— eee and sampléanalysis. One of the serious limitations of this work is the inability to assign limits of error. The considerable number of data discussed in this chapter which were required for reduction and analysis of the basic water sample data and which hadto be estimated indicate where improved results may be achieved in the future. REFERENCES 1. Gates, L.D., and Eisenhauer, C.; “Spectral Distribution of Gamma Rays Propagated in Air”; TAR—AFSWP 502A and 502A Supplement. 2. Cook, C.S., and others; “Gamma Spectral Measurements of Fallout Samples from Operation Castle”; USNRDL~TR 32; U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. 3. Tompkins, E.R., and Werner, L.B.; “‘ Chemical, Physical and Radiochemical Characteristics of the Contaminant”; 4. Project 2.6a, Operation Castle, WT—917. Stetson, R.L., Schuert, E.A., Perkins, W.W., Shirasawa, T.H., and Chan, H.K.; “Distribution and Intensity of Fallout at Operation Castle”; Project 2.5a, Operation Castle, WT~915. 5. Jones, J.W., and Overman, R.T.; “ The Use and Calibration of a 100% Geometry Ion Chamber”; AECD-— 2367, 20 March 1948. 6. Miller, C.F.; “Gamma Decay of Fission Products from Show Fission of U 735’ U.S. Naval Defense Laboratory; report in preparation. 7. Ksanda, C.F.; “ Predicted Radiation Levels in Land Target Complexes after Contaminating Atomic Attacks”; USNRDL Document 009195; 15 December 1953. 8. LeVine, H.D., and Graveson, R.T.; “Radioactive Debris from Operation Castle Aerial Survey of open Sea Following Yankee— Nectar”; NYO—4618. 9. “Fallout Symposium”; AFSWP—895; January 1955. 10. “Effects of Atomic Weapons”; U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1950. 11. Ballou, N.E., and Hunter, H.F.; ADC—65. 12. “ Fallout Symposium”; Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California; 5, 6, and 7 March 1957. 7p. a dDeleved 76