. "V. Committee's Findings Related to NTPR Dose Reconstruction Program." A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
of 10−5 m−1 often used on residence islands (see cases #16, 31, and 78). Use of a time cutoff and a lower resuspension factor for aged fallout was based on an argument that aged fallout is much less susceptible to resuspension than freshly deposited material, although no data are presented to support the argument. As discussed in Section V.C.5, however, the committee does not believe that neglect of resuspension of aged fallout on islands in the Pacific has important consequences for dose reconstructions; that is, potential inhalation doses do not appear to be high.
In dose reconstructions for participants at the NTS, the presence of fallout from previous shots was taken into account in some cases (Barrett et al., 1986); see Section IV.C.2.1.1 and Table IV.C.1 (see also cases #21, 23, 27, 80, and 87). The NTPR program judged the importance of fallout from previous shots on the basis of available data on fallout patterns after each shot at the NTS. An example of an assumed fallout pattern from Operation PLUMBBOB Shot SHASTA at locations of participants at the later PLUMBBOB Shot SMOKY (Goetz et al., 1979) is shown in Figure V.C.1. In all cases except as noted in footnote a in Table IV.C.1, fallout from previous shots that was assumed to affect the area at a later shot occurred within 3 months, and fallout that occurred earlier (usually in prior test series) was ignored. To provide a frame of reference for the information in Table IV.C.1, the following discussions, and later discussions in this report, locations of all shots in Operations BUSTER-JANGLE, TUMBLER-SNAPPER, UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, TEAPOT, and PLUMBBOB at the NTS are shown in Figures V.C.2 through V.C.6.
The committee believes that the presence of prior fallout has been neglected in some cases at the NTS where it is potentially important. Consider first the shots listed in Table IV.C.1 at which fallout from one or more previous shots has been taken into account in dose reconstructions. On the basis of locations of shots and fallout patterns given by Hawthorne (1979), the committee notes the following two examples.
The area near UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Shot HARRY also was affected by fallout from TUMBLER-SNAPPER Shot GEORGE (June 1, 1952) because of its nearby location and considerable onsite fallout.
The area near PLUMBBOB Shots LASSEN, WILSON, OWENS, WHEELER, CHARLESTON, and MORGAN, which were detonated at the same location, also was affected by fallout from BUSTER-JANGLE Shot SUGAR (Nov. 19, 1951) because of its nearby location and considerable onsite fallout. It also is likely that the area near those PLUMBBOB shots was affected by fallout from TUMBLER-SNAPPER Shot GEORGE (June 1, 1952) and TEAPOT Shot APPLE I (March 12, 1955) because of their directions of plume travel and onsite fallout. Finally, onsite fallout from Shot WILSON affected the area near the later PLUMBBOB shots at the same location.