RESULTS The calculated values of cumulative population estimated exposure by communities within the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, and “Utan are listed in Table 3. The cumulative estimated exposures for “tocationswhere no population figures were listed are also provided in Table ae. This Table, including the footnotes, lists all of the locatfonsfor-which the TMCEFD estimated exposures. Of these many ‘ communities, only 19 received cumulative population estimated exposures —_— ~N meee” in excess of 1,000Q:person-R, and they account for 76% of the total cumulative populationestimated exposure. Details for these 19 communities are provided?Tn Table 4. The total cumulatfye-population estimated exposure by test series is shown in Table 5. —— wa. ot ~ ~~ Table 6 presents the poputationestimated exposure for the 17 individual events that contributed more than 1,000 person-R. (The HARDTACK II series is listed as a simgle_event because the series was analyzed in entirety by use of film badge: data.) These 17 events contributed more than 90% of the total population estimated exposure. Tables 3 through 6 all] contain data cateulated with the use of the original materials of the TMCEFD. Where webelteve their results are in error, this has been noted in footnotes to these Tables. DISCUSSION —_— Table 5 indicates that the population estimated exposure from al] of the tests through the end of 1958 totaled 85,000 person-R. 211 This can