- eet oe ‘é ~ oe : te .ee et ee a. a Fe etee, See etter) wea — whet “2, wots >ee _. ‘<. “oe We hamney”OeLee 5 3 te - vase eee or peget 5 Se Sarreeshies > Bas. pone5 er Aeeee BiaseSS oe S * st r we shot, Flathead, much of the fallout remains airborne. Thus, fallout and mixing in the sea could be expected to persist well into Del, 3.3.6 Shot Tewa. A D-1 survey (Figure 3.20) defined the background status to the west of the atoll, prior to the shot. The D-day flight (Figure 3.21) located the upwind boundary. The TABLE 3.5 SUNMARY OF FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION, NAVAJO x isodose Area - mr/ar moi! a D+} . sO 6.225 ‘ @.025 : Z Contamination mr/br ee me Sf x ° 158 058 1,788 10,490° 268 800 1.35 0.75 ss0 8,702 - _ 85 240 0.18 0.06 60 809 = Se . ee wk en * $94 me at B+ 24 hours , 7 mit Dez 1.28 0.25 0.125 6.025 90 1,267 3,263 20,830° 90 1.35 a1,i77- . 1,996 27,667 Me-3 49 ©.75 6.18 @.06 353 14 424 3° ° po. 7, ~ +: ws 970 me at H+ 24 bours . * Based on estimate of isodose position. — he D +1 survey (Figure 3.22) discovered a contaminated area extending over 200 miles west of Bikinl. The outside boundary could not be closed on this survey, because of the far-out sector contained active fallout from Shot Huron. The D+2 survey (Figure 3.23) extended the estimated position of the EOB. The isodose was still not completely closed. The aircraft was not allowed . ( “ to lose radio contact, so the survey covered only the area out to 275 miles from Bikini. The 0.25 mr/hr isodose extended into the far northwest sector on D+1. By D+2, the position tad shrunk to approximately a third of the enclosed area. The predicted pattern shows that this ‘ far-out material could not be expected to arrive before H+19 bours. Thus, it is probable that the readings in the area on D+1 were due to material that was not completely mixed. By D+2, some $0 hours had elapsed, and mixing was probably complete. The D+3 and D+4 surveys, Figures $3.24 and 3.25, delineated the hot area, permitting an examination of the shape and position of these inner areas from D+I through D+4. summarizes the fallout areas throughout the shot participation. Table 9.6. 3.4 SAMPLES OF CONTAMINATED SEA WATER Duplicate samples of sea water were furnished to this project by the U.5. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL) and by Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) from their seaSampling programs. After the close of Operation Redwing, these samples wereanalyzed for beta activity in the particulate and salt fractions at the HASL. .. . . af : ( , . . - 3.4.1 GammaRadiation as a Function of Beta Activity. The analysis of each sample, the gammaIntensity estimated at each sampling location, and the comparison of these results are “contained in Appendix D. A straight averaging of the beta activity and the estimated gamma in-. tensity yields a figure of 4x 10°(dis/min)/liter per mr/br. The wide variability of the compari- gon for each sample obviates definite conclusions. However, much of the datafalls within 2 50 percent of the theoretical calculation of 4.43 x 10° (dis/min)/liter of beta activity per mr/hr of gamma activity 3 feet above the surface. Thus, these results may be considered indicative of validity of the assumption. * Wee om : ER Jr ener cer pe tae 8 ON EE ee, : = cae . ge BEDI ewe = Sale pt va deeth eee pele 2.25 0.25 } Average ve. Py, Sahter . : Me Difference Area . iano abt Mabe . GR x