. "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.
In reviewing various documents, including the 99 randomly selected cases of individual dose reconstructions, the committee also encountered cases not included in Table IV.C.1 in which fallout from previous shots apparently impacted the area near a shot of concern but was not considered in dose reconstructions. Those cases are described as follows (examples from the randomly selected dose reconstructions are included in parentheses).
The area near UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Shot NANCY (March 4, 1953) was affected by fallout from TUMBLER-SNAPPER Shot FOX (May 25, 1952) because of its detonation at the same location and considerable onsite fallout. It also is likely that this area was affected by fallout from TUMBLER-SNAPPER Shot EASY (May 7, 1952) because of the direction of plume travel and onsite fallout (cases #7, 29, 84, 86, and 87).
The area near UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Shot SIMON (Apr. 25, 1953) was affected by fallout from TUMBLER-SNAPPER Shot EASY (May 7, 1952) because of its detonation at the same location and considerable onsite fallout (cases #30, 51, and 81).
The area near TEAPOT Shot APPLE II (May 5, 1955) was affected by fallout from TUMBLER-SNAPPER Shot EASY (May 7, 1952) and UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Shot SIMON (Apr. 25, 1953) because of their detonation at the same location and considerable onsite fallout (cases #37, 77, 83, and 90).
The area near PLUMBBOB Shot HOOD (July 5, 1957) was affected by fallout from prior Shots SUGAR, GEORGE, APPLE I, and WILSON (see second bullet in previous paragraph) and by fallout from Shot BOLTZMANN listed in Table IV.C.1 that was accounted for at other PLUMBBOB shots because Shot HOOD was detonated at the same location as Shots LASSEN, WILSON, OWENS, WHEELER, CHARLESTON, and MORGAN.
That list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other shots presumably could be identified whose ground areas were affected by fallout from previous shots.
The lack of consideration of the impact of fallout from prior shots in the area of PLUMBBOB Shot HOOD noted above seems particularly inexplicable, given that the existence of some prior fallout was considered at all other PLUMBBOB shots at the same location during the same period. That the omission of Shot HOOD from Table IV.C.1 is not an oversight by the NTPR program is indicated by an assumption used in unit dose reconstructions for participant groups in forward areas after the shot that the groups were exposed to suspended neutron-induced radioactive material “in the absence of a fallout field” (see Section 3 and Tables 35 and 37 through 40 of Barrett et al., 1986). An assumption that there were no fission products or plutonium on the ground at the time and location of Shot HOOD is unsupportable, and it clearly results in underestimates of inhalation doses to participant groups in forward areas at that shot, without regard for the particular disturbances that caused resuspension of surface materials. An