-. oe - 6 16 January 1957 I don't think that we know the answer ~o your question. : well, I don't know. I think if you ask the weather guy they would say that the information they had in existence ig not adequate to make & really good estimte, but they're analysing the available date to try and determine what the flow at various -Levels is at Taongi. observations there. This is an interpolation business. They don't have any So there are several sources of error. First, there a would be error, in the observations they do have, but more important than that is tho error in analysis, the uncertainty in analysis when they make up the veatber map. They will get something out of it, but I think they would say that °t isn't very good. On the other hand, it may be adequate, I don't know | what their intentions vould be on that and I don't think anyone else does. I know that if they could, they would like to get on-site date as another. obser- vation point. During this coming year, set up & veatber station there and probati; reectivate many of the other reather station during the test operations in order to make the analysis. I don't expect they will have that out there, but it} may be enough to evaluate.the firing frequency. I think it is quite unlikely thet they will discover that the firing frequency up there is appreciably lower than it is at Bikini. clusicm that 1t is ebout the same. | I think they will end up with a con- If it is, then that ie probably good enough. That's just speculation. GIBBINS: It shculd be better, Maybe, maybe not. ¥YELT: It will be hard to demonstrate that it is better, it will be easy to demonstrate thet it is just as good, but it would not de of any great advantage if it's a lot better, because the firing frequency at Bikini isa't ded. Even under the restrictions that we imposed on REDWING. Better probably than you could make on an operational basis. Of course, having it better than that is to your advantage which means you don't hit the valleys. 9005 ogee C4t ~li- 4