y

m
5
~>
<’
&“
o
c.)
— .- . .. . . . .
i
I

I
~
w
{

,
I

j!-

l-’
$
m“
.

h
\ (O;
!!!

--- -. -~.._ — —. *
1 “L
_—-. —

!
-,

woo)
Imowlh

h~
[Mm
mmmn

-’--%- --, (Wnl

nxlmnuu
(X04)
Inw)
Jwwuma
(UYnu
/’
:-’, mm? c* ● *I-IS
-.$.
I-me) ,/
.‘1, ,,.. ,-. -.
,. ,.,

‘ WiJB
\ ,.-\.
8 { .,.
Nv’no
1101V
*JIW !uUoa
lNIXle
-%
w
““””
‘zsl
b
I

0’!-
..

( -...

. ..
 -.

.
CHAPTER 8
?
..
TOTAL DOSE ESTIMATES .
/.
#
8a Calculated VALUES

The ~tal dose~ calculated for each of the islands for hypothe-
ical fallout times of 8, 12, and 16 hcurs are given in Table 8.1, .
tigether uith the doses calculated in Reference 16, h order to fflus-
tmta the difference h the estinates due ta the later information on
gamma spectra, metir response, ad decay =tes.
The 12-hour fallout nlue is considered most probable, being most
consistent with the Ron5zrlk filn tadge data (see Section 6.2). Doses
based on this value are multiplied by the geometry factor discussed ti
Chapter 7, h order to express them in terms of the air-dose fran a
source of similar ener~ under bilateral exposure laboratory conditions
which would have produced the sane midline dose. A plot of dose raw
versus time based on Figure 3.3 ~as used ad the tuta~ dose was graph-
ically determtied by nornalizlng ordinates and dose rates for a given .
time and measuring the area under ~wrves similar b Fiwre 6.1* T~s
was done assuming all three fallout times for each island.
The aizwiose rates neasued at la~r t~es (Table 2C4) uere m~ti-
plied by the b tal correction factir for geometry and energy dependence
of the survey meter (see section 5.2). Fallout beginning times and
evacuation times used were those of Table 6.1. It was found that doses .
calculated using the decay exponents of Section 3.2 were fi good agree-
ment with those determined graphically.
I
8.2 DISCUSSION

Figure 8.1 illustrates the cumulative air-dose as a function of

1. time on &mgelap atoll, based on the 12 hour fallout assumption. It
can be seen that the rate of deli~’eryof the dose wmied continuously,
the major portion being received at the higher dose rate prevafltig
,7
in the mid-portion of the exposure period. By the time that 90 percent
i
-.. . of the dose had been received at H + ~ hoursj for e~’Fle~ the dose .
rati had fallen ta 2.7 r/hr, less than LO percent of its maximum value
of 7.~ r/hr at H + 16 hours. At H + 16 hours, 25 percent of the dose
had been received. Thus the dose rate during exposure differed marked- .
ly &cm that usually encountered using X-ray units.
The dose values fcr Rongerik .ti-~enillTable 8.1 are 75 PerceQt of
the ccmpted values, averaged for the 2d.5-~d-3&-~our eXPO~~sO ‘is (3
38

~-A .. ... . ... . .. .. . ● *.... ●

 —
— .

e 1 was felt b best express the average air-dose received by persomel

who spent roughly half their time inside stmct..ures where the dose
rate was later found to be roughly half that outdoors. On the other

. islands no such shieldinE was present, and no re&ction factor was ap-
plied. The same procedu= was-follow~ for all the calculations. -

●
TABLE 8.1 - Total Gamma Doses

Island Dose 12-Hour 16-Hour Ref. 16 12-&ur Bilateral

8-Hcur Fallwt Fallout (r) Air-dose (Point
Falkut (r) (r) Source of Sme
(r) Energy) for Equal
Midline Dose
(r)

Rongerik* 106 86 70 78 130

Rongelap 209 182 159 175 270

Aili.nginae 92 81 72 69 1.20

.. U tirik 15 13 12 Q 20

*See Section 8.2

.
8*3 K@T WA ANDBETA U)MFWENTS

In addition to the total body gamma dose, the mry soft gamma and
higher energy beta radiation from the plane source contributed to the
skin &se. Fu.rlhr skin tiradiation resulted fmm local deposits of
fallout material on the body surface itself. The latter is impossible
to esttiate, h t the former may be roughly attempted as follows.
The beta dose rate in air at a height of 3 feet above the surface
of an infinite plane contaminated with mixed 2L-hour-old fission prod- .
ucts is estimated b be abuut three times the air gamma dose (Reference
lL). ‘Jbemidline gamma dose is approximately 60 percent of the prtion
of the air gamma dose due to 1OO-KV radiation or above (Reference 13)●
This gxxtion, in tirn, is estimated to be 60 percent of the corrected
gamma dose measured in air by a calibrated instmnent. Tks, the dose
at the surface of a phantom exposed to retiedfission product radiation
from an extirnal plane source might be expected b be about eight times

. (3/(0.5)2) tie midline dose, H ~th occur at 3 feet off the ~omd.
Such a depth-dose measurement has in fact been made experimentally
at a previous field test (Reference 15), ustig a phantom man exposed to

. both the initial and residual radiation. The depth-doses for each sit-
uation are shown in Figure 8.2 with all data as percent of the 3-csn

e.,
dose. With the diver=tig initial radiation from the point of explosion,
the etit dose was seen to be 63 percent of the 3-cm dose. &t, with
the diffuse residual field of fission product mdiation, a surface dose
39

~.. ... (:23

-.. .“. . . . : :.. : :.*,.*..
●
.. t
 .

...- .. ,’.. . . .. ..

0
In

/
CJ

a
x
o
“ F-J

E
*IA
< .
I w
J =
1-

.> \

1 1’ f I
c
I t t I
c
-i-uJO o
c
. u

(J) HIV NI 3S00 1V101 .

.
-.
c)
40

. . . . . . . . .s
..0.
. . . . .*. . .
..*.
. .. ...
..0
..
 ,-. ,,-

.,
.

m
1000

$?

,
b I

500 DEPTH DOSE IN PHANTOM MAN

Fo ~ INITIAL RADIATION
h- -0- RESIDUAL FIELD

,.

$-

o“ 10 , 20 30
DEPTH (CM]
.

, Fig. 8.2 Field De@h40se Measurement, operation

WzmT-momom
.

c)

.*
..0
● *9 ●** : ●** ●** ●*”.: :“” : :“” :“0
. ...*** ● **-?*”? :“::
 . —

saw
I
eightthnes greater than the 3~-and-deqer dose from the harder
..
e)
gamma cunponents was observed. This is seen b be of the same order
of magnitude as tkit estha ted above.
At tiights above and below the j.foot leml, this surface dose
would becaxe lower and hi~er, respectively. But, ,sinceit is due to
soft =diation of short range, it probably would not exceed SO times ,
the 3-foot air gartnadose or 8CI times the midline dose, even in con-
.
6,
:!
tact with the -gzmund.
An estimate of skin dose due to ground contamination for the
i
,’
Rongelap case would recult, for example, in a figure of about 2000 rep
to the dorsuiiof the foot, 600 rep at the hip level, and 300 rep at
the head H continuous exposure tith no shieldtn: occurred, Some re-
&ction in dose undoubtedly resulted from shielding and rnove:nent and
it seems probable that tie ex@rnal beta dose from local skti contami-
nation far outweighed Ln importance that from the ground. This is
emphasized by the pmkbti”ity that clothing reduced the beta dose fxwm
the .~d by 10 to 20 percent.

-.. . ..—. - . ..

i
.
I
1

. . .

.-
. .. . . . ..

,..

,
,’.
., , ,“
,.

7 ., &,. . .
-. .,,
I .,.
-.. ” ,
.- . .
,.
. . .
. . .. . ,. .
.’

\ .
. . .
‘.
.,
0
‘ 42 .
~.. ● * ● 0. ●

✚✚✎✎✎✎✚✚
. . . . . . . .
●
. .
✎ ✎
.
✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ “.”:.::: ‘:::
 -.. . . ,,,.+,;,.. -
?

,
. .
.
,-’ .. . . . . ., .,.-
:.. .
..: .-. - .c -
,- .“, . .-
,.” -. . .. .,
..:. .“,
, -., ---
-k ,“. . .. .
. ,-.
.. ;../ -.
\ . .. . -
.. -.. :,,.
b .’. ..
,.
; . .’, ! ‘ .- ,.
----
.. .
-J.
.
. .-

‘, ...,
.“..
:’:,
..,.-
:
- .-

,., . . cmpqJER9 ‘.’-, “. -:. “ .. .:. . .“’.,, .:.-

. . . .,. .
9,..’- ,..
,A . .. . .
‘, . . . . CONCLUSIONS- ‘ , .. “: ‘,
.. .’. - .\ “-
. . .-
The AN/PDR-39A is cst-imatedto require a correction factir of
about plus 20 prcent in dose-rate readings made under the conditions\
discussed.
%% decay of the radioactiti~ of the fallout duri the exposure
85
period is believed to ‘~ expressible by the factor T-o” .
The exlzmal gamma &se was delivered primarily by radiation ener-
gies of 100, 700, and 1500 kev. The beta dose was believed to be
deliversd by beta radiation of maximum energies of 0.3 and 1.9 Mev}
mostly fra- fallout deposited on the skin itself.
The exposures occurred between A and 78 hours after the detati- .
tion. The fallouts were pnbably of about 12-hours duration.
● ‘Diffusesource geoznetxyincreased the midline dose by about 50
percent canpared to the midline dose which would have resulted from a
bilateral narrow bean exposure of the same aL--dose.
Error in the estimates is believed to b less than SO prcent.
Total air gama doses are estimated as fouovst tinger~~ 86 rJ
‘ Rongelap$ 182 r; Ailing-e, 81 r; and U t~k~ 13 r.
. . .
:. ,-. . . . . .- . . . ..
. .’ . . .. . . ...- ,.,. ..” ---- -
-.:
,. ) ,-. . .. . . .,. ,
., .....- . ,- ,---- .,, .-.
-.
-, -., e,> ., ,..
. .
.. -.
.,.
-
.. .. ‘. ... .
-..-. .
.- ?. ... ...,”.“, . ..,
,. .
.-. . .“. .. .. # .. . \.-
.:.’
. .. . . . . .. . ,.> “: “ ).{ ‘, ‘.
,, ,“ ..-’-.-.. .... ’.:’”,;
-: ‘“’.. ;“. : 1
.- ,,
.+ . . .. . .
. . . . .,
,-. ,. . . . . . ,’
.: .”. . . .. . .. . “.. . . . .
,-” . . .
-. .-. . .,
:k* - ,. ... -/ .. . . . . . . ...-.’ .
T“ “.. . ,.:
,. .-
/, ’,”.- , ., ’ .. .-.’.-...
-- ,., . -i..’”. . .. . .,. , .. >.-.
,. .--’ :. “.,-:” “.’. ,., . . . . . .. .,; ..’ .,...1:
.. ’..,:, ..”
.,, ..: . . _., .. . .. . .
..’ ‘.. . . . .. . . . -, .:.,.. –.. 7---
-k -,’)- ‘.”. . . .-”
,’ .,. .
. ..”- ----- ‘. >.. .. :,...,. , . . ..” .,. -
-.-,:. ,. .,
~,...~-.~.,.. ,.. , . >.
.. ,, .“ . -“
,, .-’ ..- ,.. ,
,.
.- . . . . . .. . . . . .
1.
.,, .,-’.. . ., -,’.
-..’ ... -” . . . . . ‘. .’.. ---- ,-.
J.-J .“ ...< .-
. .-. .
.’” -.
. .
-.
. . . .- ..
.-
. ..’ . ..-

,“,

-. in
I

31 VWXOMUV ●
i
0006L’L9 3 sl’ee9’911 3 fzooe’911 3 W66L’601 3 *’0%’SL 3 96”s91’94 3 s319a~ !
00’OSL’L*I N t*tZ*’191 N C3069’191N OS”tS1’(Wl N SO ‘X9’OLI N LI”L19’OLI M ~9m

I DO*

I
●O*
I
C6mg

l-’
16* w-l Zal

I 61:90
I 60:90
I
CO:90
I Siso

-u WBn (Dwmw=fil
mvw Jooa
I

Axa
● 1 ken c II* Sz ll@T 1

eb@u6
I *WU
I I
● @vx
I tm

NollvnmodMl JOM9 WU3W99

—.

9 -1
q’
 —.. —

3 22 33 a
● ● . ● 9 ● 9 * ● ●

● ● ● ● 9 ● * ● O ●

● ● ● ● ● ● * ● 0 ●

● ● ● ● ● ● * ● * ●

● ● ● ● # ● * ● * 9

. ● ● ● 9 ● ● * ● * ●

● ● ✎ ● . ● * .0 ●

● ✎ ● . * ● * ● * ●

● ✎ ● . ● ● * ● * ●

● ● ● ● ● ● * ● * ●

✎ ✎ ● * ● ● . ● 9 ●

● ✎ ● ● . .0 ● * ●

● ✎ ● ● . . . ● * ●

● ✎ ● ● ● . . ● * ●

✎ ☛ ● ● . ● . be ●

● ✎ ✎ ● ● . . ● * ●

● ✎ ● . . ● * be ●

● ✎ ● ● . . . ● *

✎ ✎ ● . . ● * b.
● . ● ● ● . . . . i

●
●

✎
✎

●
.
.
.
●
●

.
.
.
●

.
*
. E
J
✎ ● ✎ . . . .
● ✎ ✎ . ● ● .

1
✎ ● ● . .
✎ ✎ .

id [
1
✎ ✎ d i
●
● ● i
E ●

●
/! m

ii! d Flu

3 !!/
I
d“ N“w“
2 cd

I DJ

I
I

I
 ● ☛

● ☛

● ☛

. .
?

Z ~
● ☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ☛☛☛☛ * ●
● ☛☛☛☛☛✎ ● ☛✎☛☛ ● ●
● ☛☛☛☛☛✌ ● ☛✎☛☛ ● ●
● ☛☛☛✎☛☛ ● ☛☛☛✎ * ●
● ✎☛☛✎☛☛ ● ☛✎✎☛ ● ●
● ☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ☛☛☛☛ ● ●
● ☛☛☛✎✎✎ S* *.* ● ●
● bee.*. ● ***, ● ●
● ***..* .* **, ● ●
● ****** .0 .00 ● ●

:!:
● ****.* ● **. ● ●
● ***..* ● .9. ● ✎

.
● ****.*

:J ☛

**.
● ● *.*, ● ●

lbIi~ ‘i *
● 9 . . . ● S, ● ●
● ● **
● . . :*!J ; ●

●
●

.
●

~~1 ●

.?1.
● ●

:%’g 0 ●
●

$!ki
i
9
●
*
●

E
$
:%
j 1
●

I
●

yi!
II]~[
●

z ●

!! I
a i o

t
I
b
I

J
 .—— . .. .—.-.
F ----

m
I
i

!
.
●’JJ ‘
I

!
1!

. . . .

— ..-
1: 1
J) I *
. - .—— — —- --
d
 — .—.

. . , . .
I

--- ..-
 3

. . , . .

‘~1 I
_.— — -.

I
I
!

.
. #
t-
I
!

SI

- ——
!: I
 ?

. . .
,—

I
(

.
.

ii

i
3
.

/
!!!!!@!
—.
 .. .. .. . . . ...
... . . . . . . . .! .-. . . . . . . ..- .-. . .,” #., . . . -e , ., . . ..”.-----

. . . . .

‘Idd
-“ !4

‘l} B ‘Lib
 —.. . .

t! 8

I
* .
.—

I
 :
II I 1 I I 111111 1 [ I s! !3
I I I i 111111 I I I ill

1
. . , ,

l!
 . .

. .

.
 ...- .’, .- .-’ .,. . .!

m
. .
-——

I 9
 . . . .. .. ... . .. ,.,,

~
in “-
‘%?
E +
E Ngt

+
N&J

4
Oco
+.++

. . . .
-. .—— —.

& .
 ----
. ..

.
. . .
— . .—

,$ ,
!.
 .,, -- . .,.

) . , ●
● ✎

.-

. *
..1

r-!
.

i
ii

—
 .-

. ● .

)
-.
‘i ‘i’ ‘-’
 “.
1
. ‘. .* 4 .

m
:
#

-*
i 11:’

●
 .,, ..! . . . . .

I
Q
IA
i
1’
!4)

I
I
I

. . , . * .

I
I

t
 .. ,-. . .. .. #L.. ,., --.,

i’.
%

,. , * ,.

,
 .. . . -....—- r.. - . .- —...

-—. --- --

* ,.
I

**
d
mo
C*
 ----- . . . .. . ... . .. .. .. .. . ..

.-—--------

l’”
I

m
/

I-4
m“

I
c . ,.

.
!9 2

.4
$
u

1
Ii!
I

-.

IL, .__J _ .-. .

 ..

<
St

I
. . & , . .

t J
 .,..,., . . . .. . . . . . .. . . > . .

—------ ..
1.
i

n
I

● ✎ ● ☛✍

.
a
5
0

i
 4
. . . . .

__ ... . __. .._— — .. . . . ..-— —

,. ,. .“

2?

I
m... ---

I J
 ,.. .. . . . ,.: . . . . .. ’K.
,$ .,, ,. ..: .-

.-
, ,/..-*....-.
1
[Go \

MJ

UJ

I
I