2. 3. Instruments were faulty The recorded measurement was the highest reading obtained on measuring several different points on the aircraft. Table 14 summarizes the individual TG 7.4 aircraft and identity by tail number for which detailed decontamination data are available in the TAU source document (Reference 30). Table 15 lists sampler aircraft totals from a different source ence 29). There are some discrepancies between References 29 and 30, and others exist as well. ence 15) (Refer- For example, Historyof Task Group 7.4 (Refer- indicates that 14 F~84G sampler aircraft participated in BRAVO, yet the 4926th document (Reference 30) details decontamination data on only 10 for this shot. The fact that no decontamination data are avail- _ able for a specific aircraft, however, does not necessarily imply that the aircraft was not airborne or not contaminated. An important factor that must be borne in mind concerning the radiation intensity readings or data is that the recorded data for the survey of any one aircraft at any one time represent the highest reading obtained from measuring several points on the aircraft. Not known are the number of points surveyed, the location of these points, the average decay rate, and the effect of activation products on the gross fission product. De- spite these factors and the lack of an accurately known decay rate law, a pote? decay rate is used in Chapters 4 and 5 to make some estimates of aircraft initial contamination levels. Tables 24, 35, 41, 48, 52, and 57 contain detailed aircraft decontamination data for each shot. Each table lists the aircraft type and its identification number with radiological survey and decontamination information. Date and time for each survey were not always recorded. Marks appear in the tables where this occurred. Following the last survey, the aircraft were released to maintenance operations. procedures used were (Reference 30): 158 Question The decontamination