National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Committee Biographies
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Index

A

ABLE, Shot, 17

Absorption, through the skin or open wound, 107

Activation products, 361

neutron-induced, 180–181

Activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD), 102–104, 107, 169–173, 175–176, 178–179, 187, 212–214, 224, 250, 289, 320, 361

Ainsworth, USS, 284–285

Al-Nabulsi, Isaf

Otchin’s letter to, 333–334

Schaeffer’s letters to, 315–329, 331–332

Alamogordo bombing range, 16

Allen M. Sumner, USS, 161

Alpha particles, 32, 105, 185, 362

Alpha radiation, 54, 362

AMAD. See Activity median aerodynamic diameter

APPLE-I, Shot, 194, 201

APPLE-II, Shot, 130–131, 137, 201

ARGUS, Operation, 17

Assumptions

about random locations, 150

about shielding factors, 126

inconsistent application of, 128

with substantial uncertainty or tending to underestimate inhalation dose, 182–210

tending to overestimate inhalation dose, 101, 169–182

used in internal dose screen, 241–242

Atmospheric nuclear-weapons detonations exposing military personnel, 26

locations of, 19

Atmospheric testing, 51–52, 55, 362

Atomic bomb, 179, 362

“Atomic veterans,” x, 362

an underutilized resource, 3

compensation program for, 22

concerns expressed by, 42–43

data solicited from, 23

dose reconstructions for, 38–41, 335–348

frustration of, 236–237

giving the benefit of the doubt, 3, 25, 38–40

interaction with, 47–48

need to better inform, 3–4, 238–239, 260

Average doses, 2

on USS Salt Lake City, 79

B

Backscatter, 84

Badged dose

See also Film badges

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

BADGER, Shot, 149

BAKER, Shot, 17, 78

BANEBERRY, Shot, 356–357

Barss report, 80, 82–85, 116–118, 160, 164–165

Basal cell carcinomas, 63, 362

Basal cells, 81, 362

Battalion Combat Teams (BCTs), 113–114, 139

Bechtel Nevada, 309, 317, 323

Becquerel (Bq), 362

BEIR V. See Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

Benefit of the doubt

denied to atomic veterans, 128, 137, 140, 143–145

given to atomic veterans, 3, 25, 38–40

importance of, 39–40, 230, 265

Beta particles, 32, 34, 363

skin and eye doses from exposure to, 3, 66, 80–81

Beta radiation, 21, 54, 63, 80, 140, 363

adjusting, 82

Beta skin and eye dose estimates, 160–166

Beta-to-gamma dose ratios, 81–84, 116–117, 363

for contaminated surfaces used at Pacific tests, 83

Bias, 68, 363

correction of, 72

See also Accuracy;

Precision

Bias factors, 315, 363

introduced into film-badge data reporting, 72

Bikini Atoll, nuclear testing in, 17, 73, 78, 218, 283

Bile duct cancer, 24

Bingham, New Mexico, 17

Bioassay program to assess internal exposures to plutonium, 247–248

Biokinetic model, 101, 170, 187, 363

Biological effectiveness, 363

of alpha particles, 105, 185

of neutrons, 159

Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V), 165

Biological responses, 105, 363

“Black rain,” 107

Blast-wave effects, 21

analysis of potential inhalation doses due to, 335–348

discussion of dose reconstructions for participant groups, 345–347

discussion of example analysis and

importance of inhalation doses, 342–344

effects of neglected, 3, 204–205

implications for dose reconstructions for atomic veterans, 335–348

implications of, 344–345

at Operation PLUMBBOB, Shot HOOD, 339–342

radiation environment in forward areas at Shot HOOD, 335–338

Boarding parties, 73, 78

BOLTZMANN, Shot, 201

Bone cancer, 25, 178

Bq. See Becquerel

Brain cancer, 25

BRAVO, Shot, 106–107, 184, 218, 283–285, 328

Breast cancer, 24

BRER. See Board on Radiation Effects Research

Bronchiolo-alveolar cancer, 25

Burden of proof, 66

Bushey, Frank, 165

BUSTER-JANGLE, Operation, 17, 139, 194, 196

C

C. See Coulomb

C and P. See Compensation and Pension Service

Calculations, problem with illegible, 4

Calibration errors, 71, 363

Camp Desert Rock (CDR), 22, 137

Camp Mercury, 136

Cancers, 177–179, 255, 363

listed as radiogenic, 24–25, 363

Case #22, 125, 128, 144, 180, 212, 282–285

dose summary report, 282

external dose assessment, 284

internal dose assessment, 285

total dose summary, 285

unit and personal activities, 283

Case #60, 212, 234, 238, 286–290

dose summary report, 286

external dose assessment, 288

internal dose assessment, 289

total dose summary, 285

unit and personal activities, 287

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Cases

#1-99, 141, 158, 291–299

#1, 208, 234

#2, 160

#3, 212, 215n, 234

#4, 160, 234

#5, 212

#6, 146, 209, 234

#7, 180, 207

#8, 180, 212, 234, 245

#9, 144, 146, 160–163, 165, 234

#10, 143–144

#11, 143–144

#12, 160–163

#15, 125, 146, 238

#16, 144, 194, 212

#17, 144, 160

#18, 160, 234, 245

#19, 160, 234

#20, 160

#21, 144, 180, 194, 234, 245

#23, 180, 194, 245

#24, 145, 209

#25, 145, 160, 162–163, 209

#26, 146, 165, 234

#27, 125, 144, 180, 194, 245

#28, 126, 160, 208

#29, 160, 207

#30, 208

#31, 180, 194

#32, 125, 143–144, 212, 245

#33, 125, 144

#34, 208

#35, 142–143, 145, 160

#36, 144, 180, 245

#37, 125, 137, 201, 234

#38, 144–145, 160, 180, 212, 234, 245

#39, 146, 160–163

#40, 125, 136–137, 144, 160–163, 234

#41, 245

#42, 142

#43, 180, 212, 234

#44, 142, 144, 209

#45, 128, 154

#47, 125, 135–136, 143–144, 180, 212, 234, 245

#48, 154

#49, 128, 154, 208, 234, 238

#52, 208

#53, 125, 128, 154, 234–235

#54, 142–144, 160, 208

#55, 136, 142, 160, 208, 250n

#56, 208

#57, 234–235

#58, 145, 180, 193, 212, 215n, 238

#59, 144, 234, 245

#63, 180, 193, 212, 239, 245

#64, 160–163

#65, 160, 234

#66, 160–163

#67, 160

#68, 145–146, 234, 245

#69, 145

#70, 160

#71, 160–161

#73, 125, 135, 234, 245

#74, 143

#76, 245

#77, 125, 129–132, 201, 234–235

#78, 180, 194, 212, 234–235, 245

#80, 194

#81, 125, 144, 245

#82, 142, 234

#83, 125, 201

#84, 125, 138–139

#85, 234

#87, 125, 137, 144, 160, 194

#88, 125, 160

#89, 125, 207

#90, 201

#91, 249n

#92, 144

#93, 125, 139, 144, 160

#94, 144, 180, 193, 245

#96, 160–164, 180, 212

#97, 125, 143–145, 160–163

#98, 125, 144, 180, 234, 245

#99, 125, 138, 144, 207–208, 248

See also Contributed case

CASTLE, Operation, 17, 106–107, 126–127, 135, 148, 152, 156, 184, 210, 218, 283–284, 315–316, 328

CBR Defense Team Training, 131

CDR. See Camp Desert Rock

Central estimates, 111, 114, 142–147, 157–159, 214, 364

CEPXS radiation transport code, 80, 329

CFR. See Code of Federal Regulations; Legislation

CHARLESTON, Shot, 194, 201

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 24, 364

Ci. See Curie

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

CIC. See Coordination and Information Center

CIRRPC. See Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination

Claims

appealing, 54, 133–134

communications with veterans, 56–57

filed under nonpresumptive regulation, 52–54

filed under presumptive regulation, 54–56

granted for nonpresumptive diseases, 252–253

medical opinions and probability of causation, 57–64

need for veterans to request re-evaluation of prior, 3

process of submitting and deciding, 51–64

VA adjudication of, 45

Clothing modification factors, 84

Clothing Test Project, 131

Cloud-sampling aircraft, 130

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 25, 51–52, 54, 364

See also Legislation

Coefficient of variation (CV), 114–115, 150, 156, 364

“Cohort” film badges, 71, 79, 146, 364

Colon cancer, 25, 58–59

Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC), 58–62, 250, 333–334

Communication, with atomic veterans, 56–57, 236–239

Compensation, 24

decisions about, 36, 253–256

defining appropriate, 24

fixed rate, 323

re-evaluations of prior decisions about, 248–251

Compensation and Pension (C and P) Service, 50, 54, 57

Composite beta dose coefficient, for immersion in fallout-contaminated air, 85

Concentrations, 81–82, 340

Concentrations of radionuclides in air in an atmospheric cloud, 99–100

in descending fallout, 97–99

fractionation of radionuclides, 92–94

inhalation of suspended neutron activation products in soil, 96–97

methods of estimating, 88–101

methods of estimating concentrations of radionuclides in air, 100–101

in resuspended fallout, 89–92

resuspension of radionuclides in deposited fallout, 94–96

shots at Nevada Test Site taking inhalation of resuspended fallout from previous shots into account, 92

Concerns of veterans, 41–43

Confidence interval, 36n, 66n, 364

Congress, 23–24

questions raised by, 28

See also Legislation;

Senate

Contaminated areas at NTS

bulldozer clearing path through, 138

resuspension factors normally assumed for various activities of atomic veterans in, 95

Contaminated food and water, 215n

Contaminated ships in the Pacific, resuspension factors normally assumed for various activities of participants on, 96

Contributed case, 132–135

Coordination and Information Center (CIC), 152, 154

Coulomb (C), 367

Credibility limit, 58

doses (rad) to the affected organ or tissue based on 95%, 60

doses (rad) to the affected organ or tissue based on 99%, 61

of estimated upper bounds of inhalation dose, 224–226

CROSSROADS, Operation, 17, 27, 76–77, 128, 135, 153, 155–156, 191, 208, 232

Crystal Ball® 2000 software, 214

Curie (Ci), 365

Curtis, USS, 152

CV. See Coefficient of variation

D

Daily dose tables, 73

Decisioneering, Inc., 214n

Decontamination techniques, 116, 125, 152

Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), 5, 23, 237, 310

See also Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), 1–2, 4–6, 8, 11–13, 16, 22–25, 27, 44–45, 47, 49, 51–57, 73, 119, 122–123, 141, 143n, 245–246, 321

Committee to Review the Dose Reconstruction Program, ix, 306

Demarcation line, 125

Department of Veterans Affairs. See U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Depletion, 81

Deposition velocity, 98, 365

Desert Rock Radiological Safety (Rad-Safe) Section, 129, 131

DF. See Dose conversion factor

Diaries, 26, 69

Dispersion, 82, 365

DNA. See Defense Nuclear Agency

Documentation of dose calculations, 121–122, 234–235

case #3, 234

case #6, 234

case #18, 234

case #53, 235

case #57, 235

case #77, 235

case #78, 235

DOD. See U.S. Department of Defense

DOE. See U.S. Department of Energy

DOG, Shot, 139, 289

DOMINIC-I, Operation, 17, 71, 308

DOMINIC-II, Operation, 17, 71, 308

Dose assessments, 365

need for veterans to request updated, 3

Dose coefficients

biological effectiveness of alpha particles, 105

chemical form of inhaled radionuclides, 104–105

inhalation dose coefficients used in dose reconstructions, 106

for inhalation of radionuclides, 101–106

size of inhaled particles, 102–104

Dose conversion factor (DF), 88n

See also Dose coefficients

Dose equivalent, 35

See also Equivalent dose

Dose reconstruction

conduct of over time, 40–41

deficiency in, 223

definition of exposure scenarios, 30–32

development and implementation of methods of estimating dose, 34–35

elements of, 30–38

evaluation of uncertainties in estimates of

dose, 36–37

exposure scenario assumed in, 354–355

focus on specific persons, 38–39

identification of exposure pathways, 32–34

importance of benefit of the doubt, 39–40

for occupation forces in Japan, 107–110, 226–227

presentation and interpretation of results, 37

principles of, 28–41

process of, 30–38

quality assurance and quality control, 37–38

review of selected, 44, 50

reviewed by committee, 291–301

“scientific,” 69

special aspects of, 38–41

Dose reconstruction memoranda

case #22, 282–285

case #60, 286–290

from sample cases reviewed by committee, 281–290

Dose reconstruction program, 366

beginning efforts in, 1

historical vs. retrospective, 29

need for independent oversight of, 4

need for quality control in, 4

“Dose screen,” 307, 333

Dose summary reports

for case #22, 282

for case #60, 286

Dosimetric models, 101, 170, 177, 366

Dosimetry, 366

based on film badges, 21

history of, 307–308

DTRA. See Defense Threat Reduction Agency

E

EASY, Shot, 139, 201, 289

Effective resuspension factor, 192, 366

Effective shielding factor, 115

Electrons, 32, 366

ENCORE, Shot, 136, 198

Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 23

See also U.S. Department of Energy

Enewetak Atoll, 73, 126, 133, 217–218, 283–285, 287–288

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Environmental Policy Institute, 28

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Epidemiology, 30n, 367

Equivalent dose, 35, 90, 229n, 364, 366–367

ERDA. See Energy Research and Development Administration

Errors, 22, 71, 367

Esophageal cancer, 24

Estes, USS, 152, 283–284

Estimates, 367

allowing for uncertainty in, 68

assumptions involved in, 3

development and implementation of methods for making, 34–35

plausibility of, 37

of skin doses, 164–166

of total dose and uncertainty for individual participants, 119–121

Estimation of beta dose to skin and lens of the eye, 80–86

from immersion in contaminated air or water, 83–84

skin contamination, 84–86

from standing on contaminated surface, 81–83

Estimation of external dose, 69–86

estimation of neutron doses, 79–80

external dose estimation from film-badge data, 70–72

external gamma-dose estimation based on dose reconstruction, 72–79

Estimation of internal dose, 86–107

absorption through the skin or open wound, 107

methods of estimating ingestion dose, 106–107

methods of estimating inhalation dose, 87–106

Evaluation

of approach to dose reconstruction, 358–359

of ingestion doses, 219

of methods of estimating internal dose, 166–226

of uncertainties in estimates of dose, 36–37

Evaluation of methods of estimating inhalation dose, 169–215

assumptions tending to overestimate inhalation dose, 169–182

assumptions with substantial uncertainty or tending to underestimate inhalation dose, 182–210

Evaluation of potential inhalation doses, 215–219

evaluation of ingestion doses, 219

example analysis of potential ingestion doses at the NTS, 216–217

example analysis of potential ingestion doses in the Pacific, 217–219

Example analysis

of potential ingestion doses at the NTS, 216–217

of potential ingestion doses in the Pacific, 217–219

Explanations, to atomic veterans regarding implications of committee’s findings, 263–264

Exposure, 363, 367

to contaminated ground, 116–117

diseases caused by, 1

Exposure pathways, 367

of external exposure, 33–34

identification of, 32–34

of internal exposure, 33–34

Exposure scenarios, 66–69, 367

adequacy of scenario determinations, 139–140

bulldozer clearing path through a contaminated area, 138

definition of, 30–32

determination of, 124–140

discussion of selected cases illustrating scenario determination problems, 127–139

F-84G cloud-sampling aircraft, 130, 133

implications of example analysis for, 344–345

individualized dose reconstructions, 68–69

individualized reconstruction of scenarios, 69

inhalation in an atmospheric cloud, 99–100

inhalation of descending fallout, 97–99

inhalation of resuspended fallout, 89–92

inhalation of suspended neutron activation products in soil, 96–97

problems developing, 3

sailors sweeping deck of ship, 128

tents on Parry Island at Operation CASTLE, 127

typical metal buildings used at Enewetak, 126

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

unit-based dose reconstructions, 67–68

US Army observers examining dummies set up near ground zero, 130

External beta dose

from immersion in contaminated air or water, 83–84

from standing on contaminated surface, 81–83

External dose assessment

for case #22, 284

for case #60, 288

External dose estimation, 140–166

beta skin and eye dose estimates, 160–166

external gamma doses based on film-badge data, 142–146

from film-badge data, 70–72

findings on estimates of external gamma dose, 156–158

neutron dose estimates, 158–160

reconstructed external gamma doses, 146–156

External doses, 19, 29, 367

External exposure, 32

External gamma doses

based on film-badge data, 142–146

central estimates, 142–145

estimation based on dose reconstruction, 72–79, 155

unit dose reconstructions at the NTS, 73–75

unit dose reconstructions for Pacific test sites, 76–79

upper bounds, 145–146

F

F-84G cloud-sampling aircraft, 130, 133–134

“Fact Sheets,” 57

Fall velocities, 205

“Fallout,” 20, 83, 93–94, 367

Fallout field, 201

FAT MAN bomb, 17

FBE. See Film-badge equivalent dose factor

Federal Register, 307, 364

50th Chemical Platoon, 129, 132

FIIDOS computer code, 87, 89n, 104–107, 250, 289, 307, 319

Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, 27, 315

Film-badge equivalent (FBE) dose factor, 151

Film-badge records, 26, 142–146, 368

dosimetry based on, 21, 68, 70

gaps in, 70–71

Film badges, 111

“permanent” vs. “mission,” 68, 72

upper-bound estimates, 112

as worn by participants at atomic tests, 71

Findings

on the bioassay program to assess internal exposures to plutonium, 247–248

on communication with atomic veterans, 236–239

on documentation of dose calculations, 234–235

on estimates of external gamma dose, 156–158

on estimation of internal dose, 219–224

implications of, 251–256

on the low-level internal dose screen, 240–247

presentation and interpretation of, 37

of previous NRC review, 167–169

on quality assurance, 233–234

on retroactive recalculations of doses and re-evaluations of prior compensation decisions, 248–251

Fireball, 20, 357, 368

Fission byproducts, 328, 368

Fission yield. See Yield 573rd Ordnance Company, 132

Fixed rate compensation, 323

Flight logs, 26

Flohr, Bradley

letter to John Till, 313–314

Schaeffer’s letters to, 312, 330

FOIA. See Freedom of Information Act

FOX, Shot, 201

Fractionation, 214, 368

of radionuclides, 92–94, 190, 202

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 310

Future compensation decisions, implications of findings for, 255–256

G

Gall bladder cancer, 24

Gamma radiation, 21, 54, 70, 140, 368

See also Photons;

X radiation

Gamma radiation field, 113

Gamma rays, 19, 32, 368

GANYMEDE, Shot, 336

GAO. See General Accounting Office

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract, 102, 105, 170, 187–188, 368

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Geiger counter readings, 133, 368

General Accounting Office (GAO), ix, 1, 6, 15, 49

reports on NTPR program, 28

Generic assessments, 73, 368–369

Geometric standard deviation (GSD), 112, 151, 369

GEORGE, Shot, 194, 201

GI. See Gastrointestinal tract

GRABLE, Shot, 95, 113, 136, 198

Gray (Gy), 369

GREENHOUSE, Operation, 17, 148, 152, 156, 235, 287–288

Ground roughness, 90, 97, 191

Ground zero (GZ), 83, 108, 337–338, 346, 369

GSD. See Geometric standard deviation

Gy. See Gray

GZ. See Ground zero

H

Half-life, 369

of noble gases, 93

HARDTACK-I, Operation, 17

HARDTACK-II, Operation, 17, 336, 339

HARRY, Shot, 194, 217

“High-siding” doses, 81, 83, 100–101, 106, 108, 111, 113, 116–119, 138, 230, 251

Hiroshima, Japan, 298–301

atomic bombings in, 1, 17, 44, 51–52, 55

military personnel stationed in, 28, 66, 107–110

Historical dose reconstruction, 29

History, 16–28

of dosimetry process, 307–308

of the NTPR program, 22–28

of previous NRC studies on military personnel exposed to radiation in atmospheric nuclear-weapons tests, 26–28

of radiation exposures of military personnel, 18–22

of the US nuclear-weapons testing program, 16–18

Hodgkin’s disease, 24, 369

HOOD, Shot, 17, 201–202, 208, 246n, 335–341, 343, 345–347

dose reconstructions for participant groups at, 345–347

radiation environment in forward areas at, 335–338

I

ICRP. See International Commission on Radiological Protection

ICRU. See International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements

Idealization, tendency toward, 126

Immersion dose, 33

in contaminated air or water, 117

Individual doses, uncertainties about, 2

Individualized reconstructions

dose, 68–69

of scenarios, 69

Infinite source region, 192

Information gathering, 48–50

Ingestion doses, 32

ignored in dose reconstruction, 3

methods of estimating, 106–107

Inhalation doses

coefficients used in dose reconstructions, 106

dose coefficients for inhalation of radionuclides, 101–106

estimating, 91, 169–215

example analysis and importance of, 342–344

large underestimates of, 3

methods of estimating, 87–106

Inhaled radionuclides, chemical form of, 104–105

Institute of Medicine (IOM), 27

Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP), 60–64

Internal dose assessment

for case #22, 285

for case #60, 289

Internal dose estimation, 166–226

credibility of estimated upper bounds of inhalation dose, 224–226

evaluation of methods of estimating inhalation dose, 169–215

evaluation of potential inhalation doses, 215–219

findings of previous NRC review, 167–169

findings related to estimation of internal dose, 219–224

Internal dose screen

assumptions used in, 241–242

low-level, 240–247

Internal exposure, 32

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), 159

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 35, 84n, 102, 107, 166, 169–180, 183–188, 342, 366, 367, 373, 376

International System of Units (SI), 369

Intestinal cancer, 24

IOM. See Institute of Medicine

IREP. See Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

Isopleths, 149, 369

Isotropic sources, semi-infinite plane, 81

ITEM, Shot, 289

IVY, Operation, 17, 128, 133, 135, 156

J

J. See Joule

Japan

atomic-bomb survivors from, 58

occupation forces in, 65

JAYCOR Corp., 1, 6, 23, 46, 49, 52–53, 66, 123, 125, 137, 233, 246n, 306, 310, 320–321

Joule (J), 361, 370

Journada del Muerto Desert, 16

JUNO, Shot, 336

K

Kita-Kogo area (Hiroshima), 108

Krypton, isotopes of, 89, 93

KT. See Kiloton

Kwajalein Atoll, 133–134, 287

Kyushu Island, 108

L

LAN. See Local area network

Large-particle inhalation dose coefficients, 173–174

LASSEN, Shot, 194, 201

Latency period, 369

Latent periods, 369

for radiogenic diseases, 24

Legislation

32 CFR Part 218, 65, 319

32 CFR 218.3, 125

38 CFR Part 3, 25

38 CFR 3.102, 7, 39, 125

38 CFR 3.309, 2, 7, 12, 25, 52, 54, 56, 66, 159n, 186n, 248, 252

38 CFR 3.311, 2, 7, 12, 25, 51–52, 66, 125, 252, 319, 321

governing the NTPR program, 24–25

PL 97-72, 24

PL 97-414, 57

PL 98-542, 24, 57, 319

PL 100-321, 24, 56, 314, 322

PL 106-419, Section 305, 15

See also Senate

LET. See Linear energy transfer

Leukemia, 22, 24, 58, 62, 370

doses corresponding to different credibility limits of PC for, 63

induction of, 159n

Linear energy transfer (LET), 234n, 370

LITTLE BOY bomb, 17

Liver cancer, 178

primary, 24

Local area network (LAN), 325

Lognormal distribution, 214, 370

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 17

Low-level internal dose screen, 240–247

assumptions used in, 241–242

general requirements of screening methods, 241

use in dose reconstructions for participant groups, 242–243

Lung cancers, 25, 179–180

from smoking, 57–58

Lung clearance, 104

Lymphoma, 24, 370

M

Manhattan Engineering District, 106

Marshall Islands, 106, 184, 217–218

MC. See Monte Carlo analysis

Medical opinions and probability of causation, 57–64

comparison of CIRRPC screening doses (rem) with values based on IREP methodology, 62

doses corresponding to different credibility limits of PC for leukemia, 63

doses corresponding to different credibility limits of PC for skin cancer, 63

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

doses (rad) to the affected organ or tissue based on 95% credibility limit, 60

doses (rad) to the affected organ or tissue based on 99% credibility limit, 61

organ or tissue doses (rad) based on NIH radioepidemiological tables, 59

Megaton (MT), 17–18, 370, 378

MET, Shot, 129–130

Metal buildings, used at Enewetak during Operation CASTLE, typical, 126

MIKE, Shot, 133

Military personnel

exposed to radiation in atmospheric nuclear-weapons tests, 19, 26–28

leaving trench shortly after a detonation, 75

“Mission” badges, 68, 72, 370

Moalem, USS, 161

Monte Carlo (MC) analysis, 150–152, 228, 371

MORGAN, Shot, 194, 201

Morning reports, 26, 69, 371

Mortality of Nuclear Weapons Test Participants, 26

Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test, 27

MT. See Megaton

Multiple myeloma, 24, 371

Multiple test series, 119

Muster rolls, 26

N

NAAV. See National Association of Atomic Veterans

Nagasaki, Japan, 298–301

atomic bombings in, 1, 17, 44, 51–52, 55

military personnel stationed in, 28, 66, 107–110

NANCY, Shot, 113–114, 139, 201

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 16, 312

Board on Radiation Effects Research, 16

policies of, 49

National Association of Atomic Veterans (NAAV), 41–43, 48–50

National Cancer Institute (NCI), 60, 62

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 18–19, 159

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 60–64

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 54

National Research Council (NRC), 2, 6, 21, 44, 68, 71–72, 111–112, 142, 145, 147, 165, 189, 221, 224, 247

public-access file of, 50

National-security oaths, 69

Naval Medical Research Institute, 106

NCI. See National Cancer Institute

NCRP. See National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

Neutron dose estimates, 140, 158–160

central estimates, 158–159

upper bounds, 159–160

Neutron radiation, 54, 159

Neutrons, 19–20, 32, 371

Nevada Proving Ground (NPG), 17

Nevada Test Site (NTS), 3, 17, 82–83, 188, 194–207

nuclear testing at, 5–6, 9, 28, 30, 33–35, 66, 86, 113–114, 137–138, 147–148, 158, 220–223

observer and maneuver programs at, 22, 67, 73, 216–217

unit dose reconstructions at, 73–75, 148–149

News Nob, 22

NIH. See National Institutes of Health

NIOSH. See National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Nishiyama Reservoir, 108

Noble gases, 89, 93–94, 222, 371

half-lives of, 93

Nonmelanoma skin cancer, 63

basal cell carcinoma, 63

squamous cell carcinoma, 63

Nonpresumptive diseases, 51, 252, 371

number of claims granted for, 252–253

NPG. See Nevada Proving Ground

NRC. See National Research Council

NTPR. See Nuclear Test Personnel Review

NTS. See Nevada Test Site

Nuclear detonation, army personnel examining equipment damaged during, 75

Nuclear Health and Safety: Radiation Exposures for Some Cloud-Sampling Personnel Need to be Reexamined, 28

Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) program, 6–11, 35, 45, 51, 124–230

determination of exposure scenarios, 124–140

development of, 22–24

dose reconstruction for occupation forces in Japan, 226–227

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

dose reconstruction program of, 124–230

evaluation of method of estimating uncertainty in dose and upper bounds, 227–229

evaluation of methods of estimating internal dose, 166–226

external dose estimation, 140–166

GAO reports on, 28

history of, 22–28

key laws and regulations governing, 24–25

name of, 23n

objectives of, 25–26

summary of committee findings regarding, 229–230

website of, 26

Nuclear Test Review Information System (NuTRIS), 309

O

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 102, 105–106, 170n

Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards (OPHEH), 54, 57

Operation PLUMBBOB, Shot HOOD, analysis of potential inhalation doses due to blast-wave effects at, 335–348

Operations. See Series; individual Operations

OPHEH. See Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards

Organ or tissue doses (rad) based on NIH radioepidemiological tables, 59

ORNL. See Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Otchin, Neil S., letter to Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 333–334

OTERO, Shot, 336

Ovarian cancer, 25

OWENS, Shot, 194, 201

P

Pacific Proving Ground (PPG), 283

Pacific test site unit dose reconstructions, 76–79, 126

damaged quarterdeck on USS Pensacola, 155

exposure on contaminated target ships, 153–155

exposure to fallout, 149–153

radiation levels on selected target ships, 154

Pacific test sites, 82–83

film badge damage at, 71

nuclear weapons tests at, 1, 17, 20–21, 27–28, 33–34, 66, 73, 220–223

See also individual Operations and Shots;

individual test sites

Pancreatic cancer, 24

Papers, availability of, 26

Parry Island, 127, 152, 287

Participant groups

conducting radiation survey on deck of a ship, 77

use of internal dose screen in dose reconstructions for, 242–243

Participation status, 52

Particles, size of inhaled, 102–104

Past compensation decisions, implications of findings for, 253–255

Pathways. See Exposure pathways

PC. See Probability of causation

Pensacola, USS, damaged quarterdeck on, 155

“Permanent” badges, 68, 72, 136, 372

Personal accounts, 26

Persons, focus on specific, 38–39

Pharynx cancer, 24

Phillip, USS, 165

Photon dose, 54

Photon exposure, 66, 96

Photons, 32, 372

See also Gamma rays;

X rays

PLOWSHARE program, 18

PLUMBBOB, Operation, 17, 22, 70, 137, 193–195, 200–201, 204, 208, 246n, 335–338, 346

Plume travel, 194

Plutonium, 16, 19, 32, 86, 176–177, 187, 202, 222

bioassay program, 247–248

Pocket-dosimeter logs, 26

Potential inhalation doses, analysis of, 339–342

POW. See Prisoners of war

PPG. See Pacific Proving Ground

Presumptive diseases, 24, 52, 252, 372

Primary liver cancer, 24

Prinz Eugen, USS, 135

Prior claims, need for veterans to request re-evaluation of, 3

PRISCILLA, Shot, 204

Prisoners of war (POW), 51, 107–108

Privacy Act, 121, 313

Probability of causation (PC), 57–64, 372–373

See also Risk

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Processing of a radiation-related claim from a veteran

for a nonpresumptive disease, 53

for a presumptive disease, 55

Public Health Service, 57

Publication 30, 102, 104n, 105–106, 170, 213

Publication 56, 170n

Publication 59, 166

Publication 60, 184

Q

Quality assurance (QA), 37–38, 122–123, 233–236, 324, 373

Quality control (QC), 37–38, 235–236, 373

Quality factor (QF), 35n, 80, 158–159, 363, 373

Quartzsite Ridge, 351–355, 357–358

Questions from the Committee, responses to, 305–334

Questions to the Committee, responses to, 258–261

R

R. See Roentgen

Rad, 373

Rad-safe. See Radiological safety

Radiation effectiveness factors (REFs), 158–160, 186, 187n, 363, 373

Radiation environment, in forward areas at Shot HOOD, 335–338

Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation Act (1988), 24

Radiation exposures of military personnel, 18–22

history of, 18–22

locations of, 19

Radiation therapy, 58

Radiation-transport models, 79

Radioactive debris, 20, 373

Radioactive decay, 32, 373

Radioactivity, 215n, 374

Radiogenic diseases, 24, 66, 313, 374

Radiological cancers, 60, 374

Radiological conditions in maneuver area, 351–352

Radiological safety (Rad-safe), 113, 125–126, 140

Radionuclides, 374

airborne, 31

resuspension of large amounts of, 3

retention in the body, 101

RANGER, Operation, 326

Rare-earth elements, isotopes of, 176, 190

RBE. See Relative biological effectiveness

Re-evaluations of prior claims, need for veterans to request, 3

Re-evaluations of prior compensation

decisions, 248–251

Recommendations, 265–266

regarding a system for permanent review of the dose reconstruction program, 262

Reconstruction, 374

of external gamma doses, 146–156

of the veteran’s experiences, 69

See also Dose reconstruction program

REDWING, Operation, 68n, 70–71, 136, 142–144, 308, 316–317, 323

REECo. See Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company

Reference Man, 183, 374

Refractory elements, 93, 176–177, 190, 374

REFs. See Radiation effectiveness factors

Regulations

governing the NTPR program, 24–25

See also Legislation

Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), 159, 186, 363, 373–374

Rem, vii, 72, 112, 374

Renormalization, 89

Residence islands, 209

Respirable particles, 205, 374

Respiratory tract, 170, 374

Respiratory-tract model, 173, 176, 179–180, 374

Responses to questions from the Committee, 305–334

Flohr’s letter to John Till, 313–314

Otchin’s letter to Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 333–334

Schaeffer’s letter to John Till, 306–311

Schaeffer’s letters to Bradley Flohr, 312, 330

Schaeffer’s letters to Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 315–329, 331–332

Responses to questions to the Committee, 258–261

Resuspension, 375

of large amounts of radionuclides, 3, 37, 94–96, 180–181

neglected, 223

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Resuspension factors, 90, 207, 366, 375

for atomic veterans in contaminated areas at NTS, 95

for participants on contaminated ships in the Pacific, 96

Retention, 170, 375

Retroactive recalculations of doses, 248–251

Retrospective dose reconstruction, 29

Review of the Methods Used to Assign Radiation Doses to Service Personnel at Nuclear Weapons Tests, 26–27

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company (REECo), 309, 317, 323

Roentgen (R), 72, 112, 375

ROMEO, Shot, 284–285

Rongelap Atoll, 218

Rongerik Atoll, 86, 106, 184, 218

S

Sailors sweeping deck of ship, 128

St. George, Utah, 217

Salivary gland cancer, 24–25

Salt Lake City, USS, 79, 153

Sampled case files of dose reconstructions, 291–301

cases #1-99, 292–299

Hiroshima and Nagasaki cases A-L, 298–301

SANDSTONE, Operation, 17

Scenario determination problems, 127–139

case #22, 128

case #37, 137

case #40, 136–137

case #47, 135–136

case #53, 128

case #55, 136

case #73, 135

case #77, 129–132

case #84, 138–139

case #87, 137

case #93, 139

case #99, 138

contributed case, 132–135

Scenario determinations

adequacy of, 139–140

See also Exposure scenarios

Schaeffer, D. Michael, 232n

letter to John Till, 306–311

letters to Bradley Flohr, 312, 330

letters to Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 315–329, 331–332

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 1, 6, 23–24, 46–50, 52–53, 123, 132, 137, 141, 152, 233, 245, 246n, 306–307, 321, 332

“Scientific” dose reconstructions, 69

Screening doses (rem), comparison of CIRRPC values with values based on IREP methodology, 62

Screening methods, general requirements of, 241

Secrecy oaths, 69

Semi-infinite plane isotropic sources, 81

Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, 1, 6, 15, 28

Service connection, 64

proving, 24

Service records, 26

SHASTA, Shot, 194–195

Shielding factor (SF), 126, 150, 191, 376

Ship logs, 26, 69

Shock wave. See Blast wave

Shots, 376

See also individual Shots

SI units. See International System of Units

Sievert (Sv), 376

SIMON, Shot, 114, 148, 201

Skate, USS, 154

Skin cancer, 63, 250

doses corresponding to different credibility limits of PC for, 63

nonmelanoma, 63

Skin contamination, 84–86, 117–118

composite beta dose coefficient for immersion in fallout-contaminated air, 85

Skin dose, 85

Small intestine cancer, 24

Smoking, lung cancer from, 57–58

SMOKY, Shot, 22, 193–195, 336

Solid tumors, induction of, 159

SOP. See Standard operating procedure

Special orders, 26

Special Weapons Command, 138

Spectrum-weighted quality factor, 80, 376

Squamous cell carcinoma, 63

Standard operating procedures (SOPs), 104n, 121–122, 231–232, 234–235, 265, 308–309, 324

Stochastic effects, 158, 376

Stomach cancer, 24

Strontium, isotopes of, 105

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Subjective judgment, 32

SUGAR, Shot, 139, 201

Support ships, 73

Survival City Shot, 130–131

Sv. See Sievert

T

Target ships, 73, 78, 153–155

radiation levels on selected, 154, 191

Task Force WARRIOR

activities at Shot SMOKY, 349–351

alternative exposure scenario for, 355–357

dose reconstruction for, 352–354

unit dose reconstruction for, 318, 349–359

Task Group on Lung Dynamics (TGLD), 88

Task unit (TU), 287

TEAPOT, Operation, 17, 129–131, 137, 194, 199, 201, 316

Temporary duty (TDY), 283

Tents, on Parry Island at Operation CASTLE, 127

TGLD. See Task Group on Lung Dynamics

Thyroid

cancer of, 24

radiation of, 32, 103

Till, John E.

Flohr’s letter to, 313–314

Schaeffer’s letter to, 306–311

Time, conduct of dose reconstruction over, 40–41

Time-dependent calculations, 99

Total dose summary

for case #22, 285

for case #60, 285

Translocation, 81, 170n, 376

TRINITY, Shot, 16–17

Trinity site, nuclear testing at, 5, 28

Tritiated water vapor, 34, 107

Troops. See Military personnel

True dose, 65

TU. See Task unit

TUMBLER-SNAPPER, Operation, 17, 138, 194, 197, 201

Tumors, 166

induction of solid, 159

U

U.K. National Radiological Protection Board, 159, 186

Uncertainty, 377

in dose and upper bounds, 227–229

in estimates of doses, 36–37, 147–148

in estimates of external beta dose, 116–118

in estimates of external gamma and neutron doses, 111–115

in estimates of internal dose, 118–119

in exposure scenarios, 110–111

exposure to contaminated ground, 116–117

film-badge upper-bound estimates, 112

immersion in contaminated air or water, 117

methods of estimating or accounting for, 110–119

need to re-evaluate, 3

skin contamination, 117–118

upper-bound estimates in unit dose

reconstructions, 112–115

upper-bound estimates of neutron dose, 115

Uncertainty factors, 184, 315, 377

allowances made for, 67

UNCLE, Shot, 139

Uniform distribution, 58, 377

Unit and personal activities

for case #22, 283

for case #60, 287

Unit dose reconstructions, 67–68

Unit dose reconstructions at the NTS, 73–75

army personnel examining equipment damaged during a nuclear detonation, 75

for maneuver troops at Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, 74

troops leaving trench shortly after a detonation, 75

Unit dose reconstructions for Pacific test sites, 76–79

average daily doses on USS Salt Lake City at Operation CROSSROADS, Shot BAKER, 79

participants conducting radiation survey on deck of a ship, 77

underwater Shot BAKER in Bikini Lagoon, 78

Unit dose reconstructions for Task Force WARRIOR at Operation PLUMBBOB, Shot SMOKY, 318, 349–359

activities of Task Force WARRIOR at Shot SMOKY, 349–351

alternative exposure scenario for Task Force WARRIOR, 355–357

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

discussion of exposure scenario assumed in dose reconstruction, 354–355

dose reconstruction for Task Force WARRIOR, 352–354

evaluation of approach to dose reconstruction, 358–359

radiological conditions in maneuver area, 351–352

Unit-dose reports, 73

Unit memoranda, 26

Units of measurement, vii

Upper bound (UB) doses, 54, 64, 141, 145–160

estimates in unit dose reconstructions, 112–115

estimates of dose to occupiers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 109

estimates of neutron dose, 115

in NTS unit dose reconstructions, 113–114, 148–149

in Pacific test site unit dose reconstructions, 114–115, 153–155

underestimation of, 3, 36n, 202

See also Uncertainty factor;

Upper confidence limit

UPSHOT-KNOTHILL, Operation, 17, 71, 73–74, 95, 113, 136–138, 148–149, 194, 198, 201, 217

Uranium-235, 17, 19

Urinary tract cancer, 25

U.S. Army, observers examining dummies set up near ground zero at Operation TEAPOT Shot MET, 130

U.S. atmospheric nuclear-weapons test series, history of, 18

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), ix, 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 313

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 71, 154, 186, 245, 309

U.S. Department of Justice, 26

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 1, 3, 6, 10–12, 22, 26, 45–57, 59, 260

Regional Offices (VAROs), 51–57, 236–237

See also Compensation and Pension Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 187, 235

U.S. nuclear-weapons testing program, history of, 16–18

U.S. population, exposures of, 219

USS. See individual U.S. ships

Utirik Atoll, 218

V

VA. See U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VAROs. See U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Regional Offices

VARSKIN code, 85, 118

Ventilation systems, 208, 210

VESTA, Shot, 336

Veterans. See “Atomic veterans”

Veterans Administration, 22n

See also U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Veteran’s Benefits: Independent Review Could Improve Credibility of Radiation Exposure Estimates, 28

Veterans Benefits Administration, 237

Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act (1984), 24

Veterans Health Administration, 54

Veterans’ Health Care, Training, and Small Business Loan Act (1981), 24

Veterans Issue Tracking Adjudication Log (VITAL), 314

Volatile elements, 93, 190, 377

W

Washdowns, 116

Weathering, 152, 377

WHEELER, Shot, 194, 201

Whole-body equivalent dose, 80, 378

WIGWAM, Operation, 17

WILSON, Shot, 194, 201

World War II, end of, 17

“Worst-case” scenarios, 108

Wounds, 106n, 107

X

X rays, 32, 378

Xenon, isotopes of, 89, 93

Y

Yields, 17–18, 378

Yttrium, isotopes of, 176, 190

Z

Zirconium, isotopes of, 176, 190

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 385
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 386
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 387
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 388
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 389
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 390
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 391
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 392
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 393
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 394
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 395
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 396
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 397
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 398
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 399
A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $85.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

From 1945 through 1962, the US atmospheric nuclear weapons testing program involved hundreds of thousands of military and civilian personnel, and some of them were exposed to ionizing radiation. Veterans' groups have since been concerned that their members' health was affected by radiation exposure associated with participation in nuclear tests and have pressured Congress for disability compensation. Several pieces of legislation have been passed to compensate both military and civilian personnel for such health effects. Veterans' concerns about the accuracy of reconstructed doses prompted Congress to have the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the dose reconstruction program used to estimate exposure. The GAO study concluded that dose reconstruction is a valid method of estimating radiation dose and could be used as the basis of compensation. It also recommended an independent review of the dose reconstruction program. The result of that recommendation was a congressional mandate that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a part of the Department of Defense, ask the National Research Council to conduct an independent review of the dose reconstruction program. In response to that request, the National Research Council established the Committee to Review the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Board on Radiation Effects Research (BRER).

The committee randomly selected sample records of doses that had been reconstructed by DTRA and carefully evaluated them. The committee's report describes its findings and provides responses to many of the questions that have been raised by the veterans.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!