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