DOMESTIC | NUCLEAR SHELTERS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE } — AHOME OFFICE GUIDE "Then, | yp, Contents Introduction Chapter 1 Requirements for the design and installation of nuclear shelters 1.1 = Effects of nuclear explosions 1.1.1 General features of nuclear weapons 1.1.2. Energy distribution in nuclear explosions 1.1.3 Light and heat energy 1.1.4 Crater formation and ground shock 1.1.5 Air blast 1.1.6 Initial nuclear radiation (INR) 1.1.7 Residual radiation from fallout 1.2. Other design requirements 1.2.1 Space requirements 1.2.2 Ventilation and filtration 1.2.3. Humidity and comfort 1.2.4 Radio reception 1.2.5 Toilet arrangements 1.2.6 Food and water storage 1.2.7 Emergency exit 1.2.8 Shelter entrance 1.2.9 Interior fitments and decor 1.3 Classification of shelters 1.3.1 Summary of effects of nuclear weapons © 1.3.2 Considerations arising from the probable attack pattern 1.3.3 Classification of shelters 1.3.4 Further comments on Home Office designs 1.4 Shelter strategy for survival 1.4.1 Immediate post-attack 1.4.2 Survival under fallout conditions 1.4.3 Shelter procedures 1.5 Shelter supplies 1.5.1 Water 1.5.2 Food 1.5.3 Tools 1.5.4 Other supplies 1.6 Planning permission, Building Regulations and rating Chapter 2 Calculation of protective factors 2.1 Definition of protective factor 2.2. Assumptions to the manual method for calculation of protective factors 2.2.1 Distribution of fallout 2.2.2 Shape and size of building 2.2.3 Building materials and construction 2.3 Method for calculation of protective factors 2.3.1 Roof contribution 2.3.2 Wall contributions (above ground) 2.3.3 Wall contributions (to basements) 2.4 Examples of protective factor calculations 2.5 + Proforma for protective factor calculations Page 14 22 24 28 28 33 41 45 Chapter 3 Structural design of domestic nuclear shelters 3.1 3.2 3.3 General approach to structural design for blast resistance Simplified dynamic blast design 3.2.1 Basic principles of blast resistant design of ductile structural elements 3.2.2 Blast loads 3.2.3 Dynamic analysis of shelter elements 3.2.4 Design of rectangular reinforced concrete slabs for blast loading 3.2.4.1 Allowable stresses 3.2.4.2 Ultimate unit resistance 3.2.4.3 Ultimate unit moment capacity 3.2.4.4 Ultimate shear capacity 3.2.4.5 Minimum area of flexural reinforcement 3.2.5 Design of steel plate elements 3.2.5.1 Allowable stresses 3.2.5.2 Ultimate unit resistance 3.2.5.3 Plastic moment of resistance 3.2.5.4 Shear 3.2.5.5 Connections 3.2.6 Notes on construction 3.2.7 Suggested reinforced concrete detailing 3.2.8 Design procedure Design analysis and computer study 3.3.1 Introduction 3.3.2 Preliminary design 3.3.3 Computer analysis—static 3.3.4 Computer analysis—dynamic 3.3.5 Design values 3.3.6 Reinforcement design 3.3.7 References Chapter 4 Two designs for improvised shelters 4.1 Easily-constructed improvised garden shelter using household materials 4.2 Improvised outdoor shelter using do-it-yourself materials Chapter 5 Indoor kit shelter design 5.1 General 5.2 Shelter details 5.3 Location of shelter 5.3.1 Where the shelter can be used 5.3.2 Where the shelter should not be used 5.4 Location of shelter in fallout room 5.5 Protecting the shelter against fallout radiation 5.6 Provision of emergency escape tunnel 5.7 Tools and materials 5.8 Shelter ventilation 5.9 Fitting out shelter 5.10 Steelwork specification 5.11 Fabrication drawings 5.12 Erecting shelter Chapter 6 Outdoor kit shelter design 6.1 Design features 6.2 Construction of the basic shell 6.3 Construction check list (to be read in conjunction with drawings) 6.4 Buyinga shelter 6.5 Additional comments 6.6 Alternative shapes and future development work 6.7 Occupying the shelter Chapter 7 Permanent concrete shelter design 7.1 General specification 7.2 Ventilation 7.3 Equipment, furniture and fittings 7.4 Excavation, backfill, and earth cover 7.5 Reinforced concrete, and waterproofing List of figures 47 47 47 58 Introduction This manual of technical guidance on the design of domestic nuclear shelters has been prepared by a working group set up by the Emergency Services Division of the Home Office. The working group was asked to consider designs of nuclear shelters which could be made available to members of the public in the United Kingdom who might wish to purchase and install shelters for the use of themselves and their families. The working group realised that the range of designs which it might produce would not be exhaustive. However, it was aware of the need to give technical guidance to professional engineers to assist them in producing reliable shelter designs. Thus the first three chapters of this book are written to give such guidance. The other four chapters of the book give detailed designs of five shelters. These five cover a range of types which are applicable to different sorts of houses; they also cover a wide price range. These designs are not intended to be exhaustive, and as explained in the text, the working group is already giving attention to other designs, particularly those which might be incorporated into existing or new houses and also underground shelters of shapes other than box-like and using materials other than concrete. It is planned to publish details of this work at a later date. The members of the working group are: Mr J C Cotterill, Chairman Scientific Advisory Branch, Home Office Dr J R Stealey Mr A Lindfield Mr K A Day Mr R W T Haines, C Eng Mr HGS Banks, C Eng Mr M Connell, C Eng Mr S Bell, C Eng Mr S England, C Eng Mr I Leys Major I C T Ingall Mr R Million, Secretary Scientific Advisory Branch, Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch, Home Office F6 Division, Home Office Directorate of Works, Home Office Directorate of Works, Home Office Directorate of Civil Engineering Services Property Services Agency, Department of Environment Directorate of Civil Engineering Services Property Services Agency, Department of Environment Directorate of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services Property Services Agency, Department of Environment Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Ministry of Defence Foulness HQ United Kingdom Land Forces Wilton, Wilts. F6 Division, Home Office Any enquiries concerning this manual should be addressed to the Home Offfice, F6 Division, and not to individual members of the working group. i i | a Ni Materials affording protection against ionising radiation or blast will give more than Light and heat energy This energy consists of visible light, ultraviolet and infra-red rays. The ultraviolet rays are quickly absorbed by the air but the light and infra-red (heat) rays travel great distances and are emitted for several seconds—up to about 20 seconds for a 20 megaton explosion. The intensity of the direct heat radiation received at particular places will depend on such factors as dust, fog, or atmospheric pollution, all of which could absorb much of the radiation. Under clear conditions the ranges in Fig. 1 might apply. Distances are in kilometres (miles). Fig. 1 Ranges of heat effects Second degree burns Second degree burns IMT 25-8 (14-5) 10 (6) 3~13 (17-8) 15 (9) 1OMT | 6-19 (33-12) 26 (16) 7-32 (4-20) 39 (24) In the main fire zone, houses not totally destroyed by blast could catch fire. Second degree burns would be sustained by exposed skin. These would be the maximum ranges at which the effects would occur. On most days in the UK the ranges would be much less because of climatic conditions. To obtain some protection from the heat it is necessary to move out of the direct path of € rays from the fireball; any kind of shade will be of some value. In shelter design, any adequate protection against the heat. However it is important to ensure that no exposed parts of the shelter (such as the facings of doors) are made of flammable materials. In the case of shelters made from plastic materials such as GRP (glass reinforced plastic) it is essential that no surfaces should be exposed to the heat pulse. It is unlikely that such plastic materials would catch fire, but they may melt or distort. Since the blast wave follows the heat pulse, such distorted areas may result in lowered blast resistance. It is considered unlikely that the heat flash from_a nuclear explosion would give rise to fire-storms. of heavy incendiary attacks and at Hiroshima but not at Nagasaki. A close study of these — ae ————— “Cities and of German cities where fire-storms did and did not occur revealed several _ _-—~interesting features. A fire-storm occurred only in an area of several square miles, heavily ee AT “puilt up with buildings containing plenty of combustible material and where at least every — other building in the area had been set alight. It is not considered that the initial density Oa ——— a a ~ ~~ Of fires; equivalent to one in every other building, would be caused by a nuclear explosion ee ~~ Over _a British city. Studies have shown that due to shielding, a much smaller proportion ner co —— ae a a a = n the last war, fire-storms were caused in the old city of Hamburg as a result | a ~~ of buildings than this would be exposed to the heat flash. Moreover, the buildings in the centres of most British cities are now more fire-resistant and more widely spaced than they were 30 to 40 years ago. This low risk of fire-storms would be reduced still further by the Og IRN py es control of small initial and secondary fires. There are two main hazards from a large area of fire to the occupants of shelters. One is the transmission of heat through the earth and shelter wall. In most cases this would make for discomfort rather than danger, particularly in underground shelters. The major danger is the possibility that the gaseous products of combustion, mainly carbon dioxide and perhaps carbon monoxide, might be drawn into the shelter. These dangers may be mitigated by taking advantage of the fact that the arrival of fallout is unlikely to occur for about half an hour after the explosion and a fallout warning will be given (for details see the booklet Protect and Survive). The intervening time might be used to try to extinguish or damp down any nearby fires. This may not be possible in many cases where a fallout warning has already been given based on ground bursts further upwind than the local bomb. Crater formation and ground shock When a nuclear weapon bursts near the ground much of the energy is expended in making a crater. At the same time a shock wave is transmitted outwards through the ground. Crater formation A large amount of vapourised or pulverised material is sucked up by the ascending fireball. Larger amounts are gouged out and deposited on the perimeter of the crater making an elevated lip roughly equal in width to the radius of the crater itself. The size of the crater, for a weapon of given power, will depend on the nature of the ground and crater dimensions for weapons of various powers in different soils are given in Table 8 of Nuclear Weapons. Those figures are not repeated here since in themselves they have no relevance to shelter construction. What is of importance for shelter construction is the ground shock which is propagated outwards from the crater. Ground shock he ground shock effects of a megaton surface burst are similar to those of an earthquake of moderate intensity, but the pressure in the ground shock wave decreases more rapidly with distance. The ground shock effects on buildings above ground are irrelevant since they do not occur beyond the distances at which those structures are in any case destroyed by air blast. The effect of the ground shock on structures below ground depends on the ability of those structures to adjust to the ground movement. Damage will depend on: Duration of blast wave Moisture content of soil. (hence power of weapon). Depth of the structure below ground. Type of soil. The shape of the structure. Small, self-contained structures will generally move bodily with the earth movement; a spherical or similarly shaped structure is better than one irregularly shaped; flexible structures usually adjust to some ground movement, particularly long flexible structures such as pipes. A rigid rectangular structure, such as a concrete box, would be vulnerable to earth movement at its edges and particular attention must be paid to the reinforcing links at these locations. The information in Fig. 2 is taken from Effects of Nuclear Weapons and refers to structures in wet clay. Distances would be halved in dry rock. ~‘Moderately deep’ is defined as structures where the ratio of depth of cover at the crown to the span is greater than unity. More deeply buried structures would suffer less damage. Damage type | Metres (feet) from 1 MT GB | Nature of damage Severe 450 (1,500) Collapse Light 850 (2,800) Slight cracking; severance of brittle external connections Deformation and rupture Slight deformation and rupture Severe 500 (1,700) Moderate 670 (2,200) e.g. buried pipes and tanks Light 850 to 1,000 (2,800 to 3,300) Failure of connections Thin-walled, self contained structures buried in wet clay Should be undamaged by ground shock if sited at a distance greater than 1,000 metres (3,300 feet) from the ground zero of — a Re TE LE a SSIS eS I os ee a ground burst megaton weapon. In dry ground the structures would be undamaged by ~ ground shock ata smaller distance from ground zero. : This is not the whole story however. At locations where structures would suffer only light damage from ground shock the overpressure in the blast wave from one megaton explosions would be of the order of 2,800 kiloPascals (400 psi), and this would be the major factor causing damage. This subject is dealt with in the next section. None of the shelter designs given later take ground shock into account. Most do however give some protection against air blast. 1.1.5 Air blast Characteristics of the blast wave When an explosion occurs, a blast wave is propagated away from the point of burst. The distribution of overpressure (i.e. the excess above atmospheric pressure) along a radial line from the centre of burst is indicated in Fig. 4. The blast wave travels with a characteristic velocity and peak overpressure. This decays behind the front as shown in Fig. 4. At the same time the air behind the front is moving outward at a high velocity and this wind produces ‘drag’ forces on any object encountered. At a fixed point on the ground the variation of overpressure and dynamic pressure with time is shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 3 gives some quantitative information on the relationship between the various parameters of the blast wave. In this table, the last column refers to the duration of the positive phase of the blast wave, i.e. the time between blast arrival and the first return to ambient pressure. ~ Operation of fan The fan should be set in operation as soon as the shelter is occupied and the outside doors closed. It should be closed down immediately following attack to prevent the filters blocking due to the air following the blast wave being contaminated with dust particles __ both from the ground and from any falling buildings. These particles will not be __ sae radioactive. Similarly the ventilation should be shut down when the fallout is expected to -—arrive. This information would be given by radio. It may be necessary to shut down in the event of nearby external fires to prevent fumes entering the shelter. There is a limit, however, to the length of time during which it is safe to shut down the ventilation. The determining factor is the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A level of 4 per cent carbon dioxide is dangerous; a level of 2.5 per cent can be tolerated ‘by ~ Healthy people for a short period (say half an hour to one hour); a more comfortable limit ~~Ys 1.5 per cent. Formulae giving the time of shut down of ventilation from the volume of ~~ ~~ air space per person for a limit of 1.5 per cent, 2.5 per cent and 4.0 per cent carbon dioxide are given below. These assume that the people are resting and they are based on a carbon dioxide production rate of 0.017 cubic metres per person per hour (0.6 cubic feet/person/hour). ee So For 1.5% = N* 17 ee Fie For 2.5% t= N*17 _ 7s. For 4.0% . = N* 17 Where: t is time in hours V is the total volume of shelter in cubic metres N is the number of people in the shelter During the operation of the ventilation and on restarting the ventilation after a shut-down a check should be made on the air flow rate gauge to ensure adequate air supply. A drop in the air-flow rate whilst the fan is in operation will indicate a blockage, most probably at the air inlet cowl. In this event it will be necessary to leave the shelter to clear the air inlet taking precautions before leaving and re-entering (see section 1.1.7). If the air inlet cannot be cleared then it will be necessary to open the doors to the outside; in this case the occupants should keep as far from the door as possible and away from direct line of sight to the outside. Humidity and comfort 1.2.3 At the minimum air flow rate to maintain safe levels of carbon dioxide the ventilation will not necessarily control the temperature and humidity. Portable gas- or paraffin-fired lighting and cooking should not be used in the shelter whilst in the closed down condition. They should only be used if the door can remain open safely and then be sited near to the open door or under the open hatch. Smoking in moderation may be safe if it is carried on near to the air extract vent whilst the ventilation is in operation. Radio reception 1.2.4 For some days the only contact with the outside world will be by radio. Wartime broadcasting will be on the medium wave band or on VHF. Since radio reception in a shelter may be seriously attenuated it is essential to have a radio with an external aerial socket so that, if necessary, an aerial outside the shelter can be connected to the radio. Radio reception should be tested when the shelter is constructed or installed. Toilet arrangements 125 Some form of chemical toilet will be necessary. This can conveniently be of the type used in caravans; some of these can be used for a number of days without producing unpleasant smells. At some point the contents of the toilet must be taken outside. This can be done quite safely if it is carried out quickly. Preferably the occupants should take turns with this to reduce the level of radiation doses received by any one individual. 16 1.2.6 tad 1.2.8 1.2.9 Food and water storage Advice is given elsewhere on the kinds of food which should be taken into the shelter. But in the shelter design provision must be made for food storage and most importantly, water storage. Water should be stored sufficient for at least 24 litres (4 pints) per person per day for 14 days. This will allow a small amount for toilet and washing purposes. It can be stored in plastic containers and these can be in the least protected part of the shelter. Water and food do not become radioactive or dangerous by being exposed to radiation. They only become contaminated if the dust settles on the food or in the water. Emergency exit In large shelters, the provision of an emergency exit remote from the main entrance is essential. In small family shelters the provision of an emergency exit is of less value, since it can only be sited within a few metres of the main entrance. However, in designing a shelter there are several matters which might be considered to ensure, as far as possible, that exit from the shelter will be possible if debris is deposited outside (see section 1.1.5). Canopy over the door. In cases where the entrance to the shelter is down a ramp, it should be possible to build a canopy over the entrance to the doorway to prevent debris blocking the door. Sand filled tunnel. In a concrete shelter, a section of the wall remote from the entrance can be replaced by a metal plate or masonry. A tunnel to the surface beyond this can be filled with sand which could easily be removed to gain access to the outside. Such an alternative arrangement is indicated in the concrete shelter in Chapter 7 of this book. Tools. Picks and shovels should be part of the shelter equipment. If no special emergency exit is arranged it is essential, in the case of a hatch cover entrance, to provide some means of lifting the shelter door by mechanical means in case it is covered by debris or branches of fallen trees. Shelter entrance This should be of the correct type to withstand the design overpressure of the shelter. Information on this is given in Chapter 3 of this book. The main blast door would always be outward opening to ensure that the blast overpressure is more safely distributed across the entrance. Provision should be made for the removal of this blast door from the inside to aid escape. If there is sufficient space it is worthwhile considering the provision of a ramped entrance to the shelter rather than a hatch cover and ladder. This will make entrance and exit easier for the elderly and incapacitated. Interior fitments and decor In purpose-built shelters (which are not inexpensive) it will be worthwhile considering the types of fitments and colours to avoid a universal drabness. This might be achieved by some form of light colours on the walls or even posters, a familiar carpet on the floor, etc. White or light coloured walls will also have the advantage of reducing the intensity of light required in the shelters. Interior light can be supplied by batteries. These can be dry batteries or a car battery, fully charged before being taken into the shelter. Battery-powered fluorescent lighting is now available and this is more efficient in terms of battery life. Fig. 14 Suggested food stocks for two weeks (200° Ching fe /, {4 ») Item For one person Biscuits, crackers, breakfast cereals etc. 2750 g Tinned meat or fish (e.g. tinned beef, 2000 g luncheon meat, stewed steak, pilchards, sardines) Tinned vegetables (e.g. baked beans, 1800 g carrots, potatoes, sweetcorn etc.) Tinned margarine or butter, or peanut 500 g butter Jam, marmalade, honey or spread 500 g Tinned soups 6 tins Full cream evaporated milk 14 small tins (or dried milk) ) (2 x 300 g containers) Sugar 700 g Tea or coffee (instant) 250 g Boiled sweets or other sweets 450 g Tinned fruit, fruit juices, fruit squash, If sufficient storage drinking chocolate space is available Approximate cost (mid-1980) £15-£20 Children over five and adults It is best to concentrate on foods of high energy value: a normally healthy person can survive without a properly balanced diet for many weeks. Salty or highly spiced foods should be omitted during the ‘lie-low’ period as should salt itself. The greatly increased requirement for water which salt brings about would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy with a limited water supply. No adverse effects will result from the exclusion of salt from the shelter diet. Variety in foods The list in Fig. 14 should not be regarded as a hard and fast shopping list. It is important to remember that favourite or familiar foods will be important psychologically. There is room for flexibility both within and between groups of foods. Fats could be decreased by 250 g and cereals increased by 450 g; or 350 g of tinned meat could be substituted for the boiled sweets. If storage space is limited then the tinned fruit and fruit juices can be omitted but these items do increase the variety of the diet and provide some liquid intake. Turnover of food stocks If a regular stock or emergency supply of food is to be kept it is necessary to replace all tinned goods at least once every two years using and replacing the oldest stocks first (those containing acid fruits like tomatoes or pineapple, and evaporated milks, will only be at their best for about six months). Packeted foods should be replaced at least every six months. Cereals should not be kept for very long periods and their storage life is approximately four to six months. Biscuits and similiar items should be kept in a metal container. 25 26 1.5.3 1.5.4 Use of perishable foods When an attack appears imminent perishable foods including those in freezers and refrigerators should be eaten first, and other household stocks reserved for the emergency store. When the electricity supply ceases, food in freezers will gradually thaw and then deteriorate; nevertheless it and other perishable items can make a useful addition to the diet for the first few days in the shelter. Tools In Type 3 and Type 4 shelters, particularly those sited below ground it is especially important that tools be stored in the shelter to enable the occupants to dig themselves out should occasion arise. A pick and spade are essential; in the case of a trap door entrance, some form of lifting gear would be desirable in case debris or tree branches have fallen over the entrance. In the Type 2 shelters a spade would be essential in case of house collapse onto the shelter. This might also apply in the case of the Protect.and Survive core shelter. Other supplies A study should be made of the contents of Protect and Survive, particularly pages 14 to 17. The supplies there may need to be adapted to the particular form of shelter being stocked. But all the classes of items are important and so are listed here: Portable radio (receiving medium wave) and spare batteries. A spare radio would be desirable. In the case of shelter Type 3 and Type 4 it is essential to have a radio with an aerial socket. A make-shift aerial can be fitted up passing to the outside of the shelter. A socket on the radio is then necessary to receive the connection to the aerial. Tin opener, bottle opener, cutlery and crockery. Warm clothing, and changes of clothing. Bedding, sleeping bags, etc. Saucepans, food containers. Torches with spare bulbs and batteries. Toilet articles, toilet rolls, plastic buckets. Overalls or an outdoor coat which can be left near the shelter entrance in case you have to go outside the shelter. First aid kit and simple remedies. Box of dry sand, cloths or tissues for wiping plates and utensils. Notebooks and pencils. Games, toys, magazines. Clock (mechanical) and calendar. Sanitation supplies such as polythene bag linings, strong disinfectant. Two dustbins or buckets, one for temporary storage of sealed bags of waste matter and one for food remains, empty tins and rubbish. Fig. 28 Typical ‘box’ shelter Hatch ~*~ \ o - Ground level la | 450mm earth 765kg/m2 250mmconcrete 575kg/m2 pa 2100mm Longitudinal Section 250mm 2400mm ie ee Plan a | 43 ea eae ee ee ee ical un ound shelter ° It is required to calculate the protective factor at a point X in the middle of the shelter and 0.3 m above floor level. Roof contribution Since the average weight of the internal partition wall of this shelter is greater than 300 kg/m? the effective roof area is that part contained within the square living portion of the box. Line-of-sight penetration for radiation through the hatchway to the door at the bottom of the well would be very small and would be negligible if the door and hatch are diagonally opposed across the well. 1. A, area of roof=5.76 m? 2. VA, =2.4m 3. H-x =2.5 m (2.8 m-0.3 m) 4. VA, = 0.96 H-x Weight of overhead material = 1340 kg/m?’ From Fig. 21 roof contribution R = 0.025% Wall contributions Since the whole box is below ground surrounded by a density of earth the contribution through each of the walls can be regarded as negligible. C The only contribution of radiation which would reach the shelter is that passing through the roof | 100 LOSS Of iV | Should the neieeete cover be lost due to blast then some ee, could enter the well spe Owever, since the entrance is furnished by a flight of stéps (probably concrete eg distribution of fallout throughout the well space would be subject to a number of -{||_ simplifying assump simplifying assumptions: 1. Hatchway has been taken as 900 x 1350 mm=1.215 m’. 2. Fallout is distributed over 1.215 m’ of steps at an average height of about 1.5 m above floor level. 3. From Fig. 24 using / A=2.4 m and interior wall weight of 575 kg/m? gives contribution = 0.05%. The effective wall length for this contribution is only 1.35 m from a total 2.4 m consequently the contribution is reduced to 0.025%. This is further reduced to at least 0.01% due to a shielding factor from the outside wall of the shelter. 4. From Fig. 22 using \ A=2.4 m and wall weight of 575 kg/m? gives a wall contribution of 0.8%. Again the effective wall length is 1.35 m from a total of 2.4 m, consequently the contribution is reduced to 0.45%. This contribution is further reduced by shielding to about 0.22% and then allowing that only 0.6 m of wall (of total height 2.1 m) is above fallout level this further reduction gives 0.063% as the final exposed wall contribution. 5. Addition of the two wall contributions calculated in 3 and 4 above gives overall wall contribution = 0.073% PROTECTIVE FACTOR R% =0.025 G,% =0.073 Chapter 3 Structural design of domestic nuclear shelters General approach to structural design for blast resistance 3.1 In addition to providing protection against thermal and nuclear radiation, purpose-built nuclear shelters should be designed to resist the air blast effects of nuclear explosions. Shelters are usually placed below ground so that the effects of blast are reduced, although comparable levels of blast (and fallout) protection can be obtained above ground by using thicker elements. Where structural elements are required to sustain relatively large direct blast loads they need to be of heavy ductile construction e.g. reinforced concrete. However, structures constructed of thin-walled materials such as glass reinforced plastic (GRP) or thin metal sheeting can also be used in shelters, but their ability to withstand blast loading depends on their shape, how carefully they have been manufactured and their interaction with the earth cover. Spheres or similar shapes are the most effective but special attention must be given to weak points such as joints and entrances. Thin walled lightweight structural shells obviously offer little protection against radiation, and need to be combined with dense cover to obtain radiation protection. The effects of blast loading are reduced significantly when shelters are deeply buried (i.e. lf the width of the shelt _ when_the earth cover is equal to or greater than about half the width of the shelter) as the overpressure 1s attenuated wi and the soil acts as an arch above the shelter and takes part of the vertical loa = Ppl ~SHCARTH Rom MC Efcor! This chapter sets out guidelines for the structural design of surface or shallow buried rectangular domestic shelters constructed of reinforced concrete, or steel plate for overpressures up to 3 atmospheres (315 kPa or 45 psi), and provides a simplified dynamic design method. Above this overpressure other factors will need to be taken into consideration. Lightweight flexible building material such as GRP or thin metal sheets etc, and the design of deeply buried shelters are not covered in this book as further work and research has to be carried out before simple design rules can be given. Design guidance will be published in due course on these aspects of shelter design. The design rules in this chapter have been limited to the analysis of one- and two-way spanning slabs likely to be used in rectangular shelters as this shape is considered to be the most cost effective for materials such as reinforced concrete. The general principles of dynamic analysis covered can be used for shelters of other shapes e.g. cylinders, arches, spheres etc. The method of analysis presented is not mandatory and the design engineer can use other appropriate methods. 7 It is recommended that the structural design and construction of shelters, designed for blast loading, should be supervised by a chartered structural or civil engineer experienced in structural design and practice. Simplified dynamic blast design 3.2 Basic principles of blast-resistant design of ductile structural 3.2.1 elements The ultimate load capacity of a ductile structural element subjected to blast loading can be determined by considering its capability of sustaining external load by relatively large plastic deformations. The design rules in this guide will limit the magnitude of the plastic deformations and thus the level of damage to the str ral elements to a condition of — ow od concrete, but no Significant impairment of the resistance to further loading. "(pee ATED bvns73\ . : i = ee ee > — - : — - ~~ : ————— aaaaeetne Chapter 5 Indoor kit shelter design ATG! (ekesey THe General VG ELTER™ GE Wwe , This chapter gives information about an indoor shelter suitable for erection in ho that have basements or rooms that can be converted into a fallout room. It can be used as the ‘inner refuge’ referred to in the Home Office booklet Protect and Survive and anybody considering purchasing or using such a shelter should read Protect and Survive and be totally familiar with its contents. The shelter will accommodate two adults and two small children. Two or more shelters can be placed together to gain more shelter area. It should be stored in a clean dry place, ready for erection if required, and could be used for other purposes, e.g. a workbench in a garage or garden shed. Shelter details The indoor kit-type shelter is shown in Fig. 64. A specialist steelwork fabricator will need to cut, weld, paint and drill bolt holes for the steel parts. However, once the units have been manufactured the shelter can be erected by unskilled labour. (Two persons two hours each.) Steelwork shop fabrication drawings are given in section 5.11, a steelwork specification in 5.10 and a guide to putting up the Shelter in 5.12. The basic unit has been designed to be capable of sustaining the debris load resulting from the complete collapse of a typical two-storey house, and when surrounded with brickwork, sandbags or other protective materials it will provide good protection against fallout. Location of shelter Where the shelter can be used In two-storey houses and the lower floors of blocks of flats of substantial reinforced concrete or steel-framed construction, in areas where the density of building is comparatively low. Where the shelter should not be used 1, Houses that have more than two storeys. 2. On the upper floors of houses or any ground floor that has a basement directly below it. 3. Blocks of flats having load bearing brickwork, blockwork or precast concrete panel construction. 4. The top two floors of a block of flats. 5. Lightly clad buildings. Location of shelter in fallout room As explained in Protect and Survive the shelter should be placed within the fallout room. Choose the place furthest from the outside walls and from the roof, or the room which has the smallest amount of outside wall or openings. The entrance should be positioned facing a solid internal wall wherever possible (see Fig. 65). A gap of 600 mm should be left between the outside of the fallout protection around the shelter and the walls of the fallout room to facilitate emergency escape. The shelter should be placed on the most solid base available. When the shelter is to be placed on a suspended ground floor, this floor may require strengthening by providing additional piers, walls or props to support the floor joists. 3.1 5.2 9.3 0.3.1 9.3.2 9.4 83 84 9.5 5.6 9.7 Protecting the shelter against fallout radiation Fallout protection to the shelter can be obtained by surrounding it with dry-laid brickwork, blockwork, sandbags, or heavy furniture filled with sand, earth or books (see Figs. 66 and 67). Recommended thicknesses of shielding materials are given in the following table: Fig. 61 Recommended thicknesses of shielding materials Sides facing Sides facing solid To top external walls internal walls Brickwork 14 bricks (343 mm)|1 brick (225 mm) _ | 4 courses bricks (260 mm) Dense blockwork 1+ blocks (330 mm) 1 block (225 mm) Sandbags 350 mm 250 mm 3 courses blocks (300 mm) 300 mm If bricks or blocks are used they should be dry-laid, but closely packed and bonded so as to stagger the joints as much as possible. Suggested bonding is shown in Fig. 68. Fallout room External windows and doors in the room containing the shelter should be blocked up with material of the same weight as the surrounding wall. A 600 mm by 600 mm dry-laid area should be left within the blocked-up area to provide an escape exit. For shelters protected as described, protective factors are given in the following table: Fig. 62 Approximate protective factor House with all House with exterior exterior windows windows blocked rious OP blocked plus shelter and bricks Terraced: traditional 15 260 modern 11 140 Semi-detached: traditional 12 210 modern 9 130 Detached: traditional 10 180 modern 8 110 Provision of emergency escape tunnel Materials Use tables, doors and other items of heavy furniture to form an emergency escape tunnel. As for ad hoc shelters, other structural commodities might be utilised for building escape tunnels. Fig. 69 shows how scaffold poles could be used for the purpose. Location of escape tunnel The escape route should be planned so that it emerges near to an opening in an external wall. If external openings are blocked up, a weaker escape knock-out area (e.g. dry-laid bricks or blocks 600 mm by 600 mm) should be provided. Tools and materials required For construction 16 mm and 10 mm spanners (1 open, and 1 ring, of each). Steel lever for lining up holes. Work gloves. For shelter Recommended quantities of materials for fallout protection are given in the following table. (Figures in table for entrance shielding wall, but do not consider materials required for blocking up openings in external walls.) Fig. 63 Amounts of material for protection ore = No. of |Soil/earth Distribution of material es for sandbags 3300 14-brick equivalent on 4 sides 550 5.2 cum 2500* 420 4cum of shelter and $ courses on top *It takes four people approximately 10 hours to carry 2500 bricks from a stockpile and stack them around a shelter. 1 short side of shelter shielded with 14-brick equivalent, other 3 sides 1-brick equivalent, and 5 courses on top Shelter ventilation The shelter entrance must remain open at all times to provide adequate free air passage into the shelter. If external openings have been blocked up in the room containing the shelter it is important that the door of the room should also be kept open. Fitting out shelter The shelter should be fitted out as described in Chapter 1 with the following additional items: 1. Heavy hand hammer 2. Crowbar 3. Masonry cold chisel 4. Wire cutters Steelwork specification 1. Steel angle shall be metric angles to BS 4848, Part 4, 1972, or equivalent standard sections to BS 4, 1971. 2. The steel shall be grade 43 or 50 to BS 4360, 1969. 3. All fasteners are to be ISO metric black hexagon bolts and nuts to BS 4190, 1967. 4. All steel members shall be mechanically wire-brushed, then thoroughly cleaned with suitable detergent and rinsed with warm water to remove all corrosion products. When dry the element shall be primed with one coat of suitable metal primer and painted with one coat of compatible drying-oil undercoat and one coat of drying-oil finish coat all in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Fabrication drawings See Figs. 70-79 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 85 Fig. 64 Indoor kit-type shelter TIWM Alavd dnos (04) x 00 o WwW rr ro 9 ns z 2 2 828 || 2 re) re) aee 55 Ey © ae Xe) = 5 ae s—5 LJ Pas vw, 4{ @ ul uy Q<°2 Q 5 42 eS Sas ss w = 0 8 $5 S2\ SsétJ x _— aos \ AER g C ‘ aa aS v) x yen \/ Ae Ce ub! =a 7 eR A fe) 2| 152 a § 5 ae 2 | aa) os ice Sf ; S [ \RARO YN 3] | 5% Sy N 35 - x cl V wee ae ae oe FA HE) /s5Q au g Segui Be oles WEET YA VW . =| |a@V] Bee « § Vizag 2s ig wn olen = we oe I Boa 0 Se 4 i oN Rye Reman tepmpwampciison a 7 B) | Bog & oh oa) ESS : ‘ fy] en wi fu Y SES Tk MA ese] du f EEN ORE ee € LE So > ia Fu . ui Zs Ww _ TINNY V7 77 OS « z YA 3 3*,\ | 2% ut IT KY [7p 2:3 g35/ | be oe § MIN NIN 77) % 33 a HTINUIX IA IAX Y/9 : : x a , Po i a Ro TIWM We3aiLNi anos = PY, RK é " i ecm v\ A\\S AMAR TVA IY’ \\ x VA T\\ A Be. ry \ {ec mit Nike ont ale . aaa ‘ | a] I@mm BLACK BOLTS UMA Wess 5 See «ee eo < {il “arte c| | 7 ll insect ground ‘¢ 100 x 50 plate n . gauze graded o fixed to wall. Oo = | © ~ = a wi IIS” —LNY ee 5 DNAS < Bea e * excess pressure and exhaust valve. puddle flange fitted to all pipes passing through walls. (flange central within wall) lap to AAS Renee Se Se waterproofing. Bee | centrifugal blower with hand crank. waterproofing membrane. 50mm blinding PV.C. external type concrete layer. waterbar at construction joints. Fig. 100 Section A-A - lOO f¢ fear aye phere preyhe — tlhe tyra — Selle (ote for R,0.C 2 117 damp-proofing above ground to be protected by an appropriate protective layer. (ie.metal faced self-adhesive bituminous strip.) 1640 hinged hatch “co SAINI I egg ground graded. y SY SSN S ‘yy SY 150x150 haunch 100x50 plate bolted to wall. ( timber) 150 x 150 haunch secure sealed door. 150mm _ high threshold to door opening. 100 x 50 plate (timber) bolted to floor. 300 x 50 stringers with 200 x 50 treads.(pressure impregnated softwood or galvanised steel ) Fig. 101 Section B-B 118 RATTAN COM aL HT LI BOT RDS RT NE FEM PES |. Panes CAM " sal Vf } twa tee € ad “a: Ly vi (nt a . “ il ot Ste han isha Cf) | at bland hen dag be bay bad 2D wel Vee ae CK er ai =) Ue wed Cait betie Gere "Es Che Vs © Ce ] f 4 Gee ) { f | nf a aes BNL DS IRL LG VRID ILE IL, PODER DN TE EI ECL IE UTC PTL PEI DIO ATMA MOTT MRS TS LIST TOS LR BPAY BT TS fd rf say. oe ¢ . sp 2 esata a A 4 * Cy, Ceay Oy, ’ q a yf he y Vis r. bY Ay #\ MR, & y fy yi ‘ \ "ea - —>. = 5 ” , 7A e “A P SES eel Man i, . * x \ oF Th & $ A ye" ae ee Me. x An $” 1 ec ' {s IIT TL ay io INT v4 “Ry EAA WC y @ “tt ey ming, >, (Sn SSVICO ET ITN 4 Wh ane otf MTVU gg ARETE wR eR" “a WOU, ali eas "8 nee ees ™ . Ord “Army veg (4 @ 7 SAY bn AIG So * Bedl, tedhe “be e Page> vv vod {See Ff HANDBOOK OF me NUCLEAR WEAPON EFFECTS Ist Edition September 1996 NO uo © SAND PROBABILITY —_ OF DAMAGE (percent) a 0s SCALED GROUND RANGE (ft/KT"/3) an © . 4500psi 100 PROBABILITY 2 OF DAMAGE stress sai O ara sa reinforced — SEVERE = os — — MODERATE c “| concrete H = e = silos and 1017 * 880 aot Ste 10840 & tube WEAPON YIELD (KT) TT Figure 15.60. V ili | ri shelters gt 0 ulnerability Curves for a Vertical a | Cylinder, Aspect Ratio R/T = 10 (Structure a —— SEVERE Category 15.3.24) Surface Flush in Dry Sand. — — MODERATE | 101% * F%90 491 102 103 = 104 WEAPON YIELD (KT) Figure 15.52. Vulnerability Curves for a Horizontal Cylinder, Aspect Ratio R/T = 10 (Structure Category 15.3.18) Buried in Dry Sand. 2° a = G | PROBABILITY 4 S OF DAMAGE 10 co (percent) 2 10° fe) A — C — — MODERATE |, ~ Lu = a F 492 = wd ' a ae: : FO Se a 1 , Ohi ALTITUDE (km) ©: uy 10°17 * 8490 = 401 102 103 «10° O ,,0 WEAPON YIELD (KT) E 10 = Figure 15.35. Vulnerability Curves for a Flat- 10°! : ee Roofed Structure, Aspect Ratio L/T = 10 10" . ee | 10° (Structure Category 15.3.3) Buried in Dry Sand. PARTICLE DIAMETER, d (um) Figure 4.3b. Particle Settling Time(s) in Still Air Ver- sus Small Particle Diameter (micron). 250 _ PROBABILITY Figure 15.62. Basic Vulnerability Chart for Tunnels in Rock. OF SEVERE DAMAGE LIMITS OF SURVIVABILITY IN GRANITE FOR 1 MT 200 —- ‘paneer SLANT RANGE, R TYPE OF LINING (feet) SPECIAL COMPOSITE 600 — 700 150 Table 14.1. Combat Ineffectiveness for Personnel in an Open Two-Man Foxhole (2 x 6 x 4.5 feet) Side-On to Blast Wave. SCALED GROUND RANGE (fuKT 1/3) COMBAT WEAPON YIELD (KT) INEFFECTIVENESS 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 (%) PEAK INCIDENT OVERPRESSURE (psi) 24 68 -1 10° 10! 102 10° ~=—s-_ 104 WEAPON YIELD (KT) Figure 15.55. Vulnerability Curves for a Horizontal Cylinder, Aspect Ratio R/T = 10 (Structure Category 15.3.21) Buried in Wet Clay. 10 Table 15.15. Field Fortification Damage Criteria. DAMAGE DESCRIPTION STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE CATEGORY TYPE DESCRIPTION SEVERE MODERATE 7A MGEs Machine-gun emplacement, 7 x 7-foot framework extending 2 feet above original ground surface, has open firing ports and open trench entrance; 3- to 5-foot mound of earth cover extends down to the surface except at openings. = personnel shelter, 167.5 Shelters modular sections 6 x 8 7 feet with top 3 to 5 feet below the ground Table 15.16. Machine Gun Emplacement Table 15.17. Command Post and Personnel Shelter Vulnerability Levels. — Vulnerability Levels for Peak Overpressure (psi). Some caps and posts broken, moderate displacement, some revetment failure. Damage to minor components only, slight displacement, occasional revetment failure. Caps and posts broken, large displacement and disarrangement of timbers, revetment failure. Some caps and posts broken, moderate displacement, some revetment failure. Damage to minor components only, slight displacement, occasional revetment failure. Caps and posts broken, large displacement and disarrangement of timbers, revetment failure. surface; earth covered, and covered trench entrance. Large deflections of frame and entryway, partial filling of shelter. Minor displacement of shelter and entryway. Complete collapse of shelter frame and total filling of shelter by overburden. A hardened frame/fabric shelter with sealed vertical entryway, buried with at least 4 feet of cover. At least 20 percent but less than 50 percent filled with earth. Less than 20 percent filled with earth. At least 50 percent filled with earth. Unrevetted trenches and foxholes with or without light cover. PERCENT PROBABILITY | _LEVELOFDAMAGE OF DAMAGE LIGHT MODERATE SEVERE PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL OF DAMAGE OF DAMAGE LIGHT MODERATE SEVERE Peak overpressure (psi) 15 35 45 25 50 65 35 75 100 Table 15.18. Hardened Frame/Fabric Shelter Vulnerability Levels for Peak Overpressure (psi). Peak dynamic pressure (psi) 1.3 10 20 2 15 30 3 23 45 PERCENT PROBABILITY LEVEL OF DAMAGE OF DAMAGE LIGHT MODERATE SEVERE FIG. 2.3: 1 kt free air burst (sea level air density) peak overpressure P =3.04x1021/R>? + 1.13 x 109 /R2 +5 x 109 /® Pascals +/-15%, R in metres for surface bursts, set R = 21/3 FIG. 2.6: 1 kt free air burst (sea level air density) total overpressure impulse Ip = 10°/R Pa-sec +/-20%, R in metres. FIG. 2.7: 1 kt free air burst (sea leve air density) total dynamic pressure impulse Ig = 107 /R2-> Pa-sec +/-20%, R in meters (valid: R > 150m). ili PREFACE | At the time of publication of the Defense Special Weapons Agency’s (DSWA) e1 ghth edition of Effects Manual One* (EM-1), which was completed in 1993, it was recognized that its easy use would be limited by both its length and its classification. This work, EM-1 Technical Handbook, addresses those limitations. It is designed for the engineer who has a working knowledge of nuclear weapon effects and, thus, does not need the extensive tutorial sections of the basic EM-1.Itincludes algorithms, graphs, and tables required to make approximate quantitative estimates of nuclear weapon effects, along with a brief description of their use. Of the twenty-two volumes of EM-1, five were judged inappropriate for this handbook, either as a result of their extensive classified database or because they were almost entirely qualitative and tutorial. In addition, Volume 1, containing synopses of the other volumes, has been omitted. The chapter numbering in this handbook maintains the nomenclature of the main EM-1, with consequent gaps for the omitted volumes. Most of the Sample Problems from EM-1, judged helpful in understanding the application of the algorithms, have been included but in a more compressed form. Other sacrifices, primarily in type font and figure size, have been made to allow the handbook to be printed in a single volume. Additionally, to save space, all the primary source references in EM-/, both for specific data used as well as extensive bibliographies, have been deleted in this handbook. Readers requiring more detailed information are referred to the original EM-1, for which all except Volumes 1, 3, and 13 are classified. The actual publication date of each EM-J volume is indicated below. Because of the lengthy writing, review, and publication process, the actual age of the technology provided is approximately five years before this date. For the current status of the contents of any EM-/ chapter, write to the Weapons Effects Division, Defense Special Weapons Agency, 6801 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22310-3398. Since the Editor of this handbook has simply abstracted the material from the basic multi- volume series, with some liberties taken in compressing text, the following authors of the source volumes of EM-/ deserve full credit: Vol. 2: D.C. Sachs, E. Martin (Kaman Sciences); L. Kennedy, G. Schneyer, J. Barthel, T. Pierce, C. Needham (Maxwell Laboratories); and J. Keefer, N. Ethridge; (1985). Vol. 3: C.KB. Lee, LP. Mosteller, and T.A. Mazzola (Logicon RDA); E.J. Rinehart, (DSWA), A.V. Cooper, and S.H. Schuster (California Research and Technology Corp.); (1992). Vol. 4: J.E. Cockayne and D.P. Bacon (SAIC); T.A. Mazzola (Logicon RDA); M. Rosenblatt (The Titan Corporation), and J.A. Northrop, Editor (S-Cubed); (1992). Vol. 5: R.M.Barash, J.A. Goertner, and G.A. Young (Naval Surface Warfare Center); C.B.K. Lee (Logicon RDA); B.B. LeMehaute (University of Miami); and J.P. Moulton (Kaman Sciences); (1991). Wol. 6: JR. Keith and D.C. Sachs (Kaman Sciences); (1985). Vol. 7: D. Steel, J.R. Keith, H.D. Bos, and E.J. Plute, Jr., (Kaman Sciences); H.C. Lindberg (APTEK, Inc.); (1987, 1993). Vol. 8: D.C. Kaul, F.Dolatshahi, W.A. Woolson, and W.Scott (SAIC); H.G. Norment (ASD); (1990). Vol. 9: W. Knapp and B. Gambill (Kaman Sciences); (1986). Vol. 10: E. Quinn (Technical Integrator), J. Schlegel and W. Kehrer (Logicon RDA), C. Fore (Editor) and T. Stringer (Kaman Sciences), R. Schaefer and W. Radasky (Metatech), G. Morgan (TRW), and K. Casey and B. Stewart (JAYCOR); (1992). "Fiequests for copies of the original 22 volume Effects Manual One (EM-1) should be addressed to the Defense Special Weapons Agency, 6801 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22310-3398. 1V Vol. 11 Vol. 14: Vol. 15: Vol. 16: Vol. 18: Vol. 21: Vol. 22: : W.A. Alfonte and E.A. Wolicki (Kaman Tempo), J.R. Srour (Northrop Corp.), and J.P. Raymond (Mission Research Corp.); (1988). M.K. Drake and W.A. Woolson (SAIC); (1993). D. Bergosian (Karagozian & Case), C.C. Deel (SAIC), and W.J. Hall (H&H Consultants); (1993). R.D. Small (Pacific-Sierra Research Corp.); (1992). L.A. Twisdale, Jr., and R.A. Frank (Applied Research Associates), J.F. Polk (U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory); (1993). J. Eamon, J. Keith, R. Keefe, R. Ponzini, J. Betz, J.L. Forkois, J.L. Harper, J. Hess, T. Stringer, P. Book, D. McLemore, R. Ruetenik, L. Mente, and G. Zarthaian (Kaman Sciences), W. Lee (HTI), R. Halprin and B. Strauss (MDAC), and H. Lindberg (APTEK); (1993). M. Bell, D. Breuner, P. Coakley, B. Stewart, M. Treadway, J. Sperling, E. Wenaas, and A. Wood (JAYCOR); (1990). The editor wishes to express his thanks to Dr. C. Stuart Kelley of the Defense Special Weapons Agency for his consistent and enthusiastic support for this project, without which this handbook could not have been completed. The editor is also indebted to the technical editing (Chris Brahmstedt), graphics (Cindy Grooms, Donna LaFontain, and Will Larsen), and publication (Dianne McCune) staff at DASIAC (the Information Analysis Center supporting DSWA) for their long and patient labor in preparing this handbook for printing. John A. Northrop Editor Maxwell Technologies, Inc. September 1996 Preface. ...... Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 18 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS pekinese dl eae neice dente aetna Beale sion ee neice caladanne nena lil PIE scdiccccdlcavpitcctcien um nbtagocacsiiaiunnvantinnnbinaniacinn: naman heaeamacuini aaa 1 CRT PIED aids picid oc eanersin cen ransrseancoysnvniceness rene nhbaasapninedencanatninn poe 73 eS ae Ee A SET ee OTE AT TRIN 163 FE I POE SEN os cits siss sis enn thd vv ciasoneenterassiasivstesemnswaswedbaocmiper 173 TRL RaA Ae RINE FAI OI ti in iE enn enced nto bE aanginbinsinapardgn sae snvanth entries 223 ae NN aarti et cts ons cnernpe oc oennccae cpa na eno pulnien taaoenesaia 261 ae Wa FN iiss cdecinnahann vocnnpireendcbapenttendavasussmansendioees 325 I Va FI gsi sss csecesscensensisa sen ondinnanninaneninv see mmcntioninas 401 Sei NAIR FUNG Fa IT oom isis cvcstnicncacisateaseinninennaajawhesecsanrvenvennnene ae ee tee ae 437 Transient Radiation Ettects 01 EIGCtrOmics «..... .......000qeccoevsnensescosssecodecaconessnnvessnnse 483 Se FE siissccseatigessdctees scckiuiedeainainsteuadnstuxiincitearstnclonerenantiaae 495 I TG ce xaos kth sola crrsaintsiersskemitenspncenededanewnidaaindnntiehainadanem 509 a nn Sn INE UI lana nasnaths ceiensnces tenkanaapa beaks es soenrgestopesctnanne 569 PaSPOT Ge TPIS. BO ORCS Saag Sis cinerttn wrineteiensccsncisasonncerinnepavetenincnisenatesnsten eel 611 I eS iis ntsc cinievatinin cia tivceteninietonentinliiasmcrm titanic 629 ERS TOSI SVC iii cssincisicsesce isin eis tans ancecniveninenunarnstasansesctigientaattenecnsee 671 NUCLEAR PHENOMENA 8. NUCLEAR RADIATION PHENOMENA 8.1 Introduction. Although the radiation from nuclear explosions includes gamma rays, neutrons, beta particles, and alpha particles, only the first two elements are transported over significant dis- tances through matter, and thus are the only ones considered in detail in this chapter. The exceptions to this are high-altitude explosions in which beta-particle phenomena occur over large distances, and direct contact with fallout in which beta particles, and to a lesser extent and only at very late times, alpha particles, may be significant. 8.2.2 Weapon Radiation Sources. Table 8.4. Representative Types of Nuclear Weapons. 8.2.2.1 Generic Weapon Types. EM-] con- tains a complete description of 13 generic weapon types and extensive data on the at- mospheric transport of their several types of radiation outputs. Table 8.4 is an abstract of four of these types. In general, the data in this handbook are the subset of the EM- J] data for these types. DESCRIPTION Unboosted fission implosion weapon, contemporary design Boosted fission implosion weapon, modern design Thermonuclear secondary Enhanced radiation thermonuclear secondary 8.2.2.3 Gamma-Ray Sources. For most weapon designs (Table 8.6), the range of gamma-ray pro- duction efficiency as a percent of total yield ranges from 0.1 to 0.5 percent, with the larger gamma yields attributed to those weapons that are physically the smallest. Average gamma-ray energy de- pends more on the origin of the weapon yield (fission or fusion) and the physical size of the weapon than on the yield itself. Small weapons and those that obtain a large fraction of their yield from the fusion process tend to have the highest average gamma ray energies. Table 8.5. Neutron Source Spectra and Output for Types 3, 5, 8, and 13. ENERGY RANGE Ee (MeV) NEUTRONS PER MeV 9 UPPER LOWER SOURCE3 SOURCE5 SOURCE8 SOURCE13 ~ 1.49 x101 -— 1.22 x 101 8.85 x10 9.47x103 1.65x10-2 1.42 x10-1 ® = NEUTRONSPERKT 2.70x102 3.38x1023 1.95x1023 1.77 x1024 E | oc Table 8.6. Weapon Gamma-Ray Output. > i. TOTAL GAMMA-RAY AVERAGE PEAK GAMMA-RAY w WEAPON ENERGY % GAMMA-RAY | OUTPUT RATE ® © rT TYPE (MeV/KT) ENERGY (MeV) (MeV/nsec-KT) 3 9.80 x 1022 1.50 4.92 x 1021 5 1.04 x 1023 1.61 5.22 x 1021 108 106 104 102 100 8 3.55 x 1023x W-0.29 1.63 1.79 x 1022x W-0.29 TIME (sec) 13 6.70 x 1023 2.00 3.37 x 102 Notes: a - W is yield in kilotons. Figure 8.1. Idealized Time Dependence of the Gamma-Ray Output from a Large Yield Explosion, Normalized to 1 KT. Table 8.12. Critical Target Composition of Soil Types. Percent by Weight Soil Type Iron 7.31 1.98 1.52 0.06 Sodium Silicon Aluminum Maganese 3.30 0.14 1.39 0.12 0.80 0.07 0.12 0.01 Mojave European Nevada Area 7 Dade County b - Illustrative values based on a hypothetical prompt gamma-ray pulse duration of 20 nsec Table 8.10. Height of Burst and Yield Range for Generic Device Types. Data HOB (meters) Enhanced Radiation (ER) (13) HOB Range Yield Range (meters) (KT) Device Type Low Yield 75 50 - 100 1-5 High Yield 200 100 -300 § -15 Thermonuclear (8) 200 150 -500 10 -500 Boosted Fission (5) 160 60 -300 1-20 Fission (3) 150 60 -300 0.5 -15 DEVICE LOW YIELD ER —- — — HIGH YIELDER »———— THERMONUCLEAR -=———= BOOSTED FISSIO as FISSION \ Sar Se CS or Gamma-Ray Dose Rate-\— { Neutron Activation \ per Kiloton Yield at 1 hour Figure 8.26. European Soil 1.5 2.0 SLANT RANGE (km) Figure 8.45. Fraction in Main Cloud. FRACTION OF YIELD ENERGY IN MAIN CLOUD, f,, 0 10 20 30 40 Figure 8.46. Fraction in Base Surge. 1071 WET ROCK AND SOIL FRACTION OF YIELD ENERGY IN BASE SURGE, f, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 SCALED DEPTH OF BURST, Z (meters KT-1/3.4) 2.5 3. 0-2 10°3 10°5 106 1 70 or?” 50 SCALED DEPTH OF BURST, Z (meters KT-1/3.4) GAMMA-RAY TISSUE DOSE RATE (cGy/hr-KT) Figure 8.28. Gamma-Ray Dose Rate per Kiloton Yield at Ground Zero Neutron Activation of European Soil for Various Nuclear Weapon Types. aaa we es ow Me SS ee ed ee ee mee = aos SBN raS Nh tt tt — Cs HS RA Se a a oe es a a ae oe 8 iS | Se eo \aaien too ill tT ‘Ltn iiiesetili ew CECH CoN OSs) MST ma eer « GAMMA-RAY TISSUE DOSE RATE (cGy/hr-KT) DEVICE LOW YIELD ER ttt tt tt BOL Re Ra ew it ot Pp = Seelliomaas ~ FISSION coreniees HSS iii ST SG SO a OT SS) Ce OE eee ee = Sac << C ss — om oe massa ls ee MS) a ee ee a a ee a ai Saeed nee et oo eeet! |_| Asal INT vee “i @ 1S000\ ae pa maeese SS amis HH ao ay TN ct NU eee Ce ii i ih ch 103 ‘ I SEN THIN Ul S28 00st ees aoe ew Set \ Se CSS! A | SN ES ee) EE ee Ow a Bes eer se semn tT tt it meee Sa ttt ANY | til Ss aN Mi TSI fii til me Sa an SS SE TS Se a, tee tT tS kt tre 3065) Ge a ‘Se SSest SN ‘oe Seste tt ane vans CON TIN \ARE NI SSS Se em NT nN MICELI CILMI CLS CLINT ‘ail il Rt ai an aS NINE ee eee ee es es ee ee ee ae 8s. po a pe gg - @ ieee BSS: ee A kes a Ve =a ee NTT L Whi — ail ttt WT We Se Be ee) Se, Mee Be i + Bi Be Se $$$ ott ta ot tt eeeears nt CS ee ED SE AE Ce ee | = See es Ht ion Ht a LL Saad isan esi mma aL Saeiileteesil email sot LLULMNO TE LL Que I 107 100 101 4102 ~ 38103 TIME AFTER BURST (hours) 10°72 4.2.3 Dust Mass Loading. Surface Bursts (SHOB < 5 ft/KT"”). The collected and analyzed soil and saltwater par- ticles provide estimates of the lofted mass in nuclear clouds. The empirical relation from combining the soil and saltwater data for scaled mass in stabilized surface burst clouds 1S: Mg,/W = 0.62 W?!! (4.8a) where W is the yield in KT and Meg is in KT = 10’ grams, or - Mop/W = 0.29 WO! (4.8b) where W is in MT and Mg is in Mt = 10!” g. Airbursts (SHOB 2 5 ft/KT"*). The experimental mass loading data have large scatter. DICE/TASS calculations have been used with these experimental data to gener- ate the following approximated main cloud mass loading relationship with SHOB. M/W(KT/KT) = 0.25 exp(-SHOB/75)+ 0.04(1—SHOB/800) (4.9a) for 5 < SHOB < 800 ft/KT!”, and M/W = 0 for SHOB > 800 ft/KT!* . (4.9b) (Obes) See Cees 8 SS SSeSse) eee sees i Ue 6 Ce Te | ON 2 CE See 8 Sees) See ee ee Sess 14 roth HO antl oh Nai bh: Sasiiia << soessiiaee eset eee 9 SERIA) a we SF See ee SSsstiqaas ae Weeses caren mast tai oN ESSA cheese Bo cl 101 100 1071 Hl 102 10°3 104 10°> 106 10° EMP EFFECTS <<<«<«<< a es i ee ee) ee oe) Oe Sg =10°2 S/m observer height = 0 km E m(V/m) a. See See ee Se. Wee, Se 10°! 10° 10! Y,Akt) 3 | : 3 Figure 10.4. Maximum Estimated Peak Saeene fessssenvanbescightenegins Meseonbuatecsenecbearenss Electric Field Versus Gamma Yield for : 3 Various Heights of Burst. 10° 10° 0.0 10 20 3.0 40 50 46.0 GROUND RANGE (km) E(t) (V/m) Figure 10.14. Variation of Peak Radial Electric Fields with Range from a Surface Burst for 10? Various Total Yields. 10! 9 : 8 - 7 6 10° 10° 10° 10° 40° TIME (s) 3 Figure 10.7. Electric Field Versus Time for 10° : : : 3 : . Various Gamma Yields at 100 km : 6-STANDARD: GROUND (P,,=10% a ——— : DRY GROUND (P,,=1.0%) 12-SEA WATER (og=4.3 S/m) . : Y= 10 MT 10 3 3 3 observer “ height = 0 km rEy (volts) (V/m) E ~ TIME (usec) 3 3 : 3 : Figure 10.20. Generic Radiated Ground-Burst EMP 102 Joc evel ols breseseseeesde a : ethane : a Waveform. 00 10 20 30 40 50 6.0 GROUND RANGE (km) Figure 10.17. Variation of Peak Radial Electric Fields with Range from a Surface Burst for Different Ground Characteristics. THERMAL RADIATION Table 6.1. Thermal Fraction Values for Near-Surface Bursts. RECIPE RADFLO Surface Nonsurface Surface Nonsurface Burst Burst Transition Burst Burst Yield Thermal Thermal Height Thermal Thermal Fraction Fraction (meters) Fraction Fraction aie Le) 6. 46 | x x10 "cals 1 MT (ALTITUDE = 0 ‘ab A, A Se eee ee ae a = VKT ( ALTITUDE = 0 we FROM TABLE 6.2: 9 ¢, :... FROM FIGURE 6.9: Fomax(KT/sec)= 1.35 W. 0.8 e--f--¥- s 4 aR = 1.35 (47.9) me TS eS max (cal/s) =3.5x10 cal/ : = 64.6 KT/s = 1.35 (47.9) § een — = 34 ms ee ee (ms) =41.93 Ww" = 41.93 (24.66) oS ee ey tomax (ms) = 1034 ms 1.29 x1 o' calls Ce ey ee NORMALIZED SOURCE POWER P (t)/P(tomax) oO nv YTS Ser ee ae NORMALIZED TIME (tt...) 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 NORMALIZED TIME (t/t >,ay) NORMALIZED SOURCE POWER P (t)/P(t SOURCE SPECTRUM (fraction per micro meter) 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 WAVELENGTH (micro meter) SOURCE SPECTRUM (fraction per micro meter) Figure 6.21. Effect of Altitude on Spectral > = Distribution for a 1-MT Burst. 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 WAVELENGTH (micro meter) Figure 6.19. Effects of Altitude on Spectral Distribution for a 1-KT Burst. 1015 1014 SOURCE POWER (cal/sec) Figure 6.13. Effects of Altitude on Thermal Power 10" 10 10° 10! 10 2 for a 10-MT Burst. TIME (sec) THERMAL RADIATION 6-19 6.3 Atmospheric Transmission Effects. As introduced in Equation 6.1, transmission effects are given by the product Tg, where T is the transmittance factor for a generalized geometry with idealized al- bedo surfaces and model atmospheres depending on the visibility. The geometry factor g includes fireball asymmetry and target orientation effects. Values of T and g have been computed for a wide variety of situations and are presented in graphical form for predictive purposes. Such predictions are intended only to bracket a particular case for which actual transmission factors will vary with time and space, and may be very difficult to specify quantitatively. In addition, the normal variables of hu- midity, dust, haze, fog, smog, and albedo factors will be even less predictable in rapidly changing wartime environments. The codes used to produce these data compute both the direct and scattered components as a func- tion of wavelength over the range between 0.3 and 4.0 um. Scattering includes both Rayleigh (mo- lecular) and Mie (aerosol), and absorption is calculated for water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone. The cross sections for all of these processes are wavelength dependent. Thus, it is customary to define discrete wavelength bands and perform the transport calculations with the scattering and absorption parameters defined over the separate bands. The “buildup factor’ is the ratio of the total exposure to directly transmitted exposure, and thus is a measure of the importance of the scattered or diffuse component of the radiation. Figure 6.38 illustrates this factor as a function of optical depth (in- tegral of the product of the scattering cross section and number density of the scattering medium along the path from source to detector) for Pacific Test Site conditions and the albedo of seawater, and shows that the diffuse component may be much larger than the direct component at long ranges. The resulting angular distribution for one wavelength (0.55 um) is shown in Figure 6.39. 6.3.1 Effects of Meteorological Conditions. This section consid- 3 , : : ers the effects of aerosols and mo- : : 7 | WAVELENG lecular absorption. Albedo effects : : will be discussed in Section 6.3.2. . {micro meter) 6.3.1.1 Visibility. Daylight vis- ibility is the distance at which a large dark object is just recogniz- able against the sky background. Nighttime visibility is defined as the longest distance at which an unfocused light of moderate inten- sity can be seen. Table 6.3 gives the international visibility code, relating a qualitative description of the atmosphere to observed vis- ibilities. It is usually assumed that the transmittance is 5.5 percent along the distance corresponding to the visibility. TOTAL RADIATION/DIRECT RADIATION The “meteorological range” (MR) is the horizontal distance for which the transmittance of the at- mosphere for a direct beam of light is 2 percent. The meteoro- : 3 7 ; ; 3 logical range is related to the at- 0 0.4 0.8 12 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 mospheric extinction cross section | SCATTERING OPTICAL DEPTH by: Figure 6.38. Comparison of Buildup Factors for Various Radia- 0, = 3.91/MR (6.8) tion Wavelengths Simulating Pacific Atmosphere with Both Source _ and Sampling at 1-km Altitude. YAT 06 — ZU THERMAL KAVIA LIOP The relationship between the visibility and the meteorological range 1s: V = 0.74 MR. (6.9) In this section, all transmission predictions will be related to the visibility, and not to the meteorolog ical range. FRACTION OF PHOTONS RECEIVED 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 FIELD OF VIEW (degrees) Figure 6.39. Effects of Field of View on the Thermal Radiation for a Target on the Ground from a 0.55 um Source at an Altitude of 1 km. Table 6.3. International Visibility Code. Ciske Visibility Number Description 50 meters (55 yards) Scere (550 yards) Sa (12 miles) AAO THERMAL RADIATION 6-25 14 12 = © RECEIVER ALTITUDE (km) i... $C A a 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 HORIZONTAL RANGE (km) Figure 6.46. Transmission Contours for a 10-MT Surface Burst with a Visibility of 10 km. 14 12 — © RECEIVER ALTITUDE (km) 20. #2+25 ~~ °« «+30 HORIZONTAL RANGE (km) Figure 6.47. Transmission Contours for a 1-MT Burst at an Altitude of 1 km with a Visibility of 50 km. 2453 A5 ELEVATION ANGLE (DEGREES) 90/ 30 20 15 10 7 5 4 50 km OR GREATER = EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR 1.0 :20 km - 50 km = VERY CLEAR -10 km —- 20 km = CLEAR : 4km-10km = LIGHT HAZE 5 2km- 4km=HAZE ~SLkm- 2km = THIN FOG aoc, Te. eee Cee eee ee Ce eo ae ee SS cr a ee a ee a a ee ee ee rr a a DIRECT TRANSMISSION 2 VISIBILITY (km) 5 7 9 11 13 15 SLANT RANGE/SOURCE ALTITUDE Figure 6.48(a). Transmission from a High-Altitude Burst to a Target on the Ground Surface (Direct). THERMAL RADIATION i ELEVATION ANGLE (DEGREES) 90/30 2015 10 7 2 4 1.0 VISIBILITY (km) ~~. ‘ ‘ ™: =< os eC a i). Orr ye iri arr a ae err TOTAL TRANSMISSION ©2& 50 km OR GREATER = EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR | 20 km - 50 km = VERY CLEAR 10km-20km=CLEAR- : 4 km — 10 km = LIGHT HAZE 2km-: 4km= HAZE 1km— 2km=THINFOG : 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 SLANT RANGE/SOURCE ALTITUDE Figure 6.48(b). Transmission from a High-Altitude Burst to a Target on the Ground Surface (Total). Monte Carlo calculations are required when atmospheric transmission effects are included with the albedo calculations. EM-J contains figures showing the results of a series of such calculations for a 1-MT burst at 1-km altitude in a 50-km visibility, for various combinations of albedo surfaces. It is not feasible to interpolate to other parameter sets. However, a generalized data set is available for the case in which atmospheric effects are neglected and a diffuse reflecting plane has an albedo of unity. In Figure 6.52, A, and S, are the target altitude and the horizontal range of the detector normalized by the source siitade. The quantity plotted is the sum of the direct component and that due to the albedo surface. The target orientation was chosen to maximize the exposure but is essentially aimed at the source. The transmission for an albedo (p) less than unity can be approximated by: 7 iy = 1+p(T,-1), (6.12) where T is the transmission for an albedo of unity. For a surface burst with a hemispherical fireball on the albedo surface, the transmission is, i = 1+py,/n, (6.13) where the functions y, and 1), are given in Figures 6.53(a) and 6.53(b), respectively. In these figures, R is the slant range to the target, R, is the radius of the hemispherical fireball, and @ is the angle be- tween a vertical line through the burst point and the line of sight to the target. ALA Ml. WAVE PROPAGATION 9-3 ~ ; : 7 ery A ‘ Peg £ N =. —\ |e >S em, * al San & — 7 8 77 ie POOF SS Vy / = ae, Be Sees ee — 4 er 60 : See ee uP) |b A CE Se me PP A ATIC 2 heer PES — 2 xo : alent = & Es aig serie ONGWhe NaN cities TT UE cal tee IES eo en, Tapes s Gan OSS SS SSS — oS ——_—— NY ll SOI : SS SE SS 0 60 300 GEOGRAPHIC LONGITUDE (degrees) Figure 9.3. World Map of Geomagnetic Coordinates at 0 km Altitude. emitted promptly (within a microsecond); about 5 to 10 percent is delayed radiation (gamma rays and beta particles) from decay of fission debris. “Stopping altitudes” for the principal radiations from a nuclear weapon are shown in Table 9.1. These are the altitudes for radiation entering the atmosphere from above the altitude where mass penetrated equals the reciprocal of mass absorption coefficient. For detonations below the stop- ping altitude of a particular radiation, most of that radiation will be contained locally. When detonations occur above the stopping altitude of a particular radiation, that radiation can spread over large distances before being deposited and causing ionization. About 3 x 10* ion pairs are produced for each MeV of energy deposited in the atmosphere. About 3 x 1028 MeV are released per megaton of weapon yield. 9.1.2.1 Electron Density Within the Fireball. At altitudes below about 80 km, fireballs can be considered approximately homogencous, with electron densities depending on burst altitude, yield, and time after burst. For detonations above about 100 km, electron densities vary greatly over the region of the fireball and the earth’s magnetic field strongly influences debris motion and thus fireball shape. Figure 9.4 shows electron densities for a nominal 1 MT burst at four altitudes as a function of time, with accompanying sketches of fireball rise and expansion. For the 250 km burst, the density shown is the maximum, near the bottom of the rather non-homoge- neous and dispersed fireball. Figure 9.5 shows contours of mean electron density for a Table 9.1. Approximate Stopping 1-MT burst at 250 km. The contours are shown on the Altitudes for Principal Weapon meridian plane of a magnetic dipole coordinate system. Outputs Causing Ionization. The dipole coordinates & and B are related to magnetic spherical coordinates by: cos A= (RJR) cos 8, (9.3) sin B= (RJR)? sin 9, (9.4) where 9 = geomagnetic colatitude, and R, = earth’s radius. Stopping Weapon Output Altitude Prompt Radiation X rays (1-keV radiator) 80 Neutrons 25 Gamma rays Lines of constant B are dipole field lines and lines of Debris (kinetic energy) 115 constant o. are orthogonal to the field lines. The B-coordi- | pelayed Radiation nate is related to the geomagnetic shell parameter L by: Gamma rays 25 B= sin’ i) , (9.5) Beta particles (1 MeV) 407 9-4 EM WAVE PROPAGATION ELECTRON DENSITY (cm’’) ee 101° aang . ee he ee he . eee eee ee ee ee ee . ee a eed evr eles cree rod we Beebe hae o® ; he's Bimini Gore . . ee eh . . . ee eee er eo ee a | ° eee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee | wee ee tere eee ewe ers tee 6 eee . . ee ee ee ae ee eer rrre ey ae ee ee ‘ APielb » eqn Bag 346) & Aa tala Pare ee oe ot . .? ee ee ee ee oe oe ~ ae Oe ee ee oe eee oe . . . te ate’ i. eee eee ee ee . eee . eee . oo . . . . we - . re a a . . . fewe . . . . * ere Tee ee ee ee . ‘ Bae . re oe ee oe a . Cee te ae ate a te eee 286 e 8 O88 ee 8 meets Boots ° peege teres eedbeos oder eee? eee eee ee) “eee beet eo hon atee . tee eBee Dae lane otee er i ee 2 ed a Co oe aoe ee ee ee eo Py eeerterearee ee eee oe ee oe ee ry ee ae ee . ee ee ee ee he . seas . . . . . . eee ewee . . ee oe ee ee ae ee A . ee ee ee ee . ee a a ee a . Pr eee eee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee eee ee) ee ee es eeee _ oO oo ec eeee Py * ° Be om%ee [ee Dp cow ctecedeetelor ore sco : sole secede ee Sp eee etene . . Sy . . FeheWdpeces ee . ee ee ee ee er ee ee oe ee .? sper . eee . ee eo ee ed . Tree eee eee eee eee ee ee) ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe er ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee Pa ee ee oe ee ee ee eam e we etree eee ee Oe ome ee ~* oO © . So em we See ewer eee seem eee emer s ere see Coe emaseeee . - . . ‘ . : . . . . ee state er ee) ~ aretteeree eee ey oe ee oe oe ec . . . e 7 e 4 to8u ; ervcas eV eW Seg cose . Oe ae he ‘ . 7 ond aad . eee ? ee ee . . eee woes . woes . eee . . . . eeee . eRe ee © Mee 7 . . . . fae . . f. . ‘ ° . Cerro eee ee ee ee ee ee eo re ° Bae . eee eee eee ee eee ee ee er 2 . eoroe . wees . * é . eee eRe Fee ote oF . or ee oo oo * ee ee oe ae Bee teods ° Bee loelbe ° Dee toets : eeekes : * . a ee a ee ee ee ee oe ee eee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee eee ee) er ee eeeee rears ee ee ee ee ee) fee etan =k Lo) ~] coal i) ~] pe een chile ees 22 8a leoee ee ee ee eB iba aee eee Ce oe Cr oe oo oo ee eee ee eet oe ° we . eee eee eee eee ee ee rrr eer ee “3 oes ELECTRON DENSITY (cm’’) See emoeteereemeeneesee ere er ee re a i eee . »*? . . - . . . . ee a ee eC ee ee a a ae oo oe ee oe | . ee ee eee er eo oe ee ote oe eee ro ELECTRON DENSITY (cm’’) seegerge james ee Sse e La, 2 oa taee we , ere ee eee eee ee ee ee ee opeegere oom ergere ete ee Bae Bok . ee a ad ore ae . . re aro oe ae er eee ee ee oe | . reer ee re eee eee oe eee ee ee ee ee eo) . . ee ee er eee ae i a . . ee eo ec oe ee eo we eto ete ee baad ove . . . . . . . . eee ee eee ee ee ee ee eo : J hewhe sees ER A one ae a ema wiers coven iaes Se ; : ware re rer eee eee eee ee ‘° . er oe ao See e ba ede ban cree ate Fo bate . Ebien MAK oan ine slate : ; Seeks . . . ete ee Oe ea Pn ote ote Pees ees eres e teeta Fee ates ote Fe Bowe . ere eee ee ee ee ee ee er ee ee oe 2 ey a ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ere eee ee ee er ee ey ee ec aoc iY he ee ee a) wee ow atee eet ee ban Bh o%e ee eee ee ee ee ee er ee eee ee eee eee ee | « re oer ee ee . . . - . . eevee eee tone . eee . Cerne tee? fe tee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee ee . . 2 . . : . : . . . . . . . : od © DD N Oo ert ~% > : zr (°2) Cee ames . _ nN TIME (seconds) 90 S38" O1 60 40 20 O 20 40 60 DISTANCE (km) 10° 10° 10! 102 10° TIME AFTER BURST (seconds) TIME (seconds) ©9° wearer ese ast eoeese's . . . a ee . eee eee eee eee ee ee) a es . ALTITUDE (km) ? . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - . a . Ceo ee tease ee ee ° teers . . . . ° . . eee eee e ALTITUDE (km) - 284 4 8 12 16 DISTANCE (km) 10! 107 10° TIME AFTER BURST (seconds) 7 . 4 . - . a er « 7 . . ee eee eee ee ee ee ee oe oe a a ee aoe a ee ee ee ee . reer ae ee eee ee ee ee ee ee er ee oe ae ee eer gorge gerne ° ee ee ee ee eh . re ee ee 2 a ioe ae a ee . . eh ee ee ee ek . Ce he ee ee a Figures arranged clockwise starting upper left: Figure 9.4a. Fireball Electron Density, 1 MT at O km. Figure 9.4b. Fireball Electron Density, 1 MT at 40 km. Figure 9.4c. Fireball Electron Density, 1 MT at 70 km. Figure 9.4d. Fireball Electron Density at a Point Near the Bottom of the Fireball, 1 MT at 250 km. 40! WAGs os VASE Res eeee ee ee) . . te ee eee eee ee ee | eo be wee ade . oe ee ee ee) . . Pe ee ee oe ee 2) . . . . Ree ee eee ed . . . ere we eS ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe ee | . . owe greg eye . - . . - . : * . . . ° . . . . eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee) Lic lel eg wiatararty Wag bide ofS eRe goad wate ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee . eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee Ce he ee ee eee eee etn en Peete ee baer ® ah oO iss) ps RGU AU US We Ses SER Me tteten wie Couaek Wea eet @eomweoe eeee oe. e. . . . . area eee eee ee ee ee ee 2 . . . . 7 . . . . . een ne eee Sw ee cee e : eer eee ee eee eee eee ee eee er ee 2 ee . eh eDete ee . er ee eee ee ee ee ee ee | . . BEV wo ote ete oe Bode age ed ol! PEER oe ew ote a Boho oe od ALTITUDE (km) . . 3) ere. eee ee ee) LE Luk cba Re ame Rise See ete Knbes Chalde ale ugs Cbalan's . ere eee ee ee ee ee) Or ee ee ee ee ee ee oo ee a . . . . © ~ . . ee a ee ee . . ¢ . . * . . . ee eee he ree ee ee ee ee eee ee ee eT ee oe or | eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee | ee eee ee ee ee ee ee eo eee eee ee ee ee ee ee oh © me ee ee ee ee . aoe ee . . Oo oo ee *. . - . - . . a . . . * _DISTANCE (km * eae eee ee eo PR ee eme eesome eee hacks w putea teldmals caw eet . Pre nero ee ee ee . eee eee ee oo Bee cteoe Pot a® ebe we hee Pe bot o' . ee ee ee . . a oe « oad . . ee ee eo ee 2 od ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee * eee er ce Ree cede erg ens cpege ’ eVo ccc ee See eedtooe te nteeebese et ee mem eee eee . . wate eR PeDOO Pe eee ote ee omes "or te eer ee . ee eee Oe oe Mee Oe tame es ee 2 od ) 8 eC eee ete oe BeBe vote os . eee . es 7 ° ee ee ee . . . eee 7 ee a ce ec E (km 35 eeeee . ee ee . er re! PP eee eee eer ee ee ee oe er a . Te ee we ete wee Be ewe Bee Mee Se Bed ee ee ee ee ee ee ey et TIME (seconds) 600 Cv ©30 60120 80 40 0 40 80120160 DISTANCE (km) ELECTRON DENSITY (cm Cem eeer eraser rert sree re . eR PeD OOK e eee er eee ee ; a . . i chal ag aad eee & Ob © O00 4 aha a & Cee Se eta eek mle wie bom ia wary eRe ore e RP MemMeetesede - core te to mewes . . Ce oe oe ee eB eee ote ete Feo ee Foe eee . ee ee ee ee ee | eee ete ee Cee Be ae ates ee ee ee ee a he ey eee ete ee Bee Be Cae tee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee etre tae er ee ee oe ee ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee ey TIME AFTER BURST (seconds) TIME AFTER BURST (seconds) EM WAVE PROPAGATION | 9-5 7,000 ALTITUDE (km) 5,000 aS '. ELECTRON DENSITY (cm™3) ~~ 1x10 Figure 9.5. Electron Density Contours in Magnetic Meridian Plane, 1 MT at 250 km, t = 1,000 seconds. where L=R,/R, and R, = distance from the field line at the magnetic equator to the center of the earth. 9.1.2.2 Electron Density Outside the Fireball Caused by Prompt Radiation. For bursts below 25 km, prompt radiation outside the fireball is insignificant. Between 25 and 80 km altitude, neutrons produce ionization over several hundred km, but the gamma ray contribution is insignif- icant. Above 80 km, x rays cause widespread ionization and debris kinetic energy contributes for bursts above about 115 km. Figure 9.6 shows the initial ionization caused by prompt radiation from a nominal megaton weapon detonated at 120 km. Below about 100 km, the electron and ion density after 1 second will be essentially independent of the initial ionization if it is greater than 10’ ion pairs/cm’, termed “saturation.” Figure 9.7 shows the altitude dependence of the electron density for several times after a saturation impulse. The inset illustrates the horizontal extent of the region that can be saturated by prompt radiation as a function of detonation altitude. Figure 9.8 shows the initial fireball region and the E- and F-region ionization outside the fireball caused by prompt radiation for a 1-MT burst at 250 km. The fireball is produced by the deposi- tion of debris kinetic energy in the atmosphere. Some of the debris kinetic energy can escape the fireball as ultraviolet radiation produced as the fireball is formed, and some as heavy-particle kinetic energy. The x-ray and ultraviolet ionization regions are symmetrical about the burst point, while the heavy-particle ionization is confined by the geomagnetic field and is more localized and more highly ionized. Prompt energy deposition above about 90 km can heat as well as ionize the air, causing atmo- spheric heave. The prompt ionization regions outside the fireball above 100 km can become striated, with onset times of tens of minutes. Neutron decay (half-life 12 minutes) beta particles can produce weak, but observable, ionization at the geomagnetic conjugate point. 9.1.2.3 Electron Density Outside the Fireball Caused by Delayed Radiation. Delayed gamma rays and beta particles from fission debris produce ionization characterized by a production rate of ion pairs per unit volume per unit time. For detonation below several hundred kilometers, the fission debris is initially within the fireball and is carried upward and expands with the fireball. 409 9-6 | EM WAVE PROPAGATION 500 —— DAY — =— NIGHT 400 BURST POINT OF © 6s INTEREST 300 A\DIN D = DISTANCE FROM BURST MEASURED ALONG SURFACE OF EARTH (km) € 200 < ae “ONOSPHERE ! W400 7 = alt = F 80 = 402 «640% = 4108S 108 ~=S10”.—Ss «108 ~— 102s 107 40"? = 4107? ION PAIR DENSITY (cm’) Figure 9.6. Ion-Pair Density Due to Prompt Radiation from a 1-MT Burst Detonated at 120 km, t = 0. Gamma Rays. Debris gammas emitted below their stopping altitude (25 km) form a local ioniza- tion region around the fireball that can affect fireball thermal emission and EM energy scattering. Above this altitude, most gamma-ray energy is deposited near the stopping altitude, but maxi- mum electron density usually occurs at higher altitudes where the electron lifetimes are longer. Figure 9.9 shows electron density contours for debris at 30 km, in which the persistence of ionization at the altitude of the D-region is evident. When the fission debris and the point of interest are both well above the gamma-ray stopping altitude, the ion-pair production rate and electron and ion densities caused by gamma rays can be expressed conveniently in terms of a radiation intensity parameter L, defined by: L, = (3.2 x 10° W,/R2(1 + t)!?) W/m”, | (9.6) where W, = fission yield (MT) R = radial distance from debris center to point of interest (km) t = time after detonation (seconds). Figure 9.10 shows quasi-equilibrium electron densities for particular values of |. They are the values that would be reached if the production rate remained constant and if sufficient time were allowed for equilibrium conditions to be reached. The inset in Figure 9.10 illustrates the horizon- tal extent as a function of debris altitude for which the electron densities are applicable. Beta Particles. Below the beta-particle stopping altitude, beta particles form an electron-ion sheath around the debris region which will have similar optical absorption effects and EM-wave scattering as described for gamma-rays. When debris occurs at higher altitudes, significantly above the beta stopping altitude, beta particles will follow EM field lines and create ionization, both below the debris and at the conjugate point, at the beta stopping altitude. Each of these areas will be surrounded by a somewhat larger area of Compton electron ionization. The ion-pair production rate and electron density caused by beta particles can be expressed conveniently in terms of a radiation intensity parameter Ng defined by: Ng = 8.8 X 10'5 W,/ [A(1 + t)!7] betas/cm?-sec!” , (9.7) where A = area covered by fission debris in square kilometers. Figure 9.11 shows the quasi-equilibrium electron density caused by beta particles for particular values of Ng. These curves apply if the fission debris is well above the beta stopping altitude and if the debris is uniformly distributed over the area A. 410 German Flying Bomb (FG.76) immediately after Launching. German Long-Range Rocket (A-4) in process of elevation to Firing Position. — \_, OER enocks Ss Glasaqow | Map 26 L777 . THE GERMAN NIGHT OFFENSIVE Y Vj R. Clyde September 1940-May 1941 LL) Y Legend The red discs covering provincial citizs are proportionate in area to the weight of bombs aimed af those cities in major night attacks from th. September | Yo to 16th. May. The open circle around London R Tyne fy, shows the weight aimed aft the capital in Newcastle-on- Tyne major night attacks during that period; the ed disc, the weight aimed from 14th November onwards. Nazi Blitz WW2 ees bombing map of UK (typically used for comparisons with \ WW3 nuclear Vij attack capabilities — Mos risks (correctly FS ELF scaling effects for Vj CD actual equivalent Birkenhead) LaMiancheste megatons) from PUY Cornus > 1ve Ly Basil Collier’ Wwe asil Collier's Li WA official 1957 "Defence of the UK" ottingham R.Dee y Birmingha yy Yj oventry ray « ¢ a” & y K Thome | cord) Lina. nmouth MMA a Yj SoutNampton GD Deyon ay" Hook oF Hollan y ”) (ys v ae (2) e a3 GS 9 eo Gg a) Ve) PARIS © isi se © © (Pz denotes Panzer (Armoured) Divi DISPOSITIONS OF SECONDAND pi 4 / THIRD WAVE DIVISIONS Secret oe oe coc ba ok S oun Third -Woave 2.2... .l,. ae he ‘3 te) wv @ 3 cf) { il if | | ity : »* ; | Vv f | an Uk QT rt itm i | - as | a 2nd Echelon ap e of the 5: cheld. rv) = CE = 9 - Ostend Dunkirk tn ©) b | < = o o © = an) an x EO te = S Bi 5 ls oe a oe = fa <| QO = B F x % i s cn = Es Ds » — Rial dls ae 3) ao We = 3 er es ol ee; rs ES if : r= alli 1 > = oO} ty | % N ' oes a rN) @ % SN / je) 7 er = s toe 2 Oy, _ 5 ; %, ‘ > / aif: 2 “a = ae , Ss ee 8 a / Bo 3 othe fi is ce / ae =z ei > ee aos Shin, “Ii 2 ID / | : | , = } ~ pf a = i S | hn a3 sie We, A 8 ye q o : : y | Prilli iil) (ip oe , BRS se ~i> sg (awl | 4 il HW” Mg ae = i att | ik Ua) ese |||| la 1 fi SI gece ua Bl (i he s> «@ il Re ee = ej | | , | : S) wi f f 2 a oP dil | | LA p ~~ S | mee NX .— h S ‘\ E = 14 april 42 Hitler order to bomb UK cities - Basil Collier's "Def. of UK" APPENDIX XXXVI The Fiihrer’s Order for the ‘Baedeker’ Offensive WFST/Op(L) FHQ. 14 April 1942 Kr-Fernschreiben an Ob. d. L./Lw. Fii. St. la Robinson Betrifft: Luftkriegfiihrung gegen die britischen Inseln Der Fihrer hat geordnet, dass der Luftkrieg gegen England in erhéhtem Masse angriffsweise zu fiihren ist. Hierbei sollen solche Ziele im Vorder- grund stehen, deren Bekampfung méglichst empfindliche Riickwirkungen fur das 6ffentliche Leben mit sich bringt. Neben der Bekampfung von Hafen- und Industrieanlagen sind hierzu auch im Rahmen der Vergeltung Terrorangriffe gegen Stadte ausser London durchzufiihren. Verminungen sind zu Gunsten dieser Aufgaben einzuschranken. OKW WEST Op Nr. 55 672/42 Gkdos. Chefs. (TRANSLATION) Armed Forces Operations Staff/Ops (Air), Fiihrer Headquarters, 14 April 1942 Teletype message to: C.-in-C. G.A.F./Operations Staff Ia Robinson Subject: Conduct of air warfare against the British Isles The Fiihrer has ordered that air warfare against England is to be given _a more aggressive stamp. Accordingly when targets are being selected, pore to those where attacks are likely to have the —Greatest possible effect on ivihan life- Besides ralds on ports and industry —terror attacks of a retaliatory nature are to be carried out against towns other than London. Minelaying is to be scaled down in favour of these attacks. | Supreme Headquarters Armed Forces Operations Staff/Ops No. 55 672/42 Most Secret. 512 REFLECTIONS OF A NUCLEAR WEAPONEER FRANK H. SHELTON Vow #. OPERATION IVY 1952 CHAPTER 5 NY Yo Wrd ESN Y Wi Ks HARIIBEBRBABRARAR: 72 EEE TTT TT TTT a Tt ee ee ED. (4s) LSYNG JO LHOISH NSS NNN WANN SS of, a HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM GROUNO ZERO (yds) HEIGHT OF BURST CURVES (SCALED TO 1 KT AT SEALEVEL) FIGURE 5-22. COOP a ee eee Coc ee TVA IA Poe creer ancl erage aah | LLLIL ETI ta | ee 2828 888 8 eg 8 (44) LSYNE 3O ILHOI3H afer Asda 1000 " pobivanial. Lecince FROM GROUND ZERO (yds) § N oO .- * EMPIRICAL HEIGHT OF BURST CURVES FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS FIGURE 5-23 5-27 CHAPTER 5 OPERATION IVY 1952 Final Preparations For MIKE Final assembly of the MIKE nuclear device occurred the afternoon of the day before the shot; this assembly was completed about an hour before general evacuation of Task Force 132 from Eniwetok Atoll was completed at 6:00 PM, at which time only the USS Curtiss and the USS Estes remained in the lagoon. Detonation of the MIKE thermonuclear device was scheduled for 0715 on 1 November 1952, Eniwetok time, which is on the west side of the International Date line (i.e., 31 October U.S. time). Sometime on 31 October, a P2V aircraft was sent to warn off a British merchant vessel, the SS Hartismere, that was Sailing in the direction of Eniwetok and into the possible path of fallout from the shot. The P2V developed engine trouble and turned back. It made an emergency landing on the already evacuated Eniwetok landing strip at about 8:30 PM. The aircraft's crew was flown by heliocopter to the Rendova, waiting in the lagoon, after which the ship put to sea. About this time, six men normally assigned to the USS Estes could not be found but turned up on the USS Collins at about 10:30 PM. The British ship Hartismere was found by another P2V in the early hours of shot day and Santee FIGURE 5-28. KRAUSE-OGLE HELIUM BOX FROM MIKE CAB TO STATION 200 ae CHAPTER 5 FIGURE 5-30. IVY MIKE SITE ON D-14 VIEWING NORTHWEST, HELIUM BOX EXPERIMENT FROM STATION 200 TO MIKE CAB OPERATION IVY 1952 diverted to a safe course. The firing party departed the shot island, Elugelab, at 3:00 AM on shot day, departing on the last ship in the lagoon, the USS Curtiss, at 4:05 AM. (Figure 5-29, MIKE firing party.; 5-30, MIKE pre-shot.) Weather had been a problem during most of October as the 1 November shot date for MIKE approached. Rain would compromise the collection of scientific data, but the winds aloft were the determining factor for favorable shot conditions. It was necessary for the fallout track to avoid populated islands to the east and south, as well as the task force itself. The weather briefing at 9:30 PM on 30 October indicated a very favorable picture for 1 November. The weather briefing at the same hour on 31 October, however, gave a poor outlook, and the weather conditions continued to deteriorate all day on D-1. Sometime around midnight the winds aloft shifted to a very favorable direction and speed at all upper levels, including the Krakatoes above the tropopause at 56,000 feet, making it possible to predict that the fallout track would be north and ooccerpeParararnrerororora H 5-36 CHAPTER 5 OPERATION IVY 1952 Se FIGURE 5-33. IVY MIKE D-1 (31 OCTOBER 1952) VIEWING NORTHWEST FROM STATION 200 TO SHOT CAB ty ee FIGURE 5-34. IVY MIKE POST-SHOT D + 2 (3 NOVEMBER 1952) VIEWING NORTHWEST FROM STATION 200, SHOT PRESSURE WAS 330 PSI 5-40 CHAPTER 5 Statute Miles 2500 2000 Me I ceca’ gms F240 i. O Distance From GZ FIGURE 5-35. By By pe (@) 10) 5 O 2 Distance From GZ, Statute Miles 15 OPERATION IVY 1952 IVY MIKE - ATOLL DOSE RATES IN R/HR ATH +1HR RUCHI ISLAND WAS 2.3 KM WEST OF GROUND ZERO AT ABOUT 3000 R/HR AT ONE HOUR IVY MIKE POST-SHOT STATION 520 ON RUCHI ISLAND; JOHN MALIK ON REENTRY OND +4 (S NOVEMBER 1952); DOSE RATE OF 3000 R/HR AT 1 HR HAD DECREASED TO ABOUT 12 R/HR. (30) 5-41 CHAPTER 5 OPERATION IVY 1952 FIGURE 5-36. ENIWETOK ISLANDS PRE-SHOT ON D-9 (21 OCTOBER 1952) CHAPTER 5 the Pacific. Good news slowly trickled in. Fallout on the northern atoll island had delayed the recovery of blast records from the MIKE detonation. (Figure 5-38.) (21, 22, 23, 35) KING Shot KING was a stockpile weapon modified to produce a 500 kiloton (KT) development test of a fission design, that would provide the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command (SAC) an interim alternative to a thermonuclear weapon capability. The weapon was transported by air to Kwajalein Island in the Pacific from Kirtland AFB on 4 November and was moved aboard the USS Curtiss to prepare it for the detonation. Curtiss had moved down from Eniwetok following MIKE shot and served as the workshop for the KING FIGURE 5-38. MIKE SHOT, 1 NOVEMBER 1952, 10.4 MEGATONS SURFACE BURST ON ELUGELAB ISLAND OPERATION IVY 1952 weapon at Kwajalein, much as it had for the MIKE weapon at Elugelab Island. Thermal measurements were considered the most important of the KING shot effects programs. A clear atmospheric path from the burst point to the ground-based instruments on Runit Island was therefore a desirable shot criterion, especially below 2,000 feet. With the typical tropical meteorological conditions that existed at Eniwetok Atoll, this requirement caused several postponements of KING shot. (R) since preparations for KING shot were well advanced, and weather trends looked favorable, Commander Joint Task Force 132, Major General Clarkson, reported to the Department of the Army and the Atomic Energy Commission that the (R) | wrote a document in September 1953, that used the thermal measurements from KING shot as a principal data point for, “High Altitude Effects on Blast-Thermal Partition of Energy From Nuclear Explosions and Associated Scaling Laws," Dr. Frank H. Shelton, Sandia Corp. Report 2969 (TR). September 1953, SECRET RESTRICTED DATA. (20) 5-44 CHAPTER 6 OPERATION CASTLE 1954 FIGURE 6-8 MARK-9 GUN WEAPON AND F.H. SHELTON (MARK-19 WAS A REDESIGN OF THE INTERIOR OF THE MARK-9) 6--16 CHAPTER 6 | OPERATION CASTLE 1954 FIGURE 6-11. GRABLE SHOT 6-19 CHAPTER 6 OPERATION CASTLE 1954 s 10 REGULAR REFLECTION REGION | | | | I Pp NEL LT nae 400 ata - a PVA VY HE YOUU AIA 0 100 200 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 DISTANCE FROM GROUND ZERO (FEET) 300 HEIGHT OF BURST (FEET) on S 200 ae ‘Ean SRHARG Lida FIGURE 6-12. PEAK OVERPRESSURES ON THE GROUND FOR A 1-KILOTON BURST (HIGH PRESSURE RANGE) 1,000 900 —~ 700 Lt Phe HEIGHT OF BURST (FEET 300 200 WE CD SPP UAL SEED 2/7440 404 Min Z 500 600 700 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 DISTANCE FROM GROUND ZERO (FEET) 100 FIGURE 6-13. HORIZONTAL COMPONENT OF PEAK DYNAMIC PRESSURE FOR 1-KILOTON BURST 6-21 CHAPTER 6 ST SESS SS SS OPERATION CASTLE 1954 FIGURE 6-16. SHOT BRAVO, OPERATION CASTLE, PHOTO ON D-23, 5 FEBRUARY 1954, VIEWING NE FROM SHOT CAB AND LINE OF SIGHT EXPERIMENT 4:30 a.m. briefing. Additional search aircraft were sent aloft on headings of 65 degrees; that is, northeast of Bikini out to about 600 nmi. At 4:30 a.m. “no significant changes” in the winds had occurred since midnight, except at Bikini the lower level winds had shifted to more “northerly and westerly components.” The ships containing the personnel that had been evacuated from Bikini were moved from 30 miles to a position 50 miles southeast of Bikini. The command ship, USS Estes, remained within the 30 mile or so range in order to maintain good UHF communications with the occupied firing bunker on Nan island at the southeast corner of Bikini Atoll. BRAVO--BRAVO! At 6:45 a.m. on 1 March 1954, the firing signal was sent to the thermonuclear device on the sandspit off Charlie Island, and the explosion released the energy equivalent of 15 million tons (MT) of TNT, the largest yield ever tested by the U.S. The test yield for BRAVO, a fusion-fission “smail” weapon, was surprisingly large compared to a theoretically estimated yield of up to 6 MT. In a few seconds, the hemispherical fireball grew to nearly 3 miles in diameter and a crater that was about a mile across and 240 feet deep was gouged out of the coral reef off Charlie Island. During the first minute, the blast wave from the nuclear explosion had expanded outward from the burst point, stripping the nearby islands of all their vegetation. The blast wave, upon reaching Nan Island 14 nmi from ground zero, caused con- siderable damage to the evacuated camp and its lightweight temporary buildings. The thermal pulse and light from the fireball were visible for almost a minute on Rongerik, 135 miles to the east of the burst. The illumination of 6-35 CHAPTER 6 FIGURE 6-17. BRAVO was also observed on a Japanese fishing boat 85 nmi east-northeast of Bikini. The boiling luminous gases rose to about 45,000 feet in 1 minute, and the pulverized coral from the crater was sucked up into the nuclear radiation cloud that was already more than thirty miles across. The cloud continued to rise and grow, during which the cloud top reached to almost 114,000 feet in about 4 minutes. (Figures 6-20, 6-21, 6-22, early shot, later cloud, reef crater). Fallout--Fallout! At the firing bunker on Nan Island the radiation readings began to rise within one-half hour after the burst and by 1 hour had reached 250 roentgens per hour (R/hr). The personnel who were within the bunker were well shielded, however, and the peak reading there was 0.035 R/hr. At about 8 a.m. the JTF-7 fleet off of Bikini began to receive fallout in the form of gritty, snow- like material. After several hours, the snow-like SHOT BRAVO, NUCLEAR DEVICE ON D-1, 15 MEGATONS OPERATION CASTLE 1954 ENS ST Sse material stopped falling on the fleet, which indicated that the cloud dispensing these particles was probably about 100 miles across and moving eastward. The time of the fallout passage over the inhabited island of Rongelap, 100 nmi east of Bikini, is not known very well, but the arrival of the fallout at Rongerik, 135 nmi east, was noted by the 25 men of the 6th Weather Squadron who were stationed there. While a number of early attempts were made to construct a fallout contour map for the BRAVO shot, it was not until after the 1956 REDWING series, with its extensive fallout documentation program, that reasonably correct characterization of the BRAVO fallout pattern versus time could be developed. Fallout reached the Japanese fishing boat at about 8:15 a.m. The crew, most of whom were topside, had begun to reel in their long fishing lines from the sea, soon after the shock wave 6-36 CHAPTER 6 OPERATION CASTLE 1954 vA mares eee ae puaay enpoEen go: ieee Dane ia ras Be ae esate ity Peat (i ip si i He Reet 2G Ey ae on a FIGURE 6-22. SHOT BRAVO -CRATER CHAPTER 6 CLOUD HEIGHT (MSL) AND STEM DIAMETER, THOUSANDS OF FEET (kilometers) 140 (42.67) 120 (36.58) 100 (30.48) 80 (24.38) 60 (18.29) 40 (12.19) 20 (6.10) OPERATION CASTLE 195 350 (106.68) UPPER LIMIT CLOUD HEIGHT 130,000 ft (39.62 km) 300 LOWER LIMIT CLOUD TOP HEIGHT (91.44) 114,000 ft (34.74 km) a =, in “= 250 (76.20) DIAMETER 171,400 ft (52.24 km) 200 (60.98) 150 CLOUD BOTTOM HEIGHT (45.72) 55,300 ft (16.86 km) 100 (30.48) STEM DIAMETER 23.400 ft (7.13 km) 50 (15.24) 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TIME (minutes) FIGURE 6-23. SHOT BRAVO - CLOUD DIMENSION 6-42 4 CLOUD DIAMETER, THOUSANDS OF FEET (kilometers) CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 TABLE 7-4. TEAPOT MILITARY EFFECTS TOWER (MET) SHOT PROGRAM 1 - Blast Pressure Measurements: Project 1.2 “Shock Wave Photography,” WT-1102, On Shot 12 an extensive precursor developed over the asphalt area and to lesser extent over the desert area, dust obscured the view of the water surface, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland, J.F. Moulton Jr., Project Officer. Project 1.5 “Preshock Sound Velocities Near the Ground in the Vicinity of an Atomic Explosion,” WT-1104, Shot 12 results were not definitive, Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, California, R.C. Loughlin, Project Officer. Project 1.10 “Overpressure and Dynamic Pressure Versus Time and Distance,” WT-1109, Shot 12 measurements on desert, asphalt and water surfaces, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, and Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C., L.M. Swift, Project Officer. Project 1.11 “Special Measurements of Dynamic Pressure versus Time and Distance,” WT-1110, Several types of dynamic pressure gauges were used, including Snob (gas dynamic pressures only) and Greg (dust plus gas dynamic pressures) over desert, asphalt, and water surfaces, Sandia Corp., Albuquerque, New Mexico, J. Banister, F. Shelton. Project 1.12 “Drag Force Measurements,” WT-1111, drag forces on spheres and cylinders were measured on Shot 12, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland, J.F. Moulton, Project Officer. Project 1.13 “Dust Density versus Time and Distance in the Shock Wave,” WT-1113, On shot 12 the higher than expected shock front velocity and material velocity hampered the sampling technique, U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories, Army Chemical Center, Maryland, E.H. Bouton, Project Officer. Project 1.14 “Transient Drag Characteristics of Spherical Models,” WT-1114, Pitot-static gauges responded differently than a force gauge sphere to dust loading, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen, Maryland, J.J. Meszaros, Project Officer. CHAPTER 7 BRAVO fallout conditions. 7-18, Eniwetok and Bikini.) (Figures 7-17 and The Department of Defense had marshaled an extensive fallout measurement program for REDWING, and it appeared risky to dedicate all that effort to the ZUNI event, knowing that any event might fail. | made a recommendation to CJTF-7, Admiral Hanlon, that another nuclear test, specifically the UCRL TEWA shot (a development companion to ZUNI with different amounts of fission) be moved from deep Bikini lagoon water to a position as close to the north Bikini reef as possible. Detonated in shallow lagoon water, the coral reef material would enhance the formation of local fallout from the TEWA event. After a brief consultation between Admiral Hanlon and Bill Ogle, the recommendation was accepted and put into the REDWING operational plans. (Figure 7-19, REDWING participation certificate.) OPERATION REDWING--1956 PACIFIC PROVING GROUNDS Operation REDWING was a 17-detonation nuclear weapon test series (see Table 7-5) held at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Pacific Proving Grounds in the spring-summer of 1956. The REDWING series was planned primarily to test high-yield thermonuclear devices that could not be tested in Nevada. The development and testing of these devices, which generate their explosive power through the fusion or joining of hydrogen atoms, began in the U.S. in 1950 and advanced to the stage that one of the nuclear weapons tests planned for REDWING--the CHEROKEE event-- would be dropped from a B-52 Strategic Air Command (SAC) bomber. This thermonuclear bomb drop was seven months after the Soviet Union had dropped its own H-bomb from a strategic bomber. The U.S. CHEROKEE event, although sponsored as a nuclear weapons effects event by the Department of Defense, was probably more a demonstration to the world of the aircraft deliverability of U.S. H-bombs than an experiment. | watched the CHEROKEE event along with a group of 15 U.S. newsmen, the first such group (Q) Soviet Union Nuclear Tests - spring 1956: OPERATION REDWING 1956 invited to view a Pacific nuclear weapon test since 1946 (Bikini ABLE-BAKER, see Chapter 2). Further American nuclear weapon testing was absolutely necessary, Strauss, Chairman AEC, told Eisenhower, as plans progressed in early 1956 for the spring-summer Operation REDWING. One of the objectives of those tests was a new H-bomb configuration that would fit into a strategic bomber (see Figure 6-24, Mark-17, H-bomb). Another objective was a smaller warhead to fit into the nose cone of an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Eisenhower was very hesitant, but when in March 1956, the Soviets undertook another series of nuclear tests: the President gave his final approval to conduct Operation REDWING. In doing so, Eisenhower pointed out in his 25 April 1956 news conference that without the H-bomb, the guided missile (ICBM), would amount to nothing, and if we stopped nuclear tests, then we would have to stop work on the missiles. (Q) | stopped over in Honolulu on my way to the Pacific Proving Grounds for the REDWING nuclear tests and read in the local newspapers of President Eisenhower's news conference of 25 April 1956. The first question by the newsmen concerned nuclear testing and disarmament issues. Most of us were appalled by Stassen’s discussions with Khrushchev in London on disarmament issues before the negotiations had even begun. (Table 7-6, President’s news conference.) Operation REDWING was the sixth nuclear weapon test series to be conducted by the United States in the Marshall Islands. During the fifth series in 1954 a serious fallout contamination inci- dent occurred (CASTLE BRAVO, see Chapter 6) that involved not only U.S. personnel, but also Marshall Islanders and Japanese fishermen. Because of the unfavorable effect of this 1954 incident on world opinion, the U.S. government recognized the need to issue a statement that specifically addressed health and safety concerns. A draft press release was widely circulated in the AEC and DOD for our comments in early April 1956. The joint DOD-AEC press release was 21 March 1956, atmospheric test, detonated a few days before, announced by AEC. 2 April 1956, atmospheric test, detonated a few days before, announced by AEC. 7~30 OPERATION REDWING 1956 CHAPTER 7 -_ (NN) NANI (30) j 1G3HINO! { \ (3A01) | IVeVxIHION ‘ | ‘ (NDI) 1 OMIVINS ' (or) NVUVAINOA ' (W311) (MoH) INDE N NV390 JIJIDVd HLYON TIOLV INIXIG NYIWWNINOMOE Pd (3080) F IntDiNety 7 7 7 (w313d ) Nuwepnauiy 4 7 Ps (43904) Pi NaUIDIG 4 7 yt Pl 4 Pd i pee yo ge Pd 4 Fd 7 i # fr e we Pa AY MNSIIN Pa 7 v v909 © (ASW3) NywIWON (x04) NLNNOY me (394039) 2 N30WOV sa See Oeee OO a 6 6 ee eames BIKINI ATOLL 1955 FIGURE 7-18. f=32 CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 In May 1956, members of a University of California Regents committee accompanied E.O. Lawrence to the Pacific Proving Grounds to review the ZUNI hydrogen-fusion nuclear weapon test. Left to right are: University of California Vice-President James H. Corley; UCRL Physicist Harry Keller; Regents Gerald Hagar and Victor R. Hansen; UCRL Physicists William McMaster and Gerald Johnson, in front of Brigadier General Alfred D. Starbird (person to Starbird’s right is unknown); Ernest O. Lawrence; UCRL Physicists Carl Haussmann and Charles Blue; UCRL Director Herbert York; Regent Earl J. Fenston. FIGURE 7-23. that the CHEROKEE shot was off target somewhere to the northeast of Charlie island. He had arranged for a helicopter to take me, Colonel Woodward, and an H&N engineer with a surveying transit to go up island to try and triangulate the actual burst point, which was out to sea some place. We stopped at several islands east of Charlie, and it was noticed that the Air Force structures were still standing, but with some sidings removed to the north. Finally, on Charlie island it was apparent from various blast indications that the burst had occurred about 20,000 feet (about 4 miles) to the northeast. On return to Nan island, we prepared a message for Gaelen to send over to Headquarters JTF-7 at Eniwetok. (Figure 7-25, Gaelen Felt.) | knew the message on the CHEROKEE bombing error would be forwarded by Admiral Hanlon to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. | also knew that my friend, Don Quarles, Secretary of the Air Force would be disappointed in the turn of events. He would probably have to go over to the White House and inform Eisenhower of the situation. | made a mental note to go by and talk to Don as soon as | got back to Washington and explain that Brigadier General UCRL GROUP AT PACIFIC PROVING GROUNDS “Blackie” Samuels had been on the radio to the drop aircraft continuously during the bombing run, giving direct orders to the bombardier. A couple days after CHEROKEE, we were amused by the newspaper accounts of the shot, which described it as being “the largest ever conducted in the Pacific.” Unclassified accounts of CHEROKEE surmised that the yield was 10 MT, which was fine with all of us who knew the actual explosive power, and we hoped that impressed Khrushchev. ZUNI Event ZUNI was a test of a large yield thermo- nuclear device, designed and developed by UCRL, that required an island to support the large amount of diagnostic instrumentation. Real estate was scarce in the Pacific Proving Grounds, ZUNI being the one event at Bikini to crater out a piece of the island on Operation REDWING. Because of its yield and island configuration, ZUNI was the primary event for fallout documentation on the operation. ZUNI event would turn out to be the most thoroughly documented fallout shot measured during all the United States’ weapon 7-39 CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 FIGURE 7-24. OPERATION REDWING CHEROKEE SHOT testing in the Pacific from 1946 (Bikini ABLE/BAKER) through 1962 (Operation DOMINIC). About two weeks before the readiness date for ZUNI, we toured the shot island (Tare) and the shot cab with Walter Gibbins, UCRL Deputy on Task Group 7.1 (Appendix B, 7.1 organization). It was interesting to walk the area and note that ZUNI ground zero was near the old KOON crater produced by a UCRL event on Operation CASTLE. (Figure 7-26, ZUNI cab. Reviewing the fallout documentation plans for ZUNI shot, | spent some time on one of the three fallout collection ships that had been modified by the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory NRDL) at Hunters Point in the San Francisco bay area. With Commander Don Campbell, Program 2 Director, we visited the YAG-39 (USS George Eastman) which had been modified to permit FIGURE 7-25. GAELEN FELT operations in the fallout area from its heavily 7-40 CHAPTER 7 shielded control room and was to be positioned in the fallout zone (along with the YAG-40 and USS Crook County) prior to arrival of fallout. It was only after spending some time on one of the YAGs that | appreciated the potential contributions that ships could make in our all-out effort to document fallout from large yield thermonuclear weapon explosions. Paul Tompkins and Gene Cooper, heads of NRDL, and | reviewed their plans both in my office and in theirs for modifying the ships for fallout collection. | was more impressed with the AFSWP costs and long lead times for modifications in the naval ship yards. Out in the Pacific, the modified ships were truly technological innovations. Victor Van Lint spent a large part of his time out in the Pacific coordinating the plans for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography’s boat (the MV Horizon) to service the 16 deep moored “skiffs” that were instrumented to collect fallout data in the area north of Bikini Atoll. As shot day for ZUNI event approached, everyone was evacuated from Bikini Atoll, including those who had occupied the Control Point on Nan island during the CHEROKEE shot. The Task Group 7.1 Command staff and key scientific personnel were aboard the USS Curtiss when ZUNI was detonated by a radio signal at 5:56 a.m. on 28 May 1956. Ground zero was near the KOON crater that was made on Operation CASTLE. The yield of the University of California Radiation Laboratory (UCRL) ZUNI device was 3.5 MT. ZUNI, with its high yield and surface placement, formed a large crater that chewed out the western end of Tare island, and ejected material was pulled up into the radioactive cloud. As soon as we were able to make an aerial survey of the ZUNI crater, it was flooded by the lagoon waters. Crater dimensions were: radius = 1165 feet, depth = 93 feet (Figure 7-27, ZUNI shot). The ZUNI radioactive cloud topped at 85,000 feet, with a diameter at that time of 75,000 feet. General cloud movement was to the north at 15 knots, but the lower portion of the stem moved to the west, under the prevailing easterlies, at about the same speed. The 30,000-foot winds turned to the southeast sometime late on shot day, causing light fallout on atolls southeast of Bikini. Heavy radioactivity was measured throughout most of the Bikini Atoll, with readings of 75 R/hr at 4 hours (H+4 along the northern rim of islands). OPERATION REDWING 1956 Fortunately, the living area on Nan was only lightly touched by fallout. An H+4 value of 0.003 R/hr was measured. Fallout contours for the ZUNI event are given in Figure 7-28, with all readings being extrapolated back to H+1 hour. Some hot spots of 150 R/hr were noted at about 50 miles north of the shot point. (Figure 7-28, fallout contours, and Figure 7-29, ZUNI crater.) TEWA Event (See Figure 7-30 and 7-31, Eniwetok and Bikini Atoll maps for shot locations.) The UCRL 5 MT TEWA device was fired 21 July 1956 on a barge anchored on the reef between Charlie and Dog islands on the north rim of Bikini Atoll (Figure 7-32,TEWA barge). TEWA was a companion event to ZUNI for documen- tation of fallout from large yield thermonuclear weapons (Figures 7-33 and 7-34, TEWA device and shot cloud). In early Operation REDWING planning, the location of the TEWA event had been moved from deep lagoon waters to as near the coral reef as possible. | had always hoped that it could be anchored in water that was less than the 24.7 feet which occurred on the final placement. Total weight of the barge was 440,000 pounds, including 410,000 pounds of steel, all of which contributed to the fallout material, as well as the coral reef material created by the explosion. Crater measurements were: radius = 1915 feet, depth = 133 feet, with a total of 740 million cubic feet of material being ejected in the formation of the crater. The fallout pattern documented for TEWA is given in Figure 7-35. While the yield of TEWA (5 MT) was larger than ZUNI (3.5 MT), it was observed that the down wind “hot spot” for TEWA (1000 R/hr) was much higher than on ZUNI (150 Py/hr). The difference was primarily due to the higher percentage of fission yield for TEWA as compared to ZUNI. (Figure 7-35, TEWA fallout contours, and Figure 7-36, TEWA crater.) SEMINOLE Event The SEMINOLE device was detonated on the western end of Irene island (Eniwetok Atoll) at 12:55 p.m. on 6 June 1956 during Operation REDWING. SEMINOLE was a LASL sponsored event with a low yield of 13.7 KT. However, because the device was detonated within a large water filled tank, it probably had an increased 7-4) CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 SS KJ FIGURE 7-26. ZUNICAB AND INSTRUMENTATION (D-30, VIEWING EAST, EDGE OF CASTLE KOON CRATER) Loe FIGURE 7-27. ZUNISHOT VIEWED FROM ENEU ISLAND 7-42 CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 200 150 100 FIGURE 7-28. ZUNI FALLOUT CONTOURS Distance from GZ, Statute Miles 50 Reference |No. 93 150 100 50 Oo 50 100 Distance from GZ, Statute Miles FIGURE 7-29. ZUNI CRATER (H + 10, LOOKING WEST) 7-43 CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN JANET KATE Lucy MARY NANCY OLIVE PEARL SEMINOLE sy HURON APACHE RUBY SALLY TILOA URSULA VERA a INCA MOHAWK KICKAPOO YUMA ? ? WILMA LACROSSE BLACKFOOT OSAGE ERIE ALVIN q % > BRUCE e 1 / ENIWETOK ATOLL pf —cunve OPERATION REDWING SHOT LOCATIONS io ! 2 5 4 5 : MER Statute Miles waamic FIGURE 7-30. ENIWETOK ATOLL SHOTS CHEROKEE ~x (ACTUALI-~ (INTENDED) TE WA— z FLATHEAD oar X-=+—NAVAJO aa ee Statute Miles VICTOR OBOE TARES Ly ROGER ZUNI FIGURE 7-31. BIKINI ATOLL SHOTS 7-44 CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 ee FIGURE 7-32. TEWAPRE-SHOT BARGE (D-1, BIKINI LAGOON BETWEEN DOG AND CHARLIE ISLANDS) FIGURE 7-33. TEWA DEVICE (D-3, HOB = 8.2’ ABOVE WATERLINE) CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 FIGURE 7-34. TEWASHOT CLOUD FROM ENIWETOK amount of energy coupled with the ground, resulting in a larger crater volume as compared with a similar device detonated in air at the same height of burst. (Figure 7-37, SEMINOLE water tank under construction; Figure 7-38, SEMINOLE device.) The SEMINOLE nuclear weapon was placed inside a 15-foot diameter air filled steel tank, which, in turn, was inside and tangent to the diameter of a 50-foot diameter steel tank. The tanks were connected by a structural steel tunnel with water-tight doors. A 200,000 pound lead shield was positioned directly opposite the device between the two tanks. The total mass of sea water in the large tank, including the flooded access tunnel, at shot time was 2.9 million pounds. The station foundation was a 3-foot-thick concrete slab (1.3 million pounds of concrete and 200,000 pounds of steel). (Figures 7-39 and 7-40, shot and crater.) SEMINOLE shot had an impressive amount of ejecta at zero time (see Figure 7-38), producing a crater that was: radius = 324 feet, depth = 31.6 feet. (Figures 7-41 and 7-42, pre-shot and post- shot.) FLYING HIGH WITH A HALF-DOZEN U-2S The fallout program on REDWING was designed to document local radiation levels for hundreds of miles down wind and for a few days after each nuclear weapon detonation. As the REDWING series progressed, | watched multi- megaton radioactive clouds rise to about 100,000 feet altitude. (Figures 7-43 and 7-44, REDWING shots DAKOTA and APACHE; Figure 7-45, MOHAWK shot. The documented local fallout was being carried back to earth on large, solid particles. While it was important to understand the local 7-46 CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 3 ROI SRR : = SSS TH) CHAPTER 7 TABLE 7-7. ZUNI SEMINOLE TEWA OPERATION REDWING 1956 SUMMARY OF PACIFIC CRATERS RADIUS (R)A{D) DEPTH RADIUS (R) (FEET) DEPTH (D) (FEET) * Originally, | thought that the small radius/depth = 3.6 for LACROSSE (Similar to Nevada craters R/D = 2.0) occurred because it was not heavily washed by waves after the shot, as the high yield shots were. Now, it is believed that the large R/D ratios in the pacific craters are due to pressure collapse of the porous coral material, and not due to ejecta from the crater. (See Table 7-3, Nevada Test Site Craters.) (Reference 16: Table 1-1, “Geologic And Geophysical Investigations Of The Eniwetok Nuclear Craters,” Capt. Byron L. Ristvet, September 1978, AFWL-TR-77-242, Unclassified Most of the REDWING figures also appear in this reference.) fallout portion of the total nuclear radiation that was produced by the large yield nuclear bursts, | was thinking about the other part of the fission debris that remained in the stratosphere for years and was spreading around the earth. How do you measure that part of the fission debris that slowly settles out of the stratosphere as worldwide fallout? At that time, there was only one kind of airplane that could fly high enough to sample the stratosphere, and that was Kelly Johnson’s new U-2 aircraft being built to CIA specifications for overflight reconnaissance of the Soviet Union. (Figure 7-46, U-2 aircraft.) The Joint Chiefs of Staff, realizing the seriousness and complexity of the worldwide fallout problem, requested in the fall of 1954 (after CASTLE Bravo in the spring of 1954) that the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) Study and evaluate the situation on a continuing basis. After considerable study during 1955, it was decided that the largest uncertainty in the prediction of the distribution and concentration of worldwide fallout debris on the surface of the Earth was the quantity of fission products in the stratospheric reservoir and the rate and mode of its transfer to the biosphere. The AFSWP program became known as the High Altitude Sampling Program or “Project HASP.” Soon after | joined AFSWP in the fall of 1955, Major General Al Luedecke (Chief of AFSWP) brought me into the Top Secret U-2 program that was underway at that time under the immediate supervision of Lieutenant Colonel Howard Rose, AFSWP Radiation Division. Development and availability to AFSWP of the new Lockheed U-2 aircraft made Project HASP a real possibility. It was, however, important to incorporate a sampling system into the U-2 aircraft using a new filter paper with low resistance to air flow, but high efficiency in collecting capability. A contract was initiated with the Institute of Paper Chemistry in September 1956 for development of the filter paper. Prior to the delivery of the six AFSWP U-2s in the summer of 1957, a contract was let in February 1957 with Isotopes, Inc. under the scientific direction of Dr. Laurence Kulp and Dr. Herb Feely. Professor Elliot Reid of Stanford University, one of this country’s leading authorities on the application of aeiodynamic theory to atmospheric sampling mechanisms, was consulted regarding the design and application of a filter-type sampler for HASP. President Eisenhower wanted intelligence information from within the Soviet Union; especially early warning on mobilization of troops or aircraft. However, CIA, under Allen Dulles, had been unable to establish an effective spy network in Russia to obtain information on Soviet military build-ups. Eisenhower activated in early 1954 a “Surprise Attack Panel” to advise him on the Soviet surveillance matter. Chairman of the Panel was James Killian, President of MIT. Edwin Land, inventor of the Polaroid camera and winner of a oD CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 FIGURE 7-43. DAKOTA BARGE SHOT FIGURE 7-44 APACHE BARGE SHOT CHAPTER 7 OPERATION REDWING 1956 FIGURE 7-45. MOHAWK TOWER SHOT OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 8 FIGURE 8-4. WAY 1 0 1957 SCIENTIST DOUBTS FALL-OUT DANGER Atom Tests Can Be siti Cai Ws Gale for 40 Years at Present Rate, Pentagon Aide Testifies Special to The New York Times. WASHINGTON, May 9— Atomic testing can be continued at the present rate for another forty to fifty years and not create any serious danger from radioactive fallout, the chief atomic weapons scientist in the Defense Department believes. This opinion was offered re- cently by Dr. Frank H. Shelton, technical director of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Proj- ect. He gave it when testifying before a House Appropriations subcommittee on the possible dangers to human health caused by the fall-out from atomic ex- plosions. The testimony was re- leased today. Dr. Shelton was called before the subcommittee to _ discuss what had been described as a “great deal of concern” being expressed over the long-range effect on the human race of the fall-out. The subcommit- tee’s chairman, Representative George H. Mahon, Democrat of Texas, had noted such “con- cern.” At one point during the closed door hearing, Mr. Mahon asked: “Could you not say that at the present rate we could go on for forty to fifty years without serious danger in so far as you know ?” “Yes,’’Dr. Shelton replied. Information ‘Meager’ At the same time, Dr. Shelton conceded that information on world-wide fall-out from past atomic tests was “extremely meager.” The Defense Depart- ment, he said, is taking steps to define more precisely the amount of radioactive debris in the air NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, NEW YORK TIMES, 10 MAY 1957, “SCIENTIST DOUBTS FALLOUT DANGER” R-Q OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 from atomic tests and the rate at which it is falling to the earth. Dr. Shelton testified that it would require large nuclear ex- plosions with a yield equivalent to 30,000,000,000 tons of TNT to bring the average concentration of Strontium-90 in human bones up to the maximum permissible concentration, This would be equivalent to 1,500,000 atomic bombs of the size dropped on Japan in World War II. Strontium-90 is a long-lived radioactive product of a nuclear explosion. In human bones it can produce cancer or leukemia. The maximum permissible con- centration of Strontium-90 for general populations has been set at one-tenth of a microcurie for a person. A curie is a technical measurement of radiation, and a microcurie is one-millionth of a curie. Dr. Shelton said that the max- imum permissible concentration was five to ten times below the concentration necessary to pro- duce a ‘“‘barely detectable in- crease’’ in the rate of bone can- cer or leukemia. His statement was based on the assumption, challenged by some scientists, that extremely small doses of Strontium-90 will not induce bone cancer. Dr. Shelton likewise tended to minimize the threat of ex- ternal radiation from fall-out materials. To increase the world-wide external radiation exposure by 10 per cent, he said, would require atomic explosions with a yield equivalent to 5,000,- 000,000 tons of TNT. The 10 per cent increase, he said, would be equivalent to the greater nat- ural radiation received as a re- sult of living in Denver instead of at sea level. In the event of war, Dr. Shel- ton said, exposure to ,radio- active fallout can be reduced “very effectively’ by even the most simple shelter. CHAPTER8 ‘BRAVO’ WAS 66 ae H-Test a Close > Squeak for Marshall Islanders Sixty-four Marshall Islanders dusted with ‘Bikini OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 shall Islanders living on atolls east and southeast of Bikini suffered radiation injury. The worst afflicted were 64 inhabitants of Rongelap, the nearest atoll to Bikini. They lived only on the southern side of their atoll, which is roughly 40 miles in its north-south di- ashes” from the big H-bomb test of March 1, 1954, are mension, alive today only because they lived on the south side of their native atoll, If they had lived some 40 miles to the north, all, would now be dead. As it was, all suffered radiation injury but have now recovered—as far as detectable effects are con- cerned. This and much more about the so-called “Bravo Shot” of the 1954 H-bomb tests in the Altho some of the facts re- ported by Mr. Shelton had been Known to reporters, they never had been publicly stated before by any official. For example: 15,000,000 TONS The power of the March 1, 1954, explosion was “on the order of’ 15 megatons, or 15 million tons of TNT. The Bravo bomb cloud rose to 100,000 feet. Its diameter was 66 miles. The cloud stem was 6% miles thick, Pacific was disclosed for the first time in testimony re- leased today by a House ap- propriations sub-committee. The revealing testimony was by Dr. Frank H. Shelton, tech- | nical director of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Proj- ect, This was the extremely “dirty” bomb that alerted the world to the menace of radio- active fallout. In all, 239 Mar- FIGURE 8-5. 64 Islanders Dusted By Ashes -- Alive WASHINGTON (UP)—Sixty-four| Appropriations — Marshall Islanders dusted with] The revealing testimony was by “Bikini ashes” from the big H-|Dr- Frank H. Shelton, technical hamis tent af Waren 1. 1964. are director of the armed forces spe- . tod i ate hans a ‘ ee e cial weapons project, which plays es ba the one ae of | theiy - important role in development native atoll : and testing of atomic arms. Although some of the facts re- ported by Shelton had been known to reporters, they never had been publicly stated before by any of- ficial. Bravo was the extremely are concerned. - “dirty” bomb that alerted the This information about the so-|world to the menace of radioac- called “Bravo Shot” of the 1954/tive fallout: Tn all, 239 Marshall H-bomb tests in the Pacific was|Islanders living on atols east and disclosed for the first time in tes-|southeast of Bikini suffered radi- timony released today by a House|/ation injury. If they had lived some 40 miles to the north, all would now be dead. As it was, all suffered radi- ation injury but *:ave now recov- ered—as far as detectable effects FIGURE 8-6. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, WASHINGTON NEWS, About six hours after the Bravo explosion, “hot” fallout in the form of visible flakes be- gan to fall on Rongelap. By the time their plight was detected, the Rongelapese had been ex- posed to about 175 Roentgens of radioactivity. It takes about 450 roentgens to kill. According to Dr. Shelton, if the natives had lived on the north side of their atoll, where the fallout was more intense, “all would have died.” ‘CLEANER’ BOMB President Eisenhower, De- fense Secretary Charles E. Wil- son, and AEC Chairman Lewis L. Strauss subsequently report- ed development of “cleaner” H-bombs. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, WASHINGTON NEWS, “H-TEST A CLOSE SQUEAK FOR MARSHALL ISLANDS" -/2-57 | The worst afflicted were 64 in- habitants of Rongelap, the near- est atoll to Bikini. They lived only on the southern side of their atoll, which is roughly 40 miles in its north-south dimension. According to Shelton, if the na- tives had lived on the north side of their atoll, where the fallout was more intense, ‘‘all would have died.” “64 ISLANDERS DUSTED BY ASHES - ALIVE” CHAPTER8 Not All People Would Be Doomed By Atom Fallout WASHINGTON (UPI) — A de- fense expert sought today to quiet fears that worldwide fallout from large-scale nuclear war would doom all peoples. “Even for a very large-scale war,” he said, “the worldwide hazard to the countries not at- tacked would not be very import- ant in terms of their survival.’’ The expert was Dr. Frank Shel- ton, 34-year-old technical director of the Defense Department’s atomic support agency. He testi- fied before a congressional atom- ic energy subcomittee at hear- ings intended to show the world what its fate would be if East and West should trade heavy nuclear blows. Shelton made it clear that non- combatant countries close enough to the target nations to be caught in short-term local fallout might suffer greatly. But the strao- spheric fallout, which hangs in the high atmosphere for periods up to several years, would not threaten the survial of everybody, he said. Shelton detailed the terrific damage that would be done to target areas by heat, blast, prompt radiation, and local fall- out. His figures have been pub- lished before. They add up to fantastic disaster. But Shelton appeared unim- pressed by the worldwide men- ace of long-lasting nuclear fallout such as would be generated by a war with H-bombs. He said 1,000 megatons would bring the level of strongium-90, the cancer-causing principal villain of stratospheric fallout, up to about the maximum permissible level in the northern hemisphere. OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 The genetic dose, inflicted upon the cells of heredity, would not be much greater than the exist- ing natural background dose, he said. Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D- N.M.), chairman of the full joint atomic committee, took sharp is- sue with Shelton about the world- wide hazard until the witness ex- plained he was not referring to local fallout. This consists of radioactive particles which come down in a matter of hours, days, or weeks after an explosion. Anderson asked Shelton if he was telling countries like France and Belgium ‘not to worry” if the United States and Russia traded hydrogen punches. Shelton made it clear that if they got caught in local fallout patterns they would be in trouble. FIGURE 8-10. DR. FRANK SHELTON, 7 JUNE 1957 the Oval Office of the White House for 24 June 1957. Members of the Presidential briefing team that Strauss had assembled were all from the University of California Radiation Laboratory (UCRL, the second nuclear weapons design laboratory): Ernest Lawrence, Mark Mills, and Edward Teller. It was probably Mark Mills’ idea to brief the President, following the sharp exchange between Senator Anderson and General Starbird at the recently concluded “fallout” hearings. Conspicuous by their absence from the Presiden- tial briefing were the Los Alamos weapon designers. After all, it was the “clean” NAVAJO shot on Operation REDWING (1956), designed by LASL, that established the state-of-the-art in reduced fission weapon designs. “We now believe that we know how to make virtually Clean weapons, not only in the megaton range, but all the way down to small kiloton weapons,’ Lawrence told the President. “It will take considerable time and effort to do this, but if we were to fail to develop such weapons and to “NOT ALL PEOPLE WOULD BE DOOMED BY ATOM FALLOUT,” CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY BY convert our existing weapons, then--if the ‘dirty’ weapons should be used in war--our failure Could truly be called a crime against humanity.” Teller added to the argument: “We have started some thinking on how to make atomic explosions for peaceful purposes. Clean thermonuclear weapons could be detonated in deep caverns to produce steam, to break up taconite ore, to release oil from oil Strata, to cut through large Earth barriers and modity the flow of rivers, and perhaps even to modify the weather on a broad basis through changing the dust content of the air.” Teller’s “peaceful purposes” theme, at the Presidential briefing, had been given a major boost by the inclusion of the “RAINIER shot” as a fully contained underground experiment into the 1957 Operation PLUMBBOB list of approved shots. Ed Teller, UCRL, and Dave Griggs, of the Rand Corporation, had begun in early 1956 a CHAPTERS OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 FIGURE 8-19. PLUMBBOB - HOOD SHOT, 5 JULY 1957, 1500’, BALLOON, 74 KT (LARGEST) FIGURE 8-20. PLUMBBOB - DIABLO SHOT, 15 JULY 1957, 500’, TOWER, 17 KT CHAPTERS OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 FIGURE 8-21. PLUMBBOB - STOKES SHOT, 7 AUGUST 1957, 1500’, BALLOON, 19 KT FIGURE 8-22. PLUMBBOB - FIZEAU SHOT, 14 SEPTEMBER 1957, 500’, TOWER, 11 KT CHAPTER 8 FIGURE 8-23. T-1_ (M-101) Weight, Ib: Loaded: 37,850 Payload: 2,650 Range, miles: 500 Diameter, in.: 66 Length, ft.: 62 In 1957 the T-1 missile was operational, but was also being used as a test vehicle for more advanced Soviet missiles. The T-1’s liquid propellant engines were used as upper stage units in the T-3 ICBM. The Soviet T-2 (M-103) surface to surface missile was an outgrowth of the German A-10 design, which never reached the production phase in Germany before the end of World War Il. The T-2 was an IRBM, two stage operational missile deployed throughout the Soviet Union in 1957. With a 1,850 mile range the Russians put Western Europe and North Africa at risk with the nuclear warhead tipped T-2 missile. OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 PLUMBBOB - CHARLESTON SHOT, 28 SEPTEMBER 1957, 1500’, BALLOON, 12 KT T-2 (M-103) Weight, Ib: Loaded: 110,000 Payload: 2,450 Range, miles: 1,850 Diameter, in.: 100 Length, ft.: about 66 Static testing of the T-2 missile began in 1951, and full-scale firings were observed in 1955. Using an inertial guidance system, operational testing of the T-2 continued at about the rate of five launches per month during 1956 and 1957. By 1957 the Soviet T-3 (M-104) missile, with its 5,000 mile three stage system, was operational and in large scale production. The first stage of the T-3 was powered by a large 480 thousand pound thrust rocket motor, the second stage by a T-2 motor, and the third stage by a T-1 propulsion unit. 8-31 CHAPTER 8 T-3 (M-104) Weight, Ib.: Loaded: about 175,000 Payload: 2,200 Range, miles: 5,000 Diameter, in.: 190 Length, ft.: about 90 With a thermonuclear warhead payload, the ICBM T-3 was inertially guided and had an accuracy of about 10 miles to target. With characteristics similar to the T-3, the T-3A was somewhat larger and had a range of more than 7,000 miles. The new first-stage motor had a thrust of more than one-half million pounds. Equipped with a new radio inertial guidance system, the missile was fin-stabilized at about mid-way along its length. 1-3A Weight, Ib.: Loaded: about 175,000 Payload: about 1,100 Range, miles: over 7,000 Diameter, in.: 144 Length, ft.: 92 A T-3A missile system was most likely used to launch Sputnik 1 and the other Soviet satellites and space probes, beginning in late 1957. United States Of America’s Missiles The U.S. Air Force brought to fruition the Atlas ICBM with its announcement in November 1957 (a month after Sputnik 1) that the Strategic Air Command (SAC) had an initial operational capability (IOC). The First Missile Division was transferred from the Air Research and Devel- opment Center (ARDC, with headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland) to SAC in January 1958 for training of handling and launching crews at Vandenburg Air Force Base, California. Addi- tionally, the 1st Missile Division would also operate the megaton range thermonuclear war- head tipped Atlas ICBMs from its headquarters at Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. (11) OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 Atlas ICBM Development of the Atlas ICBM missiles began in 1945 when the Air Technical Training Command solicited proposals from several U.S. aerospace companies to study potential problems that might be encountered in the development of a long-range ballistic missile system. Consoli- dated Vultee Aircraft (later named Convair) received, in April 1947, a study contract that evolved into a construction contract that produced three fairly successful missile flights in 1948, using Reaction Motors, Inc.’s rocket engines having four chamber liquid swivel-type propulsion motors. Upon completion, the Air Force contract with Convair was allowed to run out in 1948, without follow-on effort. The Strategic Missile Evaluation Committee, composed of prominent aerospace people with outstanding credentials, reviewed in 1953 the State-of-the-art in ballistic missile technology, coupled with recent large yield thermonuclear weapons development. (IVY KING, for example, was a deliverable one-half megaton fission weapon exploded in 1952 at the Pacific Proving Grounds.) The Committee concluded in early 1954 that a new ICBM-thermonuclear weapon study should be pursued. The Atlas ICBM missile program sprang to life in 1954, when Operation CASTLE proof tested new lightweight, high yield thermonuclear weapons. The Space Technology Laboratories (STL), Inc., under the management of Si Ramo and Dean Wooldridge, was given overall weapons systems management authority and provided general technical direction and sys- tems engineering support for the Atlas program. It was at this point that my friend Ed Doll left the nuclear weapons testing programs and joined is old class mates, Si Ramo and Dean Wooldridge, in mid-1955. STL was the Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractor to the Air Force Western Development Division (WDD) under the capable leadership of Major General Bernard (Bernie) Schriever. (See Chapter 7 on Nuclear Test Personnel In Transi- tion.) (K) (K) Edward B. Doll, CalTech, BS 1934 Applied Physics; MS, 1935, EE; Ph.D., 1938, EE. Simon Ramo, CalTech, Ph.D., 1936, EE. Dean Wooldridge, CalTech, Ph.D., 1936 Ph.D. 8-32 CHAPTER 8 OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 10. REFERENCES “Nuclear Ambush,” Earl H. Voss, with introduction by Dr. Willard F. Libby, 1963, Henry Regenry Co. “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons,” Samuel Glasstone, editor, Reprinted February 1964, Appendix B--Announced Nuclear Tests, Government Printing Office. “Foreign Nuclear Detonations--U.S.S.R.," distributed by Department of Energy, 15 February 1985. “Eisenhower, The President,” Volume Two, by Stephen E. Ambrose, 1984, Simon and Schuster. “No Sacrifice Too Great, The Life of Lewis L. Strauss,” by Richard Pfau, 1984, University Press of Virginia. “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons,” Samuel Glasstone, editor, Prepared by Department of Defense, Published by AEC, June 1957, Govt. Printing Office. “85th Congress, House of Representatives--Military Appropriations Subcommittee Proceedings,” AFSWP presentation pp. 1532 - 1585; including text of SCIENCE - “Strontium-90 In Man” and the National Academy of Sciences Proceedings, 42, 385, 945 (1956). “The Nature of Radiation Fallout and Its Effects on Man,” Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session, - - 27, 28, 29 May and 3 June 1957. Part |, pp. 1-1008. “The Nature of Radiation Fallout and Its Effects on Man,” Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session, - - 4, 5, 6, and 7 June 1957. Part Il, pp. 1009-2065. “Announced United States Nuclear Tests,” NVO - 209, January 1987, Department of Energy, Government Printing Office. “Operation PLUMBBOB Series 1957,” U.S. Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Test Personnel Review, DNA 6005F, 15 September 1981. This document contains 346 references to Operation PLUMBBOB, some of which are given here: AFSWP Field Command, “Operational Summary: Operation PLUMBBOB,” Field Command, DASA, Albuquerque, New Mexico, WT-1444, 73 pp., February 1960. Broyles, C. D.; et. al., “Fireball Studies, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 41.1a,” Sandia Corporation, WT-1517, 82 pp., April 1959. Bryant, E.; Keefer, J. H., “Basic Airblast Phenomena, Project 1.1,” Ballistic Research Laboratories, WT-1401, 202 pp., June 1962. Carp, G.; Johnson, O.; Baldwin, T.; et. al., “Initial-Gamma Radiation Intensity and Neutron- Induced Gamma Radiation of NTS Soil, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 2.5,” Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, WT-1414, November 1961. Cohen, E.; Boettenhofer, A., “Test of German Underground Personnel Shelters, Project 30.7,” Ammann and Whitney, WT-1454, 295 pp., July 1960. 8-43 CHAPTER 8 OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 Cohen, E.; Dobbs, N., “Test of French Underground Personnel Shelters, Project 30.6,” Ammann and Whitney, WT-1453, 295 pp., June 1960. Corsbie, R., “Operation PLUMBBOB, Civil Effects Test Group Project Summaries,” Mercury, Nevada, FCDA, 114 pp., May 1957. Cosenza, C.; Coy, R.; Kahle, D.; et. al., “Instrumentation for Measuring Effects Phenomena Inside the Fireball, Project 8.3b,” Wright Air Development Center, WT-14443-EX, 224 pp., June 1961. Cowan, M., “Plutonium Contamination From One-Point Detonation of an XW-25,” Sandia Corporation, WT-1510, 138 pp., November 1960. Defense Atomic Support Agency, Field Command, “Technical Summary of Military Effects, Programs 1-9, Operation PLUMBBOB,” Field Command, Albuquerque, New Mexico, WT-1445, 230 pp., August 1962. Edgerton, Germeshausen & Grier, Inc., “Gamma Dosimetry by Film-Badge Techniques, Project 39.1a” Albuquerque, New Mexico, WT-1466, 103 pp., July 1959. Elder, G., “Effects of Nuclear Detonations on Nike Hercules, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 6.5,” White Sands Missile Range, WT-1439, 1960. Gilstad, D.; Weeber, C. G.; Kviljord, A.; et. al., “Structural Response and Gas Dynamics of an Airship Exposed to a Nuclear Detonation, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 5.2,” U.S. Navy Bureau of Aeronautics, WT-1431, 99 pp., April 1960. Haas, P.; Wimenitz, F.; Hoadley, J.; et. al., “Measurement of the Magnetic Components of the Electromagnetic Field Near A Nuclear Detonation, Project 6.2,” Diamond Ordnance Fuze Laboratories, WT-1436, 68 pp., May 1982. Hanlon, P.; Cooper, S. E.; Ives, J. S.; et. al., “Field Test Of A System For Measuring Blast Phenomena by Airborne Gauges, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 1.2,” U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, ITR-1402, 20 pp., October 1957. Hanscome, T.; Caldwell, P.; Gorbics, S.; et. al., “Investigation of Effects of Nuclear Detonations on “Electromagnetic Wave Propagation and Nuclear Radiation Detector Design, Project 2.7,” Naval Research Laboratory, Livermore, WT-1416-EX., 102 pp., January 1980. Johnson, G., “Test Director’s Report on Operation PLUMBBOB,” University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California, UCRL 5166, November 1957. Julian, A., “In-Flight Structural Response of FJ-4 Aircraft to Nuclear Detonations, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 5.3,” U.S. Navy Bureau of Aeronatics, WT-1432, February 1960. Kaericher, K. C.; Martin, T. P.; Banks, J. E., “Nuclear Radiation Received by Aircrews Firing the MB-1 Rocket, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 2.9,” Field Command, DASA WT-1418, 18 pp., May 1959. Laursen, H., “The Use of Balloons to Suspend Nuclear Test Devices, Project 63.1,” Sandia Corporation, WT-1522, 71 pp., June 1958. Meszaros, J.; Burden, H.; Day, J., “Instrumentation of Structures for Airblast and Ground-Shock Effects, Project 3.7,” Ballistic Research Laboratory, ITR-1426, 62 pp., December 1957. 8-44 CHAPTER 8 OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 14. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Perret, W., “Ground Motion Studies at High Incident Overpressure, Project 1.5,” Sandia Corporation, WT-1405, 85 pp., June 1960. Rigotti, D.; Kinch, H.; Funsten, H.; et. al., “Neutron Flux from Selected Nuclear Devices, Project 2.3,” U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories, WT-1412, 63 pp., April 1960. Stalk, G.; Gee, R.; Bednar, J.; et. al., “In-Flight Structural Response of an F-89D Aircraft to a Nuclear Detonation, Project 5.5,” Wright Air Development Center, WT-1434, 56 pp., March 1960. Strauss, L., “Letter to President Eisenhower from Chairman of the AEC,” AEC, 2 pp., December 1956. swift, L.; Sachs, D.; Kriebel, A., “Air-Blast Phenomena in the High Pressure Region, Project 1.3,” Stanford Research Institute, WT-1403, 134 pp., December 1960. Vaile, R., “Isolation of Structures from Ground Shock, Project 3.5a,” Stanford Research Institute, WT-1424-1, 68 pp., April 1962. Walls, J.; Heslin, N., “In-Flight Structural Response of an HSS-1 Helicopter to a Nuclear Detonation, Project 5.1,” Field Command, DASA, WT-1430, 88 pp., July 1960. “International Missile and Spacecraft Guide,” Fredrick |. Ordway, Ill and Ronald C. Wakeford (both General Astronautics Corp.), 1960, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. “Public Papers of the Presidents - Dwight D. Eisenhower--1957,” Government Printing Office. “The Eisenhower Administration - A Documentary History 1953-1961,” Volume | and II, by Robert L. Branyan and Lawrence H. Larsen, 1971, Random House, Inc. “Journal of Geophysical Research,” Vol. 64, No. 8, August 1959, The Scientific Publication of the American Geophysical Union. Private correspondence William G. Penney, 26 February 1989, “I looked in our visitors’ book and found that you, Curt Lampson and Greg Hartmann, visited us on 10 September 1957.” Communication from LTG Austin W. Betts (Retired), 21 April 1992, “Roy Johnson was the first Director of ARPA who lasted one year and quit in frustration. Herb York was his top scientist. | took over as a BG, with George Sutton as my top scientist. He is now with LLNL. Also, | became a MG as DMA in AEC.” 8-45 CHAPTER 8 OPERATION PLUMBBOB 1957 CALENDAR 1956 *6 Nov Eisenhower reelected President, defeating Governor Stevenson. *6 Nov “16 Nov At the request of Dr. W.F. Libby, Commissioner AEC, Dr. Shelton met with him to discuss information available within the Department of Defense (DOD) concerning fallout from REDWING (May-July 1956) events. It was agreed that an effort would be made (by Dr. Shelton) to compile the DOD fallout data obtained on Operation REDWING, in summary form, for his (Libby’s) use. Meeting of the Coordinating Committee on Equipment and Supply, Office of Secretary of Defense, vulnerability of floating top petroleum tanks to nuclear detonation blast/thermal - attended by Dr. Shelton. 17 Nov Soviet Union detonates small nuclear device in S-W Siberia. 19 Nov h | 26 Nov || ih i : i | ' . = { . (fF Ei i j 5 : f We ij at Hf ; . 27 Nov 10 Jan Technical Director AFSWP presented to the AFSWP/AEC Nuclear Safety Working Group the proposed AFSWP experimental program for one-point detonations of Pu bearing weapons, at a meeting hosted in Sandia Corporation. Dr. Shelton with Rear Admiral Horacio Rivero (Deputy Chief AFSWP) and Colonel Dent L. Lay (USAF, Chief Weapons Effects Division, AFSWP) visited Dr. W.F. Libby (Commissioner AEC) and presented AFSWP comments on Dr. Libby’s proposed chapter on “World-Wide Fallout” for inclusion in the forthcoming edition of “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.” Dr. Shelton recommended that the proposed chapter not be included, but AFSWP would | work closely with him as the DOD High Altitude Sampling Program (HASP) | obtained definitive data on world-wide fallout. For security reasons, we were | unable to inform him of the developing U-2 high altitude sampling program. Willard Libby, reluctantly, accepted the recommendation. Technical Director AFSWP presented to the Thermal Radiation Panel (in Headquarters AFSWP) results of the High Altitude experiment on TEAPOT (1955) as preliminary thoughts on preparations for ultra-high altitude missile nuclear detonations in 1958. 1957 At the request of Dr. W.F. Libby, Commissioner AEC, Dr. Shelton met with him to discuss progress on obtaining better fallout radiation contours for Operation REDWING shots. Dr. Shelton received a pre-dated copy of “Fireball Chemistry Project,” sponsored by Libby which considered ways and means of reducing the accessibility of radio-strontium in the fallout as a result of tests of high yield. Dr. Shelton, subsequently participated in several meetings with representatives of LASL, UCRL, Princeton University, Air Force Research Center, and AEC on this subject. * indented dates are a chronology of atomic bomb developments, testing,and related political matters. ** Shelton = Technical Director AFSWP checked recently the dates with existing classified “Historian’s Records” in the Department of Defense (DNA). 8-46 CHAPTER 9 computer numerical simulation calculation (D.E. Burton, et al, Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory, August 1984) using a multiphase constitutive model that accounts for pore pressure and porous flow of fractured Eniwetok coral showed that the size and shape of the KOA crater could be accounted for by subsidence and liquification phenomena. The model produced a crater having 95 percent of the measured volume of the KOA crater. (Figure 9-11, Pacific Craters.) A decade ago, and earlier, the few attempts to numerically simulate high yield, surface burst nuclear explosions did not produce crater calcula- tions that were consistent with the observed size and shape of the Pacific Proving Ground craters. Corresponding calculations for reasonable stiff geologic media (such as that representative of the Soviet Union missile silo sites) indicated crater ejecta volumes that were smaller than the Pacific Proving Ground empirical data by factors of 40 to 100. For example, in 1975 (J.C. Trulio of Applied Theory Inc.) the calculations of a 1-MT surface burst in stiff geology gave an ejecta crater of about 1,000 - 1,225 feet radius, and much deeper than the 1.4-MT KOA crater (2,160 feet radius, 170 feet depth) in coral reef material. At that time, Air Force Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (JSTPS) discounted such calculations in favor of using the empirical evidence of the Pacific Proving Ground craters for Soviet Union Strategic targets, using a kill criterion of less than a crater radius. Even at the late date of 1985, the “Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons,” a classified document (Effects Manual-1) and the “Air Force Manual for Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures,” are widely used references that illustrate the dependence on using Pacific Proving Ground empirical crater dimensions. (8) A summary of empirical crater dimensions from detonations at Eniwetok and Bikini Atolls and the Nevada Test Site is given in Table 9-2. A relative simple criterion for assessing the shape of a crater is the ratio of its radius (R) to depth (D), or R/D, which is always about two for most ejecta craters produced by high explosives, nuclear weapons and meteor impacts on the moon and the planet Mercury a notable exception being the large-yield Pacific craters. OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 CACTUS Event And Its Crater Colonel “Ted” Parsons (USAF), Armed Forces Special Weapons Project Deputy for Department of Defense Programs on the Joint Task Force-Seven staff, piloted the small, single engine liaison aircraft as we flew from Eniwetok (Elmer) Island to Runit (Yvonne) Island for a walking tour of the CACTUS shot area on 18 April 1958--a little over two weeks before it was scheduled to be detonated. As we approached Runit Island, the large Cactus ground zero shot cab structure and the radiating diagnostic line-of- sight pipes and tunnels were clearly evident. (Figure 9-12, CACTUS Shot Area.) | mentioned to Ted that the old LACROSSE crater (REDWING-1956) looked about the same as it did when we flew up a few hours after it was created. After landing on Runit, we walked to the blast line, and | took careful note of the “Q-gauges" that had been mounted to measure the blast dynamic pressures on CACTUS, which should have been nearly “ideal” values for a surface burst. The large drum gauges to measure air-ground interface pressures near the crater edge had been installed about a month previously. (Figure 9-13, picture taken the next day upon request; Figure 9-13a, Q-Gauges; Figure 9-13b, Drum Gauges .) The CACTUS ground zero building was constructed of steel frame, 33 by 34 by 30 feet high, with a black corrugated protective metal roof and sides and a 6-inch concrete slab floor. The nuclear device was mounted 3 feet above the floor with massive asymmetric sand-filled concrete baffles around the weapon that were 13 feet high. The construction weights for the CACTUS GZ Station, excluding the foundation, were: concrete, 200,000 pounds; coral sand, 55,000 pounds; and structural & rebar steel, 87,000 pounds (9: see Figure 9-8.) The CACTUS device was detonated 596 feet southwest of the LACROSSE ground zero at 0615 hours on 6 May 1958 with a yield of 18 KT. The CACTUS crater dimensions were: radius = 173 feet; depth at GZ = 34.5 feet, and maximum depth = 37.2 feet; crater lip height = 8 to 14 feet (see Table 9-2). (Figure 9-14, CACTUS Crater.) There was an effort in 1979-1980 to clean up the residual radioactive materials present on 9-26 CHAPTER9 OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 ty _ iy Ly Ly ti ees Yi Loe Ly ty yy ty yyy Wy FIGURE 9-11a. PACIFIC CRATERS IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS, CRATERS PRODUCED BY SOME U.S. NUCLEAR TESTS AT THE PACIFIC PROVING GROUND IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS Depth, m A Koa Event Numerical simulation O 100 200 300 400 500 600 Radius, m “FIGURE 9-11b. =PACIFIC CRATER CALCULATIONS, PROFILE OF THE PACIFIC PROVING GROUND CRATER PRODUCED BY THE KOA EVENT, CONTRASTED WITH THE CRATER RESULTING FROMA TYPICAL NUMERICAL SIMULATION 9-27 CHAPTER 9 TABLE 9-2. LACROSSE ZUNI SEMINOLE TEWA REDWING (1956) HARDTACK | (1958) CACTUS KOA OAK FIG TEAPOT (1955) various contaminated islands in Eniwetok Atoll as a result of nuclear weapons testing through Operation HARDTACK in 1958. Although there had been over twenty years of time for the radioactivity of the fission particles to decay, the most troublesome isotope to still contend with in the clean-up was cesium-137, which has a half-life of thirty years. About 110,000 cubic yards of radioactive soil was gathered up from the various islands and dumped into the CACTUS crater. To stabilize the contaminated material, the crater was first lined with a water tight material; and after filling with the fission debris and other radioactive materials, an eighteen-inch thick concrete “dome” was constructed over the top of the material that filled the crater. (Figure 9-15, CACTUS Dome.) KOA Event The KOA nuclear device was detonated 13 May 1958 in a water tank at the west end of Gene Island, at the north end of Eniwetok Atoll, CRATER DIMENSIONS FROM TEST EVENTS AT ENIWETOK AND BIKINI ATOLLS RADIUS CRATER DIMENSIONS FROM TEST EVENTS AT NEVADA TEST SITE BUSTER JANGLE (1951) SUGAR 1.2 +3.5 45 UNCLE 1 -17 130 : Cn) A OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 CRATER DIMENSIONS FROM DETONATIONS AT ENIWETOK AND BIKINI ATOLLS AND NEVADA TEST SITE near the old IVY MIKE crater created in 1952. The KOA ground zero building consisted of a 10-foot in diameter, 8 foot high, air-filled steel tank containing the nuclear weapon 3 feet above the floor. The air-filled tank was located concentric- ally inside a 30-foot in diameter water filled tank 23 feet high. The concrete foundation weighed 278,000 pounds and there were 70,000 pounds of steel in the water tanks. When filled, there were 870,000 pounds of water surrounding the nuclear detonation. (10: Sea-Floor Observation) The KOA yield was 1.37 MT and produced a crater with a radius (R) of 2160 feet and a depth (D) of 170 feet, giving an R/D of 12.7 (see Figure 9-11, Oblique of SEMINOLE, KOA, and MIKE craters). At the edge of the KOA crater was an Air Force concrete beam experiment 1830 feet from ground zero inside of what appeared to be the crater radius (see Figure 9-16, pre-shot beam). After the shot, the top of the concrete beam experiment was 6.5 feet lower than pre-shot 9-28 CHAPTER 9Y OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 FIGURE 9-12a. HARDTACK, SHOT CACTUS, ENIWETOK, SITE YVONNE, 18 KT SURFACE, VIEWING S. SSE FIGURE 9-12b HARDTACK, SHOT CACTUS, ENIWETOK, SITE YVONNE, 18 KT SURFACE, VIEWING N. Q—?79 CHAPTERY OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 FIGURE 9-13a. HARDTACK, SHOT CACTUS, ENIWETOK ATOLL, Q-GAUGES, TAKEN 19 APRIL 1958 FIGURE 9-13b. HARDTACK, SHOT CACTUS, LOWERING DRUM GAUGES, TAKEN 28 MARCH 1958 9-30 CHAPTERY OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 setae BRON FIGURE 9-14a. HARDTACK, SHOT CACTUS, SURFACE BURST, H + 3 FIGURE 9-14b. HARDTACK, SHOT CACTUS, ENIWETOK ATOLL, PHOTO: D + 3, VIEWING S., (LACROSSE CRATER ON LEFT) 9-31 CHAPTERY OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 FIGURE 9-15. and the coral reef material around the concrete was compressed an additional 3 feet (see Figure 9-16). This type of data adds credence to the theory that the shallow saucer shapes of the Pacific craters are not due to ejecta cratering but due to compression and liquification of the coral, Causing it to flow back toward ground zero under the high pressure air blast (greater than 1,000 psi) and long duration of the blast wave. (11: Geologic and Geophysical.) OAK Event OAK event, 8.9 megatons (MT), was deton- ated on a barge in shallow water (13 feet) on the west reef of Eniwetok Atoll (see Figure 9-4, Map). The detonation occurred at 0730 hours on 29 June 1958. The axis of the nuclear device was horizontal, three feet above the barge deck, and the barge deck was about 5.6 feet above the water line at shot time. The barge was composed of 446,000 pounds of steel and there was no sand CACTUS DOME COVERS MOST NUCLEAR MATERIAL AT ENIWETOK ATOLL ballast (usually equal to the barge weight) to provide a shallow draft for the barge. (See Table 9-2 for OAK crater dimensions.) AEC Commissioner Bill Libby was the only technical member on the Commission during the planning and execution of Operation HARDTACK. Dr. Libby put a lot of thought and effort into reducing the effects of worldwide fallout, espe- cially from the large multi-megaton thermonuclear events scheduled for the 1958 Pacific series. | had reviewed an early copy of his manuscript on “Fireball Chemistry” that explored the possibility of ballasting each of the barge shots with about 225 tons of silica sand, instead of the 225 ton of coral sand that was usually employed. The theory was that during the early fireball phase of the explosion the strontium-90 would be chemically combined at the very high temperatures with the silica sand to form a water insoluble strontium silicate. Insoluble strontium-90 would thus be eliminated from the food chain, especially 3-32 CHAPTER 9 OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 FIGURE 9-16b. HARDTACK, SHOT KOA, ENIWETOK ATOLL, SITE GENE, 13 MAY 1958, 1.37 MT, PHOTO: D+8, 21 MAY 1958, POST-SHOT CONCRETE BEAM EXP, 6.5 FT. LOWER THAN PRE-SHOT AT 1,830 FT., PO = 1,130 PSI, RA = 2,160 FT. 3-33 CHAPTERS the milk chain for children during their bone growth phase. The barge shots that incorporated silica sand as ballast on Operation HARDTACK are indicated in Table 9-2. Although the OAK barge event had an impressive yield of 8.9 MT, it was not the largest shot fired on Operation HARDTACK. Incorporating thousands of tons of silica sand into the barge shots meant transporting it to the Pacific Proving Grounds from Hawaii. During a number of discussions, both in Washington and at Eniwetok Atoll, | had the distinct impression that Bill Ogle, Scientific Director for JTF-7, was annoyed by the silica sand subject since the new procedures would impact his immediate objective of getting the AEC weapons development shots off as quickly and easily as possible. However, Bill Ogle would not have to testify, as Bill Libby OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 and | (and many others) would before the pending 1959 hearings in radiation to be held by a special subcommittee of the Congressional Joint Com- mittee on Atomic Energy, which had already notified us that the subject would be “Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War.” The YELLOWWOOD events were typical of the barge shots with Silica Sand. (Figure 9-17, YELLOW- WOOD Event.) FIG And QUINCE Events The FIG surface shot was the last event of Operation HARDTACK | (18 August 1958) on Yvonne Island at Eniwetok Atoll, a week after ORANGE shot had occurred on Johnston Island. FIG was a late addition to the HARDTACK schec- ule as a cooperative effort between the AEC’s University of California Radiation Laboratory CC FIGURE 9-17. HARDTACK YELLOWWOOD BARGE SHOT WITH SILICA SAND BALLIST 9-34 CHAPTER 9 (UCRL) and the DOD’s Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP). FIG ground zero contained 130 tons of Nevada Test Site soil that replaced coral reef material in the shape of an inverted cone that was 8 feet deep and 30 feet in diameter at the surface, with an additional six inches deep out to a radius of 35 feet. The Nevada soil was compacted to correspond to Original test site conditions. (5) Exactly the same soil preparations had taken place on the QUINCE event, but that shot had a yield that was not expected, necessitating a repeat experiment on FIG. FIG crater dimensions were exactly the same as would be expected for a Nevada detonation--18 feet radius (R) and 9.7 feet deep (D), R/D = 1.9. This experiment showed that for short duration blast waves, corresponding to the small FIG yield, the crater shape was not affected by coral pore collapse and compaction that occurred on the large yield (long duration) blast waves. Returning to Table 9-2 (crater dimensions), the dimensions of the CACTUS crater are to be noted. The radius of CACTUS should be about 10 times the radius of FlG--which it is; and the scaled depth of CACTUS should be 97 feet, which it is not, and fails to scale by more than a factor of two. So, for nominal yield weapons, like CACTUS, the Pacific coral reef craters fail to be deep enough; and for large yields like OAK and KOA, the crater diameters are larger than expected and the depths of the craters are shallower than expected by scaling from other geologies. One should not use the empirical, large yield Pacific crater data to confidently predict that Soviet Union missile silos would be within the crater radius. Underwater Bursts--WAHOO and UMBRELLA The two Department of Defense sponsored HARDTACK underwater nuclear weapons effects tests could be considered a continuation of BAKER test of the Operation CROSSROADS series at Bikini in 1946 and the WIGWAM test 500 nmi off the U.S. west coast in 1955. WAHOO shot was fired at a depth of 500 feet in deep Pacific ocean water about 8,000 feet south from the nearest island on Eniwetok Atoll. UMBRELLA was detonated at a depth of 150 feet on the OPERATION HARDTACK 1958 bottom of Eniwetok Lagoon NNE of Henry island. (Figure 9-18, UMBRELLA Underwater Burst.) It is noted that the Soviet Union had not conducted an underwater nuclear test prior to the 1958 testing moratorium. Upon abrogating the moratorium on 1 September 1961 (thirty four months into the agreement), the Soviet Union conducted its first underwater test on 23 October 1961, having a low yield range, south of Novaya Zemliaya. Realizing during the moratorium that it had no underwater effects data, the Soviet Navy must have had grave concerns, and underwater test preparations must have begun long before the Soviets broke the moratorium to allow their test to take place about six weeks after resuming nuclear weapons testing. TEAK--High Altitude Shot A Redstone missile lifted off its launch pad on Johnston Island, and its powerful rocket engine drove it straight up for three minutes before its megaton-range nuclear warhead detonated at 252,000 feet (76.8 km) at 11:50 p.m. on 31 July 1958. Beginning about that time radio communi- cations stopped throughout most of the Pacific basin. Honolulu had difficulty maintaining military and commercial air travel services. Indeed, com- mercial air traffic had to be suspended for many hours because of a failure of long wave communi- cations. There was, however, no interruption of telephone line communications on Hawaii. The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) produced by the TEAK detonation was not noticed anywhere in the Pacific except for a “click” at zero time on radio receivers in the vicinity of Johnston Island. (Figures 9-19 and 9-20, Redstone Missile at JI.) When | left the Pentagon at the end of the day on 31 July, a communication had been received from General Luedecke, Commander Joint Task Force-Seven at Johnston Island indicating that the TEAK event was “go” for late that evening. This meant that the shot would have occurred before work began in the Pentagon the next morning (11:50 p.m., 31 July, at Johnston Island is 5:50 a.m., 1 August, in Washington, D.C.). However, when | looked through the communications at about 8 a.m. on 1 August, there was nothing from General Luedecke. Being responsible to both Chairman AEC and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, he would have immediately notified them that TEAK had occurred, and there would also CHAPTER 10 The New York Times March 20, 1959 Argus Weaponeer Frank Harvey Shelton Special te The New York Times. ASHINGTON, March 19— For a few minutes today Dr. Frank Harvey Shelton stepped out of the anonym- ity that goes with his role as the Pentagon’s chief atomic weaponeer. From the way the young, retiring scientist nerv- ously wet his lips, it was apparent that he did not like the unaccustomed Man glare of publicity. As technical direc- in the tor of the armed News forces special weapons project, Dr. Shelton is the principal Defense Department scientist responsible for developing military requirements for atomic weapons and for con- ducting atomic tests. As project director he was also responsible for the over- all scientific direction of last summer’s high-altitude explo- sions that created a sheet of radiation around the world. It was the latter role that today drew Dr. Shelton out of his closely guarded Penta- gon office to participate in a hectic news conference on the novel experiments of creating man-made radiation in space. Has Little to Say Dr. Shelton had little to say about his role in what some have called ‘‘the greatest sci- entific experiment of all time” and when he did talk, his low mumble was virtually inaudi- ble to reporters. According to the person who knows him best, his wife, this quiet, shy manner is char- acteristic of the 34-year-old nuclear physicist. “He talks more than he used to,” she explains, “but he still doesn’t talk very much. I do most of the talking, and he gets worried when I don’t talk.” The quiet manner can per- haps be attributed partly to his training as a scientist more interested in research than in conversation. As one colleague described him to- day, “Frank is a very studi- ous scientific fellow.” Part of the silent attitude, however, springs from the strict secrecy that surrounds his job as an atomic weap- oneer. “We have a very tough mis- sion,” he explains, of his proj- ect, “and we just don't like publicity. Study of Cosmic Rays Dr. Shelton was drawn into the secrecy of atomic weapons and the spectacular creation | of man-made radiation in space through a study of the cosmic rays that are mysteri- ously created by nature. As a graduate student at the California Institute of Technology, he specialized in research on the particles of cosmic rays. He had origi- nally started as an engineer- _ “Associated hee “We just don't like publicity.” ing student but then “grew into” the field of physics. This research in nuclear physics—he received his doc- tors degree for his work in 1953—lead him into the field of atomic weaponry. He was employed by the Sandia Cor- poration, which carries out atomic weapons developments and manufacture for’ the Atomic Energy Commission. Then three-and-a-half years ago he came to the Pentagon to be the technical director of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (abbrevi- ated to ASWAP within the Pentagon). Won a Scholarship Dr. Shelton was born in 1924 at Flagstaff, Ariz., the son of a former schoolteacher and a worker on the Hoover Dam, Most of his boyhood was spent in Boulder City, Nev. Through the winning of a scholarship Dr. Shelton was able to go to the California Institute of Technology. His college career was interrupted during World War II by a period of service with the Army, during which he ob- tained a commission and spent most of his time in school. While still an undergradu- ate he married the former Miss Lorene Gregory of Trini- dad, Colo., in 1948, They have three daughters, ranging in age from 5 to 9 years. The type of man who brings work home from the office, Dr. Shelton has few interests or hobbies outside of his work. He occasionally dabbles in collecting stamps and coins, but as he explained today: “IT have no real hobbies. I just like my work.” FIGURE 10-5. ARGUS WEAPONEER 10-12 TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 Quarles Sets Policy on Data but Bars Full Publication of the Project’s Findings : Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, March 19— Some results of the Project. Argus experiment are being prepared for publication by the National Academy of Sciences through “normal scientific channels.” This was announced at the Pentagon today by Donald A. Quarles, Deputy Secretary of Defense, in response to requests for details of the tests last summer in which three atomic weapons were detonated 300 miles above the earth. This policy was confirmed by Dr. Alan T. Waterman, director of the National Science Foun- dation, and Dr. Detlev V. Bronk, president of the Nationai Academy of Sciences. They said the plans were “well advanced” for “orderly publication” in scientific jour- nals. In addition, they said a symposium would be held at the National Academy’s annual meeting here April 27, 28 and 29. Mr. Quarles emphasized plans to keep many of the results of the test secret. He announced that he was sorry that the proj- ect was no longer a secret. In response to a question about the publication of news of the tests in The New York Times this morning, Mr. Quarles said that this was not “playing the game” ‘the way he liked to see it played. Mr. Quarles, however, would not confirm that he was, in effect, accusing The Times of a security breach. Publication Withheld The tests were conducted last Aug. 27, Aug. 30 and Sept. 6. In publishing the account this morning, The Times explained that it had withheld publication of its information until it be- came evident that the Soviet Union knew of the theoretical principles involved and that a high official of the Pentagon had recommended an official announcement. The Defense Department de- tided this morning to hold a news conference after numerous requests for information resulted from The Times’ accounts. But Mr. Quarles announced that if it had been up to him there would have been no dis- closure. He made it clear to those who attended that The Times’ publication of the news of the tests‘had not been offi- cially inspired. Mr. Quarles said that the ex- periments had been classified because: first, they had _ sub- stantial military implications: second, ‘‘we were probing a new science here’ and _ that more time was required to assess the results. ' “The results’* are not the property of the scientists,’ he responded to a subsequent ques- tion on the same subject. “Of course the scientists publish those things which we collec- tively judge to be in the inter- est of the American people to publish.” FIGURE 10-6 QUARLES SETS POLICY CHAPTER 10 TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 MIRROR POINTS PITCH ANGLE GEOMAGNETIC EQUATORIAL PLANE aE ed f CONJUGATE POINT GEOMAGNETIC NORTH GS = GEOMAGNETIC SOUTH >” EARTH RADII GN = FIGURE 10-7. EARTH'S TRAPPED RADIATION DIAGRAM FIGURE 10-8. VANALLEN BELTS 10-16 CHAPTER 10 A-Shots 30 Not ‘Clean, By RICHARD FRYKLUND Star Staff Writer A panel of scientists told Congress today that atomic weapons tests in the upper at- mosphere would not eliminate radioactive fallout. The group of scientists, from the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Defense, the Public Health Service and uni- versities, agreed 30-mile-high tests would send about 50 per cent of the potentially danger- ous radioactivity back to the surface of the earth. Small underground tests, they said, would not produce any appreciable radioactivity on the surface. President Eisenhower wrote Soviet Premier Khrushchev on April 13 proposing that Russia and the United States agree to ban all atom bomb tests below 30 miles as a first step! toward a permanent ban. The proposal was outlined the same day in Geneva by American representatives negotiating for A-test curbs with the Russians. Today’s panel and the mem- bers of the Radiation Subcom- mittee of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee, TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 THE EVENING STAR Washington, D. C.,-Friday, May 8, 1959 Miles Up Panel Says which they were testifying, did not know why the American proposal specified the 30-mile| cent he said. Surface ocean limit (50 kilometers). shots apparently cut fallout by Dr. Willard F. Libby, Atomic) spout 50 per cent. An ocean Energy Commissioner, said that! snot from a sand-filled barge the only source of a 50-kilome- may also cut fallout, he said. ter figure he knew of was the Geneva “experts” conference. A test halfway between the ‘ earth and the moon would re- scale—less than 20 kilotons— have shown that no radioactiv- ity results if such tests are properly set up. Land shots on, remote Pacific islands have produced global fallout reduced by about 80 per was a Safe limit. The panel seemed to agree with Dr. Se- love’s interpretation of the American statement. Speaking for the Department of Defense, Dr. Frank Shelton said that underground or far outer space testing would pro- duce valuable data on exploda- bility of the weapon, its power and the radioactivity it created, but would not produce enough information on military use of the weapon or its effect on a But there was another sugges- tion that the experts had de- cided that any test over 50 kilometers could not be con- cealed. Dr. Libby* and other mem-' bers of the panel, however,| agreed that tests far out in | space—a million miles or so— could not be detected. There was no way of knowing for for certain, they said, whether the Soviet Union has tried such a@ test. The Pentagon on March 19 revealed a_ series of, atomic tests last summer about 300 miles above the earth. Penta-| gen officials at the time said, the tests produced no ap- preciable radioactive fallout. Apparently the tests were not noticed by the Russians. Dr. Libby, in a prepared state- ment, said that five under- FIGURE 10-22. of WORLDWIDE FALLOUT RADIATION DOSES-- NUCLEAR TESTS Whole body radiation doses, to people living in the northern hemisphere (about three times larger than the southern hemisphere), due to all nuclear weapons testing (U.S., U.K., and U.S.S.R.) through 1958 (prior to the testing mora- torium), led to a maximum in 1959 of 30 millirem for that one year. Without further nuclear testing, after 1958, the whole body dose due to worldwide fallout, for a thirty year period (1955-1985) would have been 150 millirem; or a seventy year life time dose (1955-2025) of 200 millirem. These worldwide fallout radiation doses in the northern hemisphere, are to be compared with a natural background (cosmic ray, rocks, etc.) dose of 100 millirem per year, or 3,000 millirem for thirty years, and 7,000 millirem for seventy years. The thirty duce fallout to a negligible/given type of target. quantity, he said. Fallout from a shot 60,000 miles above the earth would be reduced to about one-tenth of 1 per cent. But, in the case of a =i high shot, Dr. Libby and the panel agreed that 50 per cent the radioactive material] would be blasted back toward the earth and eventually would sift down to the surface. If the particles became elec- trically charged, virtually all of them would be caught up by the earth’s magnetic field and returned to the surface. Test- ing would have to be carried out many hundreds of miles from the earth to diminish fallout. | Dr. Walter Selove of the University of Pennsylvania said the American proposal had been before ; ground shots of relatively small] worded to imply that 30 miles | A-SHOTS NOT “CLEAN,” PANEL SAYS year population dose due to all nuclear weapons testing prior to 1961 was (150/3000) five percent of the natural background radiation dose at sea- level; and the seventy year population dose was (200/7000) about three percent of the natural background radiation dose at sea-level. (10: HASP 1961.) Nuclear weapons testing in 1961-1963 produced fission products equal to all previous testing through 1958. Because a large fraction of the 1961-1963 fission yield was produced by air bursts at the Russian northern (Arctic) proving grounds, which resulted in fission debris that has a much shorter residence time in the strato- sphere, the above radiation dosages would be more than doubled (actually about 2.5 times) the previous (through 1958) lifetime radiation doses to 10-35 CHAPTER 10 New York Daily News TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 May 11, 1959 The Fateful Issue of Fallout— Rumor, Truth and Confusion (Editor’s Note: One of the most tm portant—and most controversial issues—of our time is the problem of atomic fallout. Will it give your children cancer or will it injure the sensitive tissues of babies? Is it silently damaging the carriers of heredity so that thousands of people in future generations will be unnecessarily injured of killed? These life-and-death issues, the subject of Congressional hearings, are discussed and to some extent clarified in a series of two articles from THE NEWS’ Washington Bureau.) By MICHAEL O’NEILL Washington, May 10.—The issue of atomic fallout, one of the most fateful of our time, has become such a colossal muddle that most Americans can’t decide whether to be scared or blase—or, in frus- tration, just plain indiffer- ent. It’s gotten to the point where the confusion is al- most as bad as the radiation. Scientists, politicians, diplo- mats and a miscellaneous as- sortment of ax-grinders are all sounding off in every direction. The supermarket of opinion provides both forecasts of even- tual suicide for the human race and assurances that fallout is no more dangerous than a dental X-ray, or a ride in the country on a Sunday afternoon. And in the middle of it all, as usual, is the ordinary citizen who is uncertain about everything except that if anybedy makes a mistake he’ll probably be the loser. | In four days of hearings last week, a subcommittee of the Senate-House Atomic Energy Committee sought to bring some order out of the chaos. More than two dozen nationally known authorities—from the ,Atomic Energy Commission, the Public Health Service, and university laboratories—were summoned to report on the present state of our fallout knowledge. STILL A THREAD OF AGREEMENT As they probed the extraor- dinary complexities of the problem, as they argued over some questions and _ confessed their ignorance about many others, FIGURE 10-23. . . (Associated Press foto) Drs. Willard Libby (left) and Frank Shelton appear before sub- committee during extensive hearings on atomic fallout. they tended to reinforce the pub- lic impression of confusion and controversy. But throughout their testimony there was still a tenuous thread of agreement on some fundamental issues. And even if an understanding of these does not clarify everything, it at least helps put the fallout threat in better perspective. 10-36 To begin with, the scientists on both sides of the dispute agree there is nothing good about fall- out. On this there is no con- troversy. They believe that the silent, unseen rain of radio- activity from nuclear explosions is adding to the world’s burden FALLOUT--RUMOR, TRUTH AND CONFUSION CHAPTER 10 the northern hemisphere populations, or 0.5 rem (500 millirem). (Table 10-5.) The strontium-90 produced by weapons testing through 1958 was apportioned approxi- mately as follows: mesosphere (upper strato- sphere), 0.4 megacuries; lower stratosphere, 5.5 megacuries (3.0 U.S., U.K., and 2.5 U.S.S.R.); troposphere, 0.6 megacuries; local Pacific Ocean, 2.7 megacuries (for a total of 9.2 megacuries). Of the 0.6 megacuries of tropospheric fallout, 0.5 megacuries probably fell into the sea within a few weeks, so that only 0.1 megacuries descended on land areas. Consequently, any worldwide samp- ling of delayed fallout, which is made on land, will reflect mainly the 5.9 megacuries of strontium-90 from stratospheric fallout. The AFSWP sampling of the lower stratosphere by U-2 aircraft indicated that the average during early calendar 1958 was about 1.1 megacuries remaining in the strato- sphere from all previous testing, with an additional 1.0 megacuries being added by the 40 megatons of fission yield during 1958. The rhodium-102 tracer element incorporated into the high altitude ORANGE event during 1958 (see Chapter 9), aided materially in determining the residence time for fission debris in the stratosphere. By the end of 1959, the measured strato- spheric reservoir of strontium-90 was down to 1.2 megacuries, and the worldwide surface burden - was 4.2 megacuries due to stratospheric fallout. lt was found that best agreement with actual stratospheric and ground inventory determinations was obtained if it was assumed that on the average 50 percent of the strontium-90 activity from land surface bursts and 70 percent from water surface shots remained suspended in the atmosphere long enough to appear as delayed TABLE 10-5. TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 fallout. (Figure 10-24, key fallout problem solved.) (Appendix B, fallout from nuclear weapons tests.) WORLDWIDE FALLOUT RADIATION DOSES-— NUCLEAR WAR While preparing for Congressional hearings on fallout to begin in May 1959, | was informed that | would be the lead-off witness for hearings on “Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War” in June 1959. One of the calculations that would be useful for the later hearings was the worldwide fallout that would accompany a massive strategic nuclear weapons exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. The values in Table 10-6 have been brought up to date for a 1988 strategic “Nuclear Weapons War.” (12: “Soviet Military Power - 1987.”) The 180 megatons of fission products resulting from all nuclear weapons testing through 1963, gave a lifetime dose of 0.5 roentgens to the worldwide population in the northern hemisphere. From Table 10-6, it is estimated that a “Nuclear War--1988” between the United States and the Soviet Union would result in 3,800-6,000 mega- tons of fission yield. Assuming that the individual warhead yields, heights of burst, and northern latitudes of the nuclear war were about like the distribution in the nuclear testing data base, then the worldwide fallout dose is calculated to be 10 r to 16 r, which is to be compared with natural background radiation doses (at sea-level) of 7 r, or, about the same increment to radiation as living at an altitude of 5000 feet, instead of at sea-level. Throughout this discussion on worldwide fallout, the reader must appreciate the distinction between “local” and “worldwide” fallout and the ALL NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTING (PRE-MORATORIUM) (11: ENW-1962, TABLE 9.161.) 1952-54 1957-58 FISSION YIELD (KILOTONS) TOTAL YIELD (KILOTONS) GROUND SURFACE | WATER SURFACE SURFACE BURST 80 es (One megaton of fission yield produces about 0.1 megacuries of Sr-90.) (All nuclear testing through 1958 produced 9.2 megacuries of Sr-90.) 10-37 CHAPTER 10 TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 THE EVENING STAR Washington, D. C., May 11, 1959 | Key Fallout Problem Ils Reported Solved By RICHARD FRYLUND Star Staff Writer One of the great problems of the radioactive fallout hazard | | troversy and what can be pre- ' sented to the public as reason- | ably sure scientific fact. | Yesterday’s findings were the | result of a global survey of ' fallout. Measurements were | taken in balloons and airplanes. | in rain ciouds, in lakes, wheat fields and on rooftops. Hun- ren of scientists in the De- | fense Department, AEC, Weath- er Bureau and Public Healtk has been solved. Witnesses before the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy reported yesterday that scientists now know the mechanism of fallout—how the radioactive material gets | high into the air, how it circulates, how long it stays aloft, how it comes back to earth and where it falls. Until yesterday this informa- tion has been a matter of pub- lic dispute by scientists and sometimes bitter, partisan de- bate in Congress and Federal agencies. | This leaves one more vast area of uncertainty, however, before the true hazara@ of radio- Hits Middle Latitudes | Fourth, the material does not| filter down evenly all over the world through the tropopause (the dividing line, about five miles high, between the strato- sphere, where the material rests in the still, almost airless sky, and thes troposphere, the tur- bulent iower area where the weather is). It comes through active fallout can be assessed. ithat barrier only at “breaks” That area is the biological ef- , ; fect of fallout—its effect on | which exist at about 40 degrees ec ; a iwhere rainstorms carry it on people. ‘down to the surface of the | earth. | a Five-Point Summary This new concept accounts To sum up, the new picture | for the concentration belt which of fallout, now generally ac-. | makes radioactivity in’ the cepted by all the scientists in-! United States, particularly the volved, is this: First the radioactive debris from atomic explosions equiv- alent to some 30 million tons of TNT: is now in the strato- sphere. This is considerably less than many _ previous estimates. The significance is'| that less remains to fall on us, but less future testing can be done without increasing the level of hazard. | Second, the material does not fall uniformly on the world’s just and unjyst. It is concen- trated in the northern hemi- sphere in the latitudes which include the United States. This settles an old argument over uniformity. Third, the dangerous material falls out rather quickly. A year ago scientists thought it took seven years for half of the ma- terial to fall out, seven years for half of the remainder, and so on. After yesterday, the ac- cepted figure is two years half- residency for material blasted jings under the chairmanship | upward near the equator and |of {Since the first A-bomb. idirector of the Armed Forces northern regions, high. Fifth, there are seasonal var- jiations in fallout. The spring! is heaviest. We are now headed into the worst fallout spring| Will Study Effects Dr. Frank Shelton, technical ee eee eee oe ae ae etree ey Special Weapons Project, who! just finished the heart of the) definitive mechanism survey, | believes efforts of GOvernmnent | scientists can now be turned | most profitably to a-determina- | tion of how human beings. viants.and animals are affected by the fallout. After another year’s double- check in the northern and southern hemisphere of the} fallout mechanism, Dr. Shelton believes his own shop could stop operations. The radiation subcommittee | of the Atomic Energy weal tee is hoiding a series of hear- Representative Holifield, comforting— it fallout danger is certainly no less than supposed—but it did indicate Service were involved. Scientists Testify The first witness, Dr. C. L | Du~ham, chief of the biology and medicine division of the Atomic Energy Commission. Summed up the fallout picture in a 127-page report that em- phasized the need for more re- search on the physical hazard of radiation. Dr. Francis J. Weber, chief of the division of Radiological health of the Pub- lic Health Service, recommended that “we continue to measure and measure and that the re- search now under way be ex- panded.” Aspects of the fallout me- chanism were then discussed by Mr. Joshua Holland, divi- sion of biology and medicine, AEC; Dr. Shelton; Dr Lester Machta, United States Weath- er Bureau; Dr. E. A. Martell, Cambridge Research Center, United States Air Force, and Dr. W. F. Libby, Atomic Energy Commissioner. Before the current hearings, Congress—and the public-—had not known how much poten- tially dangerous’ rad:oactive material was in the upper at- mosphere, how fast it was fall- ing on the food we cat or | where the fallout was concen- trated. Saw Data Withheld Committee members, partic- ularly Mr. Holifield and Sen- ator Anderson, Democrat of New Mexico, became convinced that the AEC and Pentagon were withholding information from the public on the danger of fallout. Yesterday’s “reveal all” tes- timony was not particularly indicated the that the Federal one year for material sent up;Democrat of California, to bring; agencies previously were hold- near the Arctic. Therefore, the |fallout information up to date| ing out on the public more out far-north Soviet tests are the |and to determine what can be most dangerous. : FIGURE 10-24. taken out cf the realm of con- of ignorance than a desire for secrecy, KEY FALLOUT PROBLEM IS REPORTED SOLVED 1N—2R CHAPTER 10 TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 The Evening Star June 22, 1959 World Would Survive Atom War, Expert Says Congress Is Told Countries Not Attacked Would Suffer, But Still Could Go On By RICHARD FRYKLUND Star Staff Writer The popular conception of a world population destroyed by fallout after a nuclear war, is mistaken, a congressional committee was told today. Dr. Frank Shelton, technical director of the Defense Department’s Atomic Support Agency, told a subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that world-wide fallout would not threaten the survival of countries not at- tacked, even during a “large- scale” nuclear war. The best-selling novel “On the Beach” is wrong, Dr. Shelton said, in picturing a deadly fallout cloud gradually encompassing the entire earth. “Medium” War Postulated The committee today opened a week-long series of hearings on the effects of a hypotheti- cal war between the United States and Russia. The group envisions:medium scale war in which the United States, Rus- sia and some European coun- tries are hit directly by large nuclear bombs. Dr. Shelton said the radio- active strontium 90 in the bones of people around the world would rise only “slightly higher than the maximum per- missible concentrations” set as a guide to radiation hazard. The added gynetic dose would be only the equivalent of the present natural radiation, he said. Dr. Shelton concluded that other countries would survive handily even though they might have grounds to worry about an increase in cancer and defective children in fu- ture generations. Death to All in 7 Miles No person within seven miles of a large nuclear explosion would have more than a slim chance to survive, Dr. Shelton said. The committee is assuming that Washington would be hit by two bombs, one of 8 mega- tons and the other of 10 mega- tons. A megaton is the equiva- lent in blast destruction of a million tons of TNT. Dr. Shelton said that direct radiation from a 10-megaton bomb would kill everyone ex- posed to it within 2 miles of the blast. Even brick buildings would be destroyed in an area 7 miles from the _ explosion, crushing people who took shel- ter and leaving others exposed to fallout radiation and heat damage. Persons within 25 miles of the éxplosion, Dr. Shelton said, would suffer second - degree burns on all exposed parts of their bodies. The bomb would make. a 240-foot-deep crater, 2,500 feet in diameter. Dr. Shelton’ said _ people downwind from. the blast would be killed by fallout radiation in an area roughly 100 miles long and 17 miles wide. Most wooden buildings would catch fire in an area 25 miles from the explosion. Senator Anderson, Democrat of New Mexico, asked what these blast figures would mean in simple human terms. “What will happen to me, standing 10 miles from the Capitol down- wind from the center of the explosion?” he asked. Dr. Shelton said almost all wooden houses and most brick buildings in his area would be destroyed during the first min- ute after the explosion. The fallout effect would not come for a half hour, he said, but it would be strong enough when it arrived to give an unshel- tered person a deadly dose of radiation in minutes. Attack Date Assumed The hearings, according to Subcommittee Chairman Holi- field, Democrat of California, are designed to clear up the “considerable confusion” in the public mind about the effects of nuclear war. The hearings will assume. that ‘224 cities, military installations and Atomic Energy Commission centers, will be. hit by 1,446 megatons of large nuclear bombs. The attack takes place at 7 a.m. Washington time, in mid-October. The weather is assured to be that which actu- ally existed on October 17, 1958. Eugene Quindlen of the Of- fice of Defense Mobilization said casualties and destruction will be based op an assumption that no cities are evacuated, that no extensive air raid shelter systems exist, but that people have enough warning to hide in buildings. Chairman Holifield read a message to the subcommittee from Lt. Gen. James E. Gavin, former head of research and development for the Army, saying that the conditions of the atomic war assumed by the committee are “entirely realis- tic.” FIGURE 10-28. WORLD WOULD SURVIVE ATOM WAR, EXPERT SAYS 10-49 © CHAPTER 10 was not criticized publicly by anybody. The only criticism which was made of that decision was that the cutback on defense against bombers did not go far enough. Yet some years ago, in 1956, when General Partridge testified on the state of our defenses, he made it very clear they were not adequate to defend our country and would not be adequate in the near future; his testimony did not depend in any sharp way on large estimates of the number of Russian long-range bombers; their TU-4’s, and Badgers, and small numbers of Bears and Bisons, being sufficient. They did not have to have 500 or 1,000 Bears and Bisons to do the job.” “The reason why there is not criticism of the decision to cut back on air defense is that people believe we must deter all-out war, we must be able to fight limited wars, we must have arms control and that is all. They do not really believe we have to be able to fight a general war, usually not because they are certain one cannot happen, but because they do not believe that anyone can Survive a general war. They do not believe that there is a significant difference between victory, Stalemate, and defeat.” “The testimony before this Committee was, | think, in that sense very salutatory. As far as | know, Dr. Frank Shelton was the first Government Official to make the flat statement that the next war would not destroy all human beings, worldwide.” “This may strike those who know, in this committee room, as a rather silly view (that the next war would end all civilization), that is held by maybe a few uneducated laymen. It is not like that. Very distinguished scientists hold that view. And | mean very distinguished. And a couple of years ago they would have been willing to argue with you numerically that they were right. .. . There was a recent debate in the New Leader magazine between Bertrand Russell and Sidney Hook on, ‘Was it legitimate, or was it not, to risk killing all human beings in the world in the attempt to resist Communism?’ That was a serious debate. Nobody raised the question, that the debate was about a hypothetical subject which was not at issue. One does not kill all human beings, or even a majority of them, in a war... .” “. . Some of the Europeans raised the question: Would American aid be on the way if the Russians seriously challenged us? Would we TESTING MORATORIUM 1958-1961 (the Americans) live up to our alliance obligations? .. .” “. . Now let me ask every man in this room to put himself in the place of the President of the United States. Assume that the Russians have done something very horrible, say dropped a bomb on London, on Rome, Paris, Berlin, the worst thing you can imagine, but have not touched the United States. By some mechanism the President cannot react immediately. He has 24 hours to think over what he will do; at which point he has to decide whether to press the button and punish the Russians, but in turn accept the retaliatory attack upon the United States. . . . | do not know how the President would act... We cannot say whether the Soviet retaliatory threat would be effective at exactly 5 or 30 or 100 million dead (Americans). . . . many Europeans will say, ‘At no price will the Americans retaliate ....’ On the other hand, the typical American will say, ‘We cannot be bluffed or blackmailed at any price.’” “It is important, in other words, to differentiate very sharply between what /| have called Type One Deterrence, which is trying to deter a direct attack on the United States, and what | have called Type Two Deterrence, which is trying to deter an extremely provocative action. .. .” “As long as we think of a thermonuclear war as a sort of end of history, we may not feel acutely uncomfortable about placing all of our reliance either on deterrence or on measures to alleviate tension, as this seems to be all we can do. ... (However, we should actually feel very uncomfortable, because that isn’t the way the world really is).” Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed.... THE LAST YEAR WAS THE WORST YEAR For the Eisenhower Administration, 1960 was a bad year, and also the last year of a full two- term Presidency. As bad years go, it was comparable to the Reagan Administration’s year of “selling arms to lran for hostages.” Both Presidents got caught, publicly, doing what they thought was in the best interests of the United States, but the lower level management of the operations “screwed up.” In Eisenhower’s case, 10-50 CHAPTER 11 A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 FIGURE 11-5. TRUCKEE EVENT AT CHRISTMAS ISLAND CHAPTER 11 A RETURN ther Fr orecast i H s 2 5 i Hanots ilu isinity H i i i i and ¥ Honolulu Star-Bulletin : HOME EDITION 1. Val, 51, No. 169 HONOLULU, HAWAII ~ MONDAY, duty % 1962 tok Color photos by ton Luke show how last night's budeoe = bomb explosion looked fro : First Punchbow!, The first photo was exposmd at exactly 11 p.rt., the moment of ignition. light was so infense that the sky appears blue as in daylight. The light spot in the 4 Spectacular drigern bomb at least! as powerful as the: uranium atem bomb dropped or Hiroshima lighted the en: tire Central Pacific Ocean, bn instant last night, then; before the color as come,” the spokesman said. | | Johnston and Three and! The spokesman added that | possibly four were sched-: the height of the detonation | uled. ould continue to be kept. secret. So would the vield of | the nuclear device. There has been no con flashed with instantaneous | rmation thet a second test idavtime brilliance in Hone. | Ii be conducted from lulu's southwest sky. x * * it caused worried phone! Fired possibly $00 miles ~Affter a series of failures: seribed the explosion calls to newspapers as far above Johnston lsland it was and postponements, it was a ‘basically a scientific expert as 3.900 statute miles from a spectator show for thou- satisfying first success for ment.” Johnston in Auckland, New sands of persons in Hawai U.S. Joint Task Force 8 i Zealand. ; bat today sciehtists are be- | its planned hich level tes i eapegi ena re Sightings were also re. ginning the task of collerting | series. sunset colors nunping ported from Samoa. Fiji and” ‘and analyzing data from: An Atomic Energy Come OF SIX MOTE Hanes beiween Hawall and _alound the world to deters) Thigsion - official zo ithe West Coast. _ Mine its eliects. ‘sometime in the: future.” “They will be studyin, x *& * x * * Shock Wave May Have Put i Out Lights Street But since then communi: | cation has been normal, an- FAA. spokesman: said. Australia and Japan also reported similar brief inter. ruptions soon after the blast. The thermonuclear blast; ever Johnston Island last’ night didn't affect communt- gations as much as expected : but the Federal Aviation | Agency said if experienced oceasional Hhackouts tor: about beo hours after the 11 pam. blast. Most Going Into Orbit ee Little Fallout Seen From Test grees July 4 (UPE—Atomic experts expect € any radioactive fallout from the nuclear expio- sions in space over Jolinston Island. Some af the homb debris, perhaps as much as half, mav be hurled free of the ‘earih’s gravitational field and wind up wandering through space tn jong orbits around the sun. A part of what is left is expec ted to go into orbit around the earth The remainder may well he heid alett, far above weather regions af the atmosphere, so long and he dis- persed so widely that it will be comparatively harmless by the time tf comes down “There is ne doubt,” one authority told United Press International, “ihat space tests are the safest of all above-ground shets from the standpeint of fallout.” A Pefense Department study istued a bitte over year ago estimated that half of the radioactive debris from a megaton bomb exploded af an altitude of 100 Turn to Page |-A. Column & More Stories on Pages 2-A, 2-B, ae the rhe Johnston nuclear blast Hooded the beach at the Hawaiian Village in Waikiki with an eerie light last niqht.—Star-Bulletin Phata by Amos Chun. FIGURE 11-21. STARFISH EVENT -- HONOLULU NEWSPAPER 11-41 so nee is the bomb center. Cen. . with the sky dominated by greenish colors. The The F.A.A. official in Ho-: noluin said the “occasional short outages ignal going ; no < Wemen's Page TO TESTING 1961-1962 ra THE NEWS STATION CBS in te paciric Radio 590, Chonnels 9, 3 last Produces Colorful Display foded. It was perbaps 15 Pe i above the horizon, indicatin an altitude of several to i lowed by the appearance of ‘Turn te Page 1-A, Column 1 * *& * ackouts Briet In Communications ont} atfected point-to-point ' communication in all direc- tions.” He estimated the duration at-20 to 30 minutes, but the ‘interruptions disap peared after about two hours and communication has been rinal since. He said communication between Honolula Airport and aircraft in the air was perfect at all times. _ Some Honolulu radio sta- i Hons were washed out DY it- ‘terference but returmmied to ; the air immediately. ad The Japanese Bas ip ¢lephone and Te pels Company reported trans : pacific telephone connections fwith Honoiuia, Oakland. an Buenas Aires, Argentine, were knocked out right efter the explosion but service 2s restored 2 short time later, Asseviated Press said in Sydney, Australia. _Torn te Page 2-8, Column § DIREC TORY Bridge 2 Business . 4 Comics. Exiitorials Obituaries sports Thesire TV Log ‘ Visors Gaui: de : Guide CHAPTER 11 A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 FIGURE 11-28. STARFISH EVENT FROM CHRISTMAS ISLAND PLASMA FILAMENTS -HED AISSIOWN Moulcuven YELIDW-neD EMRISION NOUTE FIGURE 11-29. STARFISH EVENT FROM CHRISTMAS ISLAND (SCHEMATIC) 11-48 CHAPTER 11 11_AA A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 KINGFISH EVENT INHONOLULU NEWSPAPER FIGURE 11-39. CHAPTER 11 A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 FIGURE 11-40. KINGFISH EVENT FROM AIRCRAFT test ban treaty with the Russians. (Figure 11-41, Nike-Hercules Missile; Figure 11-42, TIGHT- ROPE.) Statement by the President on the Conclusion of Atmospheric Nuclear Tests in the Pacific: (6: Item 503, pp. 821) “, . .The medium altitude shot fired this morning off Johnston Island concludes our present atmospheric test series in the Pacific. Underground nuclear weapons tests, free from fallout, are continuing in Nevada.” “, . .l hope that in the next months we can conclude an effective test ban treaty, so that the world can be free from all testing. Agree- ment in this area would be an important first step toward our continuing goal of workable disarmament arrangements which can cut down the threat of war... .” Prior to Senate ratification of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, hearings were held by a Senate Armed Services subcommittee on the military implications of the proposed treaty. | assisted in preparation of portions of the testimony given by Major General Robert H. Booth, Chief-Defense Atomic Support Agency of the Department of Defense, presented on 28 May and 5 June 1963. Portions of General Booth’s testimony appear verbatim in the Senate Sub- committee’s summary report of the hearings, which conveys our assessment of Operation DOMINIC - FISHBOWL: “Important as are programs associated with the acquisition of new or improved types of weapons, the advent of the missile age and the adoption of a second-strike or retaliatory strategic policy by the United States has elevated to a first priority tests to determine the effects of nuclear explosions on hardened missile sites and control centers, on reentry bodies in flight, and on radar, electronic, and communication systems. Of equal importance have become tests to determine what unique effects are produced by nuclear explosions in space, the atmosphere, and under water so that the knowledge gained might be exploited for defensive purposes or our own weapons systems designed to resist them.” “. . .T0 date, only Polaris has been subjected to a_ full-scale test, including the explosion of the nuclear warhead... .” 11-65 CHAPTER 11 A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 “In the field of weapons effects experi- ments related to the design and development of an effective antiballistic missile (ABM) system the evidence, although less con- clusive, indicates that the Soviet Union in 1961 and 1962 conducted a series of complex high altitude operations which, if properly instru- mented, could provide substantial and important data on various types of radar blackout and nuclear effects. These Soviet experiments were clearly dictated by an ABM development program.” “The United States has conducted no experiments comparable in complexity to these Soviet operations and a disturbing num- ber of the U.S. high-altitude-effects experi- ments which were conducted were compro- mised either by considerations unrelated to the technical objectives of the test program, by inadequate or faulty instrumentation, or by operational inadequacies. Based on the testi- mony we have received, there can be little doubt but that the quantity and quality of information available to the United States on high altitude nuclear effects is inadequate for the Nation’s military needs.” FIGURE 11-42. TIGHTROPE EVENT FROM JOHNSTON ISLAND Joint Task Force Eight always gave first priority to AEC nuclear weapons development requirements for the two nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos and Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, but lacked the necessary expertise to conduct complex missile operations in support of DOD high altitude nuclear weapons effects tests. The United States missed its opportunity on Operation DOMINIC-FISHBOWL. _ The finality of the lost opportunity was clinched with the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibiting all atmo- spheric nuclear testing, which has continued enforce for twenty-five years, and will continue indefinitely. 11-67 Kennedy’s CHAPTER 11 APPENDIX A A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 KENNEDY’S NUCLEAR TEST REPORT WASHINGTON— (AP) —Fol- lowing is the text of President Kennedy’s nationally-broadcast address Friday night on nuclear testing and disarmament: Good evening: Seventeen years ago.man un- leashed the power of the atom. He thereby took into his mortal hands the power of self-extinc- tion. Throughout the years that have followed, under three suc- cessive presidents the United States has sought to banish this weapon from the arsenals of in- dividual nations. For us all the awesome responsibilities en- trusted to this office, none is more somber to contemplate than the special statutory au- thority to employ nuclear arms in the defense of our people and freedom. But until mankind has _ ban- ished both war and its instru- ments of destruction, the United States must maintain .an effec- tive quantity and quality of nu- clear weapons, so deployed and protected. as to be capable of surviving any surprise attack and devastating the attacker. Only through such strength can we be certain of deterring a nu- clear strike, or an overwhelming ground attack, upon our forces and allies. — Only through such strength can we in the free world— should that deterrent fail—tace the tragedy of another war with any hope of survival. And that deterrent strength, if it is to be effective and credible when compared with that of any other nation, must em- body the most modern, the most reliable and the most versatile nuclear weapons our research and development can produce. The testing of new weapons and the effects is necessarily a part of that research and de- velopment process. Without tests —to experiment and_verify— progress is limited. A nation which is refraining from tests obviously cannot match the gains of a nation conducting tests. And when all nuclear powers 2 March, 1962 Here Is Text of President Nuclear Test Report refrain from testing, the nuclear arms race is held in check. That is why this nation has long urged an effective world- wide end to nuclear tests. And that is why in 1958 we voluntar- ily subscribed, as did the Soviet Union, to a nuclear test morator- jum, during which neither side would conduct new nuclear tests, and both East and West would seek concrete plans for their control. Moratorium Broken But on Sept. 1 of last year, while the United States and the. United Kingdom were ne- gotiating in good faith at Ge- neva, the Soviet Union callously broke its moratorium with a two-month series of more than 40 nuclear tests. Preparations for these tests had been se- eretly underway for many months. Accompanied by new threats and new tactics of ter- ror, these tests — conducted mostly in the atmosphere — represented a major Soviet ef- fort to ‘put nuclear weapons back into the arms race. ‘Once it was apparent that new appeals and proposals were to no.avail, I authorized on Sept. 5 a resumption of U.S. nuclear fests underground, and I an- nounced on Nov. 2—before the close of the Soviet series—that preparations were being ordered tor a resumption of atmospheric tests, and that we would make whatever tests our security re- quired in the light of Soviet gains. This week, the National Se- curity Council has completed its review of this subject. The scope of the Soviet tests has been carefully reviewed by the most competent scientists in the country. The scope and justification of proposed Amer- ican tests have been carefully reviewed, determining which experiments can be safely de- ferred, which can be deleted, which can be combined or conducted underground, and which are essential to our military and scientific prog- 44 ca ress. Careful attention has been given to the limiting of radioactive fallout, to the fu- ture course of arms control diplomacy, and to our obliga- tions to other nations. Every alternative was ex- amined. Every avenue of ob- taining Soviet agreement was explored. We were determined not to rush into imitating their tests. And we were equally de- termined to do only what our own security required us to do. Although the complex prepara- tions have continued at full speed while these facts were being uncovered, no single de- cision of this administration has been more. thoroughly or more thoughtfully weighed, Having carefully considered these findings — having re- ceived the unanimous recom- mendations of the pertinent de- partment and agency. heads— and having observed the Soviet Union’s refusal to accept any agreement which would inhibit its freedom to test extensively after preparing secretly—I have today authorized the Atomic En- ergy Commission and the De- partment of Defense to conduct a series of nuclear tests—be- ginning when our preparations are completed, in the latter part of April and to: be concluded as quickly as possible (within two or three months)—such series, involving only those tests which cannot be held underground, to take place in the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. Restricted Fallout These tests are to be con- ducted under conditions which restrict the radioactive fallout to an absolute minimum, far less than the contamination cre- ated by last fall’s Soviet series. By paying.careful attention to location, wind and weather con- ditions, and by holding these tests over the open sea, we in- tend to rule out any problem of fallout in the immediate area of testing. Moreover, we will hold the increase in radiation in the northern hemisphere, where nearly all such fallout will CHAPTER 11 APPENDIX A A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 KENNEDY’S NUCLEAR TEST REPORT occur, to a very low level. Natural _ radioactivity, as everyone knows, has. always been part of the air around us, with certain long-range biologic- al effects. By conservative esti- mate, the total effects from this test series will be roughly equal to only 1 pct. of those due to this natural background. It has been estimated, in fact, that the exposure due to radioactivity from these tests will be less than 1-50 of the difference which can be experienced, due to vari- ations in natural radioactivity, simply by living in different lo- cations in this country. This will obviously be well within the guides for general population health and safety, as set by the Federal Radiation Council; and considerably less than 1-10 of 1 pet. of the exposure guides set for adults who work with indus- trial radioactivity. Nevertheless, I find it deeply regrettable that any radioac- tive material must be added to the atmosphere—that even one additional individual’s health may be risked in the foreseeable future. And: how- ever remote and infinitesimal those hazards are. judged. to be, I still exceedingly regret the necessity of balancing these hazards against the haz- ards to hundreds of millions of lives which would be cre- ated by any relative decline in our nuclear strength. In the absence of a major shift in Soviet policies, no Amer- ican president—responsible for the freedom and safety of so many people—could in good faith make any other decision. But because our nuclear posture affects the security of all Amer- icans and all free men—because this issue has aroused such widespread concern—I want to share with you and all the world, to the fullest extent our security permits, all of the facts and thoughts which have gone into my decision. Many of these facts are hard to explain in simple terms— many are hard to face in a peaceful world—but these are facts which must be faced and must be understood. Had the Soviet tests of last fall reflected merely a new effort in intimidation and bluff, our security would not have been affected. But in fact they also reflected a highly .sophisti- cated technology, the trial of novel designs and techniques, and some substantial- gains in weaponry. Many of their tests were aimed at improving their defenses against missiles—others were proof tests, trying out ex- isting weapons systems — but over one-half emphasized the development of new. weapons, particularly those of greater ex- plosive power, Cites Giant Blast A primary purpose of these tests was the development of warheads which weigh very lit- tle compared to the destructive efficiency of their thermonuclear yield. One Soviet test weapon exploded with the force of 58 megatons—the equivalent of 58 million tons of TNT. This was a reduced-yield version of their much-publicized hundred-mega- ton bomb. Today, Soviet mis- siles do not appear able to carry so heavy a warhead. But there is no avoiding the fact that other Soviet tests, in the 1-5 megaton range and up, were aimed at un- leashing increased destructive power in warheads actually cap- able of delivery by existing mis- siles. Much has also been said about Soviet claims for an anti-missile missile. Some of the Soviet tests which measured the effects of high altitude nuclear explosion— in one case over 100 miles high —were related to this problem. While apparently seeking infor- mation (on the effects of nuclear blasts on radar and communi- eation) which is important in developing an anti-missile de- fense system, these tests did not, in our judgment reflect a developed system. In short, last fall’s tests, in and by themselves, did not give the Soviet Union superiority in nuclear power. They did, how- ever, provide the Soviet labora- tories with a mass of data and experience on which, over the next two or three years, they can base significant analyses, experiments and extrapolations, preparing for the next test series which would confirm and ad- vance their findings. And I must report to you in all candor that further Soviet series, in the absence ‘of fur- ther Western progress, couid well provide the Soviet Union with a nuclear attack and de- fense capability so powerful as to encourage aggressive de- signs. Were we to stand still while the Soviets surpassed us—or even appeared to sur- pass us—the free world’s abil- ity to deter, to survive and to respond to an all-out attack would be seriously weakened. The fact of the matter is that 11-69 we cannot make similar strides without. testing in the atmos- phere as well as underground. For, in many areas of nuclear weapons research, we have reached the point where our progress is stifled without ex- periments in every environment. The information from our last series of atmospheric tests in 1958 has all been analyzed and re-analyzed. It can tell us no more without new data. And it is in these very areas of re- search—missile penetration and missile defense, for example— that further major Soviet tests, in the absence of further West- ern tests, might endanger our deterrent. | In addition to proof tests of existing systems, two different types of tests have therefore been decided upon. The first and most important are called “‘ef- fects tests’’—-determining what effect an enemy’s nuclear ex- plosions would have upon our ability to survive and respond. We are spending great sums of money on radar to alert our defense and to develop possible anti-missile systems — on the communications which enable our command and control cen- ters to direct a response — on hardening our missiles sites, shielding our missiles and théir warheads from defensive action, and providing them with elec- tronic guidance systems to find their targets. But we cannot be certain how much of this prepa- ration will turn out to be use- less; blacked out, paralyzed or destroyed by the complex ef- fects of a nuclear explosion. Reason for Tests We know enough from earlier tests to be concerned about such phenomena. We know that the Soviets conducted such tests last fall. But until we measure the effects of actual explosions in the atmosphere under realistic conditions, we will not know precisely how’ to prepare our future defenses, how best to equip our missiles for penetra- tion of an anti-missile system, and whether it is possible to achieve such a system for our- selves. Secondly, we must test in the atmosphere to permit the de- velopment of those more ad- vanced concepts and more ef- fective, efficient weapons which, in light of Soviet tests, are deemed essential to our securi- ty. Nuclear weapon technology is still a constantly changing field. If our weapons are to be CHAPTER 11 APPENDIX A A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 KENNEDY’S NUCLEAR TEST REPORT more secure, more flexible in their use and more selective in their impact—if we are to be alert to new breakthroughs, to experiment with new designs— if we are to maintain our scien- tific momentum and leadership — then our weapons progress must not be limited to theory or to the confines of laboratories and caves. This series is designed to lead to many important, if not al- ways dramatic, results. Improv- ing the nuclear yield per pound of weight in cur weapons will make them easier to move, protect and fire—more likely to survive a surprise attack— and more adequate for effective retaliation. It will also, even more importantly, enable us to add to our missiles’ certain penetration aids and decoys, and to make those missiles ef- fective at higher altitude deto- nations, in order to render ineffective any anti-missile or interceptor system an enemy might some day develop. Whenever possible, these development tests will be held underground. But the larger explosions can only be tested in the atmosphere. And while our technology in smaller weapons is unmatched, we know now that the Soviets have made major gains in developing larger weapons of low-weight and high explosive content—ot 1 to 5 megatons and upward. Fourteen of their tests last: fall were in this category, for a total of 30 such tests over the years. The United States, on the other hand, had conducted, prior to the moratorium, a total of only 20 tests within this megaton range. While we will be conducting far fewer tests than the Soviets, with far less fallout, there will. still be :those in other countries who will urge us to refrain from testing at all. Perhaps they for- get that this country long: re- frained from testing, and sought to ban ali tests; while «-the Soviets were secretly preparing new exmlosions. Perhaps they forget -the Soviet threats of last autumn and their arbitrary re- jection of-.all appeals and pro- posals, from both the U.S. and the U.N. But those- free peoples who value their freedom and security, and look to our rela- tive strength to shield them from danger — those who know of our good faith in seeking an end to testing and an end to the arms race—will, I am con- fident, want the United States to do whatever it must do to deter the threat of aggression. If they felt we could be swayed by threats or intimida- tion—if they thought we could permit a repetition of last sum- mer’s deception — then surely they would lose faith in our will and our wisdom as well as our weaponry. I have no doubt that most of our friends around the world have shared my own hope that we would never find it necessary to test again—and my own belief that, in the long run, the only real security in thjs age of nuclear peril rests not in armament but in. dis- armament. But I am equally certain that they would insist on our testing once that is seemed necessary to protect free world security. They know we are not | deciding to test for political or psychological reasons—and they also know that we cannot avoid such tests for. political or psy- cholegical reasons. Reds to Watch. The leaders of the Soviet Union are also watching this decision. Should we fail to follow the dic- tates of our own security, they will chalk it up, not to goodwill, but to a failure of will—not to our confidence in Western supe- riority, but to our fear of world opinion, the very world opinion for which they showed such con- tempt. They could well be en- rouraged by such signs of weak- ness to seek another period of no testing without controls—an- other opportunity for stifling our progress while secretly prepar- ing, on the basis of last fall’s experiments, for the new test series which might alter the bal-. ance of power. With such a one- sided advantage, why would they change their strategy, or refrain from testing, merely because we refrained? Why would they want to halt their drive to surpass us in nuclear technology? And why would they ever consider accept- ing a true test ban or mutual disarmament? Our reasons for testing and our peaceful intentions are clear —so clear that even the Soviets could not objectively regard our resumption of tests, following their resumption. of tests, as pro-. vocative or preparatory for war. On the contrary, it is my hope that the prospects for peace may actually be strengthened by this decision—once the Soviet leaders realize that the: West will ‘no longer stand still, negotiating’in good faith, while they reject in- spection and are free to prepare further tests. As new disarma- ment talks approach, the basic 11-7N lesson of some. three years and 353, negotiating sessions at Ge- neva is this—that -the Soviets will not agree to an effective ban on nuclear tests as long as a new series of offers and pro- longed negotiations, or a new uninspected moratorium, or a new agreement without controls, would enable them once again to prevent the West from test- ing while they prepare in secret. But inasmuch as this choice is now no longer open to them, let us hope that they will take a different attitude on banning nuclear tests—that they will prefer to see the nuclear arms race checked instead of inten- sified, with all the dangers that intensification is likely to bring: The spread of nuclear | weapons to.other nations; the constant increase in world ten- sions; the steady decrease in all prospects for disarma- ment; and, with it, a steady decrease in the security of us all. If the Soviets should change their position, we will have an opportunity to learn it immedi- ately. On the 14th of March, in Geneva, Switzerland, a new 18- power conference on disarma- ment will begin. A statement of agreed principles has been worked out with the Soviets and endorsed by the U.N. In the long run, it is the constructive possi- bilities of that conference—and not the testing of new destruc- tive weapons—on which rest the hopes of all mankind. However dim those hopes may sometimes seem, they can never be aban- doned. And however far-off most steps toward disarmament ap- pear, there are some that can be taken at once. The United States will offer at the Geneva conference—not in the advance expectation they will be rejected, and not merely for purposes of propaganda—a series of concrete plans for a major ‘‘breakthrough to peace.’’ We hope and believe that they will appeal to all nations op- posed to war. They will include specific proposals for fair and enforceable agreements: To halt the production of fissionable ma- terials and nuclear weapons and their transfer to other nations— | to convert’ them from weapon stockpiles to peaceable uses— to destroy the warheads and the delivery systems that threaten man’s existence—to check the dangers of surprise and acci- dental attack—to reserve outer space for peaceful use—and pro- gressively to reduce all armed CHAPTER 11 APPENDIX A A RETURN TO TESTING 1961-1962 KENNEDY’S NUCLEAR TEST REPORT forces in such a way as ulti- mately to remove forever all threats and thoughts of war. To Renew Offers And of greatest importance to our discussion tonight, we shall, in association with the United Kingdom, present once again our proposals for a _ separate comprehensive treaty—with ap- propriate arrangements for de- tection and verification—to halt permanently the testing of all nuclear weapons, in every en- vironment: In the air, in outer space, underground or under- water. New modifications will also be offered in the light of new experience. The essential arguments and facts relating to such a treaty are well-known to the Soviet Union. There is no need for further repetition, propaganda or delay. The fact that both sides have decided to resume testing only emphasizes the need for new agreement, not new argument. And before charging that this decision shat- ters all hopes for agreement, the Soviets should recall that we were willing to work out with them, for joint submission to the U.N., an agreed state- ment of disarmament principles at the very time their autumn tests were being conducted. And Mr. Khrushchev knows, as he said in 1960, that any nation which broke the moratorium could expect other nations to be “forced to take the same road.’’ Our negotiators will be ready to talk about this treaty even before the conference begins on March 14—and they will be ready to sign well before the date on which our tests are ready to begin. That date is still nearly two months away. If the Soviet Union should now be willing to accept such a treaty, sign it before the latter part of April, and apply it im- mediately—if all testing can thus be actually halted—then the nuclear arms race would be slowed down at last—the security of the United States and its ability to meet its com- mitments would be _ safe- guarded—and there would be no need for our tests to begin. But this must be a fully effec- tive treaty. We know enough now about broken negotiations, secret preparations and the ad- vantages gained from a long test series never to offer again an. uninspected moratorium. Some. may urge us to try it again, keeping our preparations to test in a constant state of readiness. But in actual prac- tice, particularly in a society of free choice, we cannot keep top- flight scientists concentrating on the preparation of an _ experi- ment which may or may not take place on an uncertain date in the future. Nor can large technical laboratories be kept fully alert on a stand by basis waiting for some other nation to break an agreement. This is not merely difficult or incon- venient—we have explored this alternative thoroughly, and found it impossible of execution. In short, in the absence of a firm agreement that would halt nuclear tests by the latter part of April, we shall go ahead with our talks—striving for some new avenue of agreement—but we shall also go ahead with our tests. If, on the other hand, the Soviet Union should accept such a treaty in the opening month of talks, that single step would be a monumental step toward peace—and both Prime Minister Macmillan and I would think it fitting to meet Chairman Khrush- chev at Geneva to sign the final pact. For our ultimate objective is not to test for the sake of test- ing. Our real objective is to make our own tests unneces- sary, to prevent others from testing, to prevent the nuclear 0 1000 Irene en narnnaerremcent Miles atEquator POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TEST SITES 11-71 Bering® © Sea a* ; =, 7 - \9- \ areuTia® Pocific Scenes JAPAN . ISLANDS MIDWAY - Honolulu oe a | WAKE " 23, iF . ~ s via hao ee oe - JOHNSTON - CAROLINE JS. - _ IS. (US.) NEW "faveter ~ GueERT ‘ SRP Se oe meee Se ae ae ee aa et na ----- =e aye., SOLOMON - [curistmas e See IS. 1S. ( Britain) »~ ™® o” : a . 3S. AUSTRALIA < Fist % arms race from mushrooming out of control, to take the first steps toward general and com- plete disarmament. And that. is why, in the last analysis, it is the leaders: of the Soviet Union who must bear the heavy re- sponsibility of choosing, in the weeks that lie ahead, whether we proceed with these steps—or proceed with new tests. If they are convinced that their interests can no longer be served by the present course of events, it is my fer- vent hope that they will agree to an effective treaty. But if they persist in rejecting all means of true inspection, then we shall be left no choice but to keep our own defensives arsenal adequate for the secur- ity of all free men. It is our hope and prayer that these grim, unwelcome tests will never have to be made— that these deadly weapons will never have to be fired—and that our preparations for war will bring us the preservation of peace. Our foremost aim is the control of force, not the pur- suit of force, in a world made safe for mankind. But wnat- ever the future brings, I am sworn to uphold and defend the freedom of the American peo- ple—and I intend to do what- ever must be done to fulfill that solemn obligation. Thank you—and good night. HAWAIIAN AP Wirephoto