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 a < 2. tail number for which detailed decontamination data are available ingt 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 others exist as well. ence 15) For example, History of Task Group 7.4 (Refer indicates that 14 F-84G sampler aircraft participated in B yet the 4926th document (Reference 30) details decontamination data only 10 for this shot. The fact that no decontamination data are av able for a specific aircraft, however, does not necessarily imply tha aircraft was not airborne or not contaminated. An important factor that must be borne in mind concerning the rad tion intensity readings or data is that the recorded data for the sur of any one aircraft at any one time represent the highest reading obt from measuring several points on the aircraft. Not known are the num of points surveyed, the location of these points, the average decay r and the effect of activation products on the gross fission product. decay rate is used in Chapters 4 and 5 to make some estimates o Tables 24, 35, 41, 48, 52, and 57 contain detailed aircraft decont ination data for each shot. Each table lists the aircraft type and it identification number with radiological survey and decontamination inf mation. Date and time for each survey were not always recorded. marks appear in the tables where this occurred. Following the last su the aircraft were released to maintenance operations. procedures used were (Reference 30): 158 Ques The decontamina ity Carty neat ht deal, a aircraft initial contamination levels. beat t oy spite these factors and the lack of an accurately known decay rate la