(footnucte “ort. ~ The corresponding HE ta from Nevada taken from Tables A.4 and A.6 give a value for R,/wW1/3 oF about 9.3. If one uses the suggested form of the equation and nence assumes that the effect of soil*‘is independent of the effect of charge size then one might say that craters in the Marshalls should be expected ~.o be 1.8 to 2.0 times as large (in radius) as craters from identical charge sizes and depths in_Nevada. In a similar manner it is found that the value for R/w+ 3 for megaton surface shots in the Marshalls is about 1.0, while that for the kiloton surface shot in Nevada is 2.34, which implies that Marshall craters will be some tnree times arger than Nevada craters. Actually, if the small but finite value of De fwWt/ 3 is taken into account, particularly for the JANGLE surface snct the analysis suggests that scaled crater radii for nuclear cnargea n the Marsnallis are twice as large as for those in Nevada. Since tnis 5 the same figure that was obtained for HE craters, it is tempting anc not. implausible to say that all scaled crater radi: in tne Marsnhalis wil’ be very close to twice those in Nevada. While tne precise data qudtec from the AFSWP memorandum were not at nand during tne development cf tne extrapolation method described in section 4.2, some prior discussion of them was held with Dr. Stephenson by telephone. At tnat time i: was Dr. Stephensor’s feeling that the date themselves were somewhat unreliable because all the craters were water-wasned before measurement. In addition it seems improper to assume that ~he cnaracteristic:, for cratering purposes, of the aoa water-saturated coral sand invoivec im the He tests are identical with the characteristics 2f tne mere - nerent water-saturated coral rock imvolved in tne nuclear shots ‘