Since we could not evaluate the reported comparison, 

this case is not included in Table 16.3. 

The cases of exposure on residence islands at Operation HARDTACK I comprise more 

than 60% of all cases in Table 16.3. In more than half of those cases, at least 20 film badge 

readings were reported (see Section 14.3.1), which provides confidence that the comparisons are 

valid indicators of the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor. Mean badge readings in all cases 

range from about 0.2 to 2.4 rem, so the comparisons cover a wide range of doses. 

Overall, the analyses summarized in Table 16.3 for island-based units and other units at 

PPG that were not exposed on ships indicate that use of a 3X upper bound factor on a 

reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all film badge 

readings in all cases where meaningful comparisons could be made. There is no indication of 

important problems with dose reconstructions on islands. 

16.3 Conclusions 

Results of our analyses to compare reconstructed doses with relevant film badge readings 

for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of applying a 3X upper bound factor to reconstructed 

mean doses or point estimates of dose with no uncertainty are summarized as follows: 

177
 

• In cases of exposure to initial gamma radiation at NTS (18 cases) or exposure to residual 

gamma radiation in forward areas at NTS (38 cases) or on residence or other islands at 

PPG (41 cases) where a sufficient number of film badge readings were reported in 

published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC memoranda to permit meaningful 

comparisons, use of a 3X upper bound factor on a reconstructed mean or high-sided dose 

gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge readings in all cases except 

one when two cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation at NTS where the 

reconstructed mean or high-sided dose and many film badge readings are below a 

nominal minimum detectable dose of 50 mrem are excluded on the grounds that a 

comparison is not meaningful. Thus, use of a 3X upper bound factor usually was found 

to be adequate in cases of exposure on land at either theater of operation. 

The one exception involved exposure of a small group of participants in Task Force WARRIOR 

(Project 50.1) to residual gamma radiation at Operation PLUMBBOB, Shot SMOKY at NTS. 

However, we do not believe that the large discrepancy between reconstructed mean doses and 

film badge readings for members of that group indicates a problem with methods of dose 

reconstruction at NTS. Rather, the cause of the discrepancy probably was an incorrect 

characterization of the radiation environment at the location where unexpectedly high exposures 

of the small group occurred that resulted from the lack of radiation survey data near that location; 

this is a rare occurrence that did not affect other comparisons at NTS. Furthermore, the 

discrepancy in this case does not have important consequences when doses that have been 

assigned to all members of this group are based on a film badge reading. 

• In 93 cases of exposure to residual gamma radiation on ships at PPG where a sufficient 

number of film badge readings were reported in published unit dose reconstructions or 

SAIC memoranda to permit meaningful comparisons, use of a 3X upper bound factor on 

a reconstructed mean dose gives an upper bound that exceeds at least 95% of all badge 

readings in most cases, but not in a substantial number of cases. In 14 cases (about 15% 

of all cases) where use of a 3X upper bound factor was found to be inadequate, mean film 

badge readings are less than 1 rem and the required upper bound factor ranges from about 

3.3, which probably does not indicate a significant discrepancy, to about 40. In an 

additional case at Operation CROSSROADS where some film badge readings exceed the 

178
 

reconstructed dose by more than a factor of three, the high badge readings may represent 

exposures during activities that could not be reconciled with available records, and the 

significance of a comparison in this case is uncertain. 

We also believe that discrepancies between reconstructed mean doses and film badge readings 

are potentially important in six of 27 additional cases on ships at Operation CASTLE where 

badge readings given in NuTRIS were not reported in published unit dose reconstructions. It 

could be informative to investigate whether badge readings in NuTRIS are valid in all 27 cases 

and, if so, to investigate the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor in those cases. 

We also investigated whether there are certain tendencies in cases on ships where use of a 

3X upper bound factor was judged to be inadequate. We found that those cases do not clearly 

tend to occur more frequently when reconstructed mean doses are below 0.1 rem compared with 

the frequency of occurrence when doses are 0.1–1 rem, but that, with the exception of cases at 

Operation CASTLE, those cases tend to occur more frequently when exposure rates on a ship 

had to be estimated on the basis of measurements on nearby ships or islands. We also found that 

the required upper bound factor tends to be higher when the reconstructed mean dose is below 

0.1 rem than at higher doses, but that there is no noticeable tendency for the required upper 

bound factor to be higher when exposure rates were not measured on a ship. 

In the four cases on ships at Operation IVY where there are large discrepancies between 

reconstructed mean doses and film badge readings (the required upper bound factor is about 6–8 

in three cases and 25 in the fourth), we believe that the cause of the discrepancy in three cases is 

an incorrect characterization of the radiation environment that resulted from a lack of measured 

exposure rates on the ships and an inability to estimate the extent of likely contamination on the 

ship’s hulls, and that the causes of the discrepancy in the fourth case may have been a lack of 

measured exposure rates on the ship and a questionable assumption in the dose reconstruction 

that film badges recorded exposures that were not received by crew members. These situations 

apparently did not occur in other comparisons on ships, and the discrepancies in these cases do 

not necessarily indicate important problems with methods of dose reconstruction on ships. 

The finding of large discrepancies between reconstructed doses and film badge readings 

in a substantial number of cases on ships at PPG leads us to conclude that, whenever possible, 

doses to unbadged participants on a ship should be assigned on the basis of badge readings for 

179
 

other participants on that ship, rather than a reconstructed dose, even when discrepancies are 

unimportant. For example, the large discrepancies in several cases at Operation CASTLE should 

not be an important concern when cohort badge readings generally are used to assign doses to 

unbadged participants. However, information in NuTRIS indicates that reconstructed doses have 

been assigned to unbadged participants on ships at Operations GREENHOUSE and IVY, and we 

believe that this procedure should not be used when mean doses can be estimated on the basis of 

distributions of film badge readings. 

A related issue concerns the treatment of film badge readings in a particular unit that are 

substantially higher than most badge readings. The presence of a few outlier badge readings was 

noted in several published unit dose reconstructions at NTS and PPG. In some cases, the 

unusually high badge readings were explained by documented activities of a few participants that 

differed from the activities of most members of a unit. In other cases, SAIC analysts simply 

asserted that unusually high badge readings did not represent exposures that were taken into 

account in a dose reconstruction and, therefore, should not be used in evaluating the extent of 

agreement between a reconstructed dose and badge readings. We do not take issue with these 

arguments. However, these situations raise a concern about whether badge readings that appear 

to be outliers should be taken into account in assigning doses to unbadged participants. 

Information in NuTRIS indicates that reconstructed doses often have been assigned to unbadged 

participants, and that higher outlier badge readings have not been considered. This approach 

seems appropriate when it can be established with reasonable certainty that unbadged 

participants did not engage in unusual activities that could have resulted in unusually high doses. 

However, we believe that this approach is difficult to justify when an unbadged participant’s 

activities are uncertain. In such cases, we believe that doses should be assigned to unbadged 

participants on the basis of means of distributions of all badge readings in a unit, including 

outliers, rather than a reconstructed dose. By taking outlier readings into account when there is 

little evidence to justify their exclusion, unbadged participants would be given the benefit of the 

doubt in their assigned doses. 

In comparing reconstructed doses with film badge readings, we attempted to use badge 

readings given in NuTRIS in addition to badge readings that were reported in published unit dose 

reconstructions or SAIC memoranda. However, we encountered several problems in attempting 

to obtain definitive information on film badge readings in NuTRIS (see Section 1.5), and it was 

180
 

181

difficult to conclude that badge readings in NuTRIS that were not reported in published unit dose 

reconstructions or SAIC memoranda could be used reliably in our analysis. Although we 

compared badge readings in NuTRIS with reconstructed doses in some cases, those comparisons 

were not included in our evaluations of the adequacy of a 3X upper bound factor. 

We do not mean to imply that difficulties we encountered in using NuTRIS indicate 

important problems with the database; NuTRIS was designed for different purposes than we 

attempted to use it for. However, limitations in the usefulness of NuTRIS to our analysis led us 

to conclude that meaningful comparisons of reconstructed doses with film badge readings could 

be made only when badge readings were reported in published unit dose reconstructions or SAIC 

memoranda. Possible exceptions involved exposures of observers at Operation TEAPOT, Shots 

BEE, ESS, and APPLE II, where a substantial number of film badge readings in NuTRIS were 

not reported in published unit dose reconstructions and the published report indicated only that 

available film badge data were inadequate (see Section 5.1.2.2), and exposures on several ships 

at Operation CASTLE, where a substantial number of badge readings in NuTRIS were not 

reported in published unit dose reconstructions and neither NuTRIS nor the published report 

provide information to indicate that those badge readings do not represent exposures of average 

crew members (see Section 11.1.1.2). 

We should also note that useful information was obtained from NuTRIS. Information in 

NuTRIS allowed us to identify situations where reconstructed doses may have been assigned 

inappropriately to unbadged participants. In addition, information in NuTRIS gave no indication 

that there are additional types of exposure situations where use of a 3X upper bound factor is 

inadequate beyond the situations that were identified on the basis of reconstructed doses and film 

badge readings in published unit dose reconstructions and SAIC memoranda. 
 

 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

 DTRA-TR-09-14 

 Additional copies are available at: 

 http://www.dtra.mil/rd/programs/nuclear_personnel/pubs.cfm

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Technical Information Center 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201 

ATTN: DTIC/OCA 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, RD-NTSN 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

Defense Threat Reduction Information Analysis Center 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, OP-CSUI 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Chief, Public Health & Environmental Hazards 

VA Central Office (13) 

810 Vermont Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

FEDERAL AGENCY ADVISORY BOARDS

Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction 

Applied Research Associates, Inc. 

801 North Quincy Street, Suite 600 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Compensation & Pension Service (211) 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

DL-1 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS 

L3 Communications 

11410 Isaac Newton Square North, Suite 103 

Reston, VA 20190-5005 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

9950 W. 80Th Ave. 

Arvada, CO 80005 

ATTN: Ms. Nancy Daugherty CHP 

SAIC 

8301 Greensboro Drive, M/S E-5-5 

McLean, VA 22102 

SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. 

102 Donner Drive 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

ATTN: Dr. David Kocher 

DL-2