Health consequences of exposures of British personnel to radioactivity whilst serving in areas where...

8/10/2019 Health consequences of exposures of British personnel to radioactivity whilst serving in areas where atomic bomb tests were conducted

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/health-consequences-of-exposures-of-british-personnel-to-radioactivity-whilst 1/15

Appendix D

Health consequences of exposures of British

personnel to radioactivity whilst serving in

areas where atomic bomb tests were conducted

Alpha emitters in the fallout and estimated dosimetry for

the Christmas Island Tests; evidence from the secret

documents.

Chris Busby PhD

Castle Cottage, Sea View Place

Aberystwyth, SY23 1DZ UKFeb 10th 2012



1. Scope

I employ the 2nd Gisted secret document table provided by Bevis Parker, DCDS

PERS-PCV-COMP LEGACY AHD (hereafter BP) to calculate the maximum activity

and mass of the alpha emitter components of the Grapple shots on Christmas Island. Ithen calculate the committed effective doses received over a 1 year duty period by a

veteran from reasonable assessed quantities of dispersed alpha emitting fallout on the

island from Grapple Y alone. I employ the conventional method of the International

Commission on Radiological Protection and also modify this using the recommended

dose coefficients of the European Committee on Radiation Risk.

2. Calculating the yields of alpha emitters

The declassified data given by BP states that the numbers represent an upper limit of

alpha activity for the uranium and plutonium components of the fallout. The data are

given in the unusual form of Becquerels per fission. However, in the first gisteddocument (p6 No 022840) it is stated that from U238/f and assuming 1.0Mt (56kg of

fissions) we can calculate the total U238 in the sample. This key statement enables

me to use the fact that one Gram Mole of U238 (238g) contains 6.0 x 1023 atoms

(Avogadro’s Number) to calculate the quantities of material in the fallout tables of BP

on the basis of the Mt test yields of the various bombs. This gives 1.4 x 1026 fissions

per Mt ((5600/ 238) x 6 x 1023). I use this value for all the alpha emitters since they all

have approximately the same atomic mass. I have already carried out some

calculations in my 2nd supplementary report to the tribunal but extend this approach

here to all the alpha emitters and all the Grapple tests. Results are in Tables 1 to 5 for

the different alpha emitters listed in BP.

Table 1 Uranium 238. (Half life 1.41 x 1017s); Specific activity 12.4MBq/kg

Test Bq/fission

(BP)

Yield

Mta

Bq yield Mass

yield tons

(000kg)

Note/

design altitude

G1 5.5E-16 0.3 2.3E+10 1.85 Malden Is

G2 3.6E-16 0.7 3.3E+10 2.67 Malden Is

G3 5.7E-17 0.22 1.7E+9 0.14 Malden Is

GX 1.8 E-16 1.9 4.8E+10 3.87 CI; 2250m

GY 9.5E-17 3.4 4.5E+10 3.63 CI; 2600/1800(?)mGZ-1 2.7E-19 0.023 869E+3 Grams?? CI; 460m balloon

GZ-2 2.0E-17 1.2 3.3E+9 0.27 CI; 2890m

GZ-3 7.6 E-17 0.8 8.5E+9 0.68 CI; 2660m

GZ-4 1.9E-19 0.024 638E+3 Grams ?? CI; 460m balloon

All 13000kg

a Lloyd DE and Belcher BE (1977) Source Book of Optical and Thermal Data from

Major Trials AWRE Report T4/77 and other reports



Table 2 Uranium 235. (Half life 2.22 x1016); Specific activity 80MBq/kg

Test Bq/fission

(BP)

Yield

Mta

Bq yield Mass

yield (kg)

Note/

design altitudeG1 2.5E-16 0.3 1.0E+10 125 Malden Is

G2 3.5E-16 0.7 3.4E+10 425 Malden Is

G3 3.7E-16 0.22 1.1E+9 14 Malden Is

GX 3.1 E-17 1.9 8.2E+9 103 CI; 2250m

GY 2.8E-17 3.4 1.3E+10 163 CI; 2600/1800(?)m

GZ-1 5.5E-18 0.023 17.7E+6 0.22 CI; 460m balloon

GZ-2 5.6E-17 1.2 9.4E+9 117 CI; 2890m

GZ-3 4.8 E-17 0.8 5.3E+9 66 CI; 2660m

GZ-4 7.0E-18 0.024 23E+6 0.3 CI; 460m balloon

All 1013kga Lloyd DE and Belcher BE (1977) Source Book of Optical and Thermal Data from


Table 3 Uranium 234. (Half life 7.76 x 1012); Specific activity 230GBq/kg

Test Bq/fission

(BP)

Yield

Mta

Bq yield Mass

yield (kg)

Note/

design altitude

G1 4.7E-15 0.3 1.97E+11 0.85 Malden Is

G2 1.5E-14 0.7 1.47E+12 6.4 Malden Is

G3 5.8E-15 0.22 1.8E+11 0.8 Malden IsGX 3.9 E-15 1.9 1.0E+12 4.4 CI; 2250m

GY 1.6E-15 3.4 7.6E+11 3.3 CI; 2600/1800(?)m

GZ-1 8.6E-17 0.023 276E+6 Grams CI; 460m balloon

GZ-2 6.2E-16 1.2 1.0E+11 0.4 CI; 2890m

GZ-3 6.3E-15 0.8 7.0E+11 3.0 CI; 2660m

GZ-4 1.2E-15 0.024 4.0E+9 0.02 CI; 460m balloon

All 19.2kg



From the tables we see that considerable quantities of alpha emitters were produced

by the various tests at Christmas Island. From considerations of the properties of the

explosions we can say with some certainty that the Uranium and Plutonium

dispersions from the explosions will have condensed early on in the fireball cloud

owing to their high boiling points relative to both the noble gas precursor nuclides for

the longer lived beta gamma emitters Cs-137 and Sr-90. The Uraniums and

Plutoniums will exist as insoluble respirable ceramic sub micron particles and will

descend to ground more locally than the low melting point fallout residues (Glasstone

1957, Eisenbud and Gesell 1997). Furthermore, they will be washed out of the cloud

locally by any water vapour or seawater drawn into the cloud. I return to this belowwhen I consider Grapple Y.



Table 4 Uranium 240/Plutonium 240. (Half life Pu240 2.07 E+11); Specific activity

Pu-240 8.6E+12Bq/kg

Test Bq/fission

(BP)

Yield

Mta

Bq yield Mass

yield (kg)

Note/

design altitude

G1 1.7E-13 0.3 7.1E+12 0.82 Malden Is

G2 3.9E-14 0.7 3.8E+12 0.44 Malden Is

G3 8.8E-14 0.22 2.7E+12 0.3 Malden Is

GX 6.2E-13 1.9 1.6E+14 18.6 CI; 2250m

GY 1.4E-12 3.4 6.7E+14 78 CI; 2600/1800(?)m

GZ-1 3.2E-17 0.023 103E+6 Grams CI; 460m balloon

GZ-2 3.3E-13 1.2 5.5E+13 6.4 CI; 2890m

GZ-3 1.7E-13 0.8 1.9E+13 2.2 CI; 2660m

GZ-4 2.1E-16 0.024 705E+6 grams CI; 460m balloon

All 106.8kg



Table 5 Plutonium 239. (Half life Pu239 7.6 E+11); Specific activity Pu-240

2.3E+12Bq/kg

Test Bq/fission(BP)

YieldMt

a

Bq yield Massyield (kg)

Note/design altitude

G1 7.4E-13 0.3 3.1E+13 13.5 Malden Is

G2 9.3E-13 0.7 9.1E+13 39.5 Malden Is

G3 9.8E-13 0.22 3.0E+13 13.0 Malden Is

GX 1.5E-12 1.9 4.0E+14 174 CI; 2250m

GY 1.3E-12 3.4 6.2E+14 270 CI; 2600/1800(?)m

GZ-1 1.4E-12 0.023 4.5E+12 1.9 CI; 460m balloon

GZ-2 6.3E-14 1.2 1.0E+13 4.3 CI; 2890m

GZ-3 8.1E-13 0.8 9.1E+13 40 CI; 2660m

GZ-4 3.0E-12 0.024 1.0E+13 4.3 CI; 460m balloon

All 560.5kg



It is clear from the tables that the cumulative test fallout alpha emitting material is a

very large amount. I particularly draw attention to U-234 which I will consider

separately below. Table 6 gives the activity yield and mass yield of Grapple Y and of

the total UK Christmas Island shots.



Table 6 Alpha Fallout yield of Grapple Y and total cumulative yields of all the CI

tests

U238 U-235 U-234 Pu239+240

Grapple Y 4.5E+10 1.3E+10 7.6E+11 1.3E+15All CI tests 1.0E+11 3.6E+10 2.6E+12 2.0E+15

Table 7 Maximum mass (kg) of alpha emitters in yields from Grapple Y and all tests

on Christmas Island

U238 U-235 U-234 Pu239+240

Grapple Y 3630 163 3.3 348

All CI tests 8450 449 11.1 599

It should be particularly noted that these nuclides have virtually no gamma emissions

and will not be detected by Geiger counters. U-238 and U-235 have beta emitting

daughters in secular equilibrium as shown in Table 7. Therefore any device measuring

betas (a scintillation counter) will detect U-238 and U-235. I have employed this

method personally in Iraq and Kosovo to track Depleted Uranium residues. For each

alpha decay of U-238 there will be two beta decays. Note also that in the BP gist table

U-234 activity is between 50 and 70 times the U-235 activity and 19 to 26 times the

U-238 activity. This high activity from U-234 in fallout was noted as a warning to the

UK teams by Karl Z Morgan which was responsible for the health aspects of post shotexposures in the USA n a meeting at Aldermaston in 1952. It arises because of the

separation process for U-235 which also separates U-234. The theoretical ratio U-

234/U235 is 23.6 which is also the activity ratio of U-238/U-235 in natural Uranium

ores where the U234/U238 ratio is 1.0.

Table 7 Uranium beta daughters (fast decay means that the half life is short enough to

expect secular equilibrium).

U-238 U-235 U-234

Th-234 beta fast Th-231 beta fast Th-239 alpha

Pa234m beta fast Pa-231 alpha slowU-234 alpha slow

3. Calculating the mean surface contamination from Grapple Y and the

resuspension inhalation doses from the alpha emitters.

I begin by discounting all of the reported measurements of fallout on Christmas Island

after the tests. First because these were gamma measurements and will not have

detected alpha emitters. Second because they were based upon sticky papers and as I

have reported, these were either brought in during rain or were destroyed by rain, so

even the gamma measurements are unsafe.



Second, for at least Grapple Y there are good reasons to believe that significant

quantities of water were drawn into the cloud from the sea and that rain fell

immediately after the test. This rain derived from the water drawn into the fireball and

also from the tropical moist air. It will have contained the alpha emitting glassy sub

micron particles. As I pointed out in my 2nd and 3rd supplement report, the upper wind

will have drawn the cloud to the east of CI and any rain will have then been driven back over the island by the lower SE wind.

To give an idea of the range of contamination, I will begin by assuming that from 5 to

20% of the alpha emitter yield uniformly contaminated the island area which I model

as 50 x 20km = 1.0 x 109 m2. The resultant area activities are given in Table 8.

Table 8 Calculated area contamination Bqm-2 from Grapple Y with air concentration

at a resuspension factor (dusty island) of 1 x 10 -5.

Nuclide Contamination

@5%

Contamination

@ 20%

Range of air concentrations

Bq/m-3 U-238 2.25 9 2.25E-5 to 9E-5

U-235 6.5 26 6.5E-5 to 26E-5

U-234 38 152 38E-5 to 152E-5

Pu239 31000 124000 3.1 to 12.4

Pu240 33500 134000 3.35 to 13.4

In Table 9 I give the ICRP72 inhalation dose coefficients Sv/Bq for these alpha

emitters. It is clear that the main hazard is from inhalation. There is also an ingestion

dose but this is second order. Dose coefficients for ingestion are given in Table 10.

Table 9 ICRP and ECRR2010 dose coefficients for inhalation of alpha emitters in the

form of particulates fallout

Nuclide ICRP72 inhalation

(refractory, type S)

ECRR2010 inhalation

(particulates)

U-238 8.0E-6 8.4E-3

U-235 8.5E-6 9.0E-3

U-234 9.4E-6 1.0E-2

Pu-239 1.6E-5 7.5E-5

Pu-240 1.6E-5 7.5E-5

Table 10 ICRP and ECRR2010 dose coefficients for ingestion of alpha emitters in the

form of particulate fallout

Nuclide ICRP72 ingestion


ECRR2010 ingestion

(particulates)

U-238 4.5E-8 4.5 E-6

U-235 4.7E-8 4.7 E-6

U-234 4.5E-8 4.5E-6

Pu-239 2.5E-7 1.2E-6Pu-240 2.5E-7 1.2E-6



ICRP reference man (ICRP 23 1975) inhales 23m3 of air per day, so over a period of 1

year an individual inhales 8395m3. The annual doses from inhalation of the

resuspended alpha emitters on CI are given in Table 11.

Table 11 ICRP and ECRR2010 annual committed effective doses from inhalation ofalpha emitters resuspended in air on Christmas Island due to Grapple Y alone. Ranges

based on 5% to 20% fallout.

Nuclide ICRP72 inhalation


ECRR2010 inhalation

(particulates)

U-238 1.5uSv 6.4uSv 1.6mSv 6.3mSv

U-235 4.6uSv 18uSv 4.8mSv 19.5mSv

U-234 30uSv 120uSv 32mSv 127mSv

Pu-239 420mSv 1660mSv 1960mSv 7840mSv

Pu-240 459mSv 1836mSv 2151mSv 8606mSv

These appear to be very large doses, and they are. However, it should be noted that

these are committed effective dose equivalents, which means that the doses are those

that will be received over the period in which these particles remain in the body,

which for the insoluble Type S particles modeled can be up to 20 years. If we take the

high end ICRP Pu-240 committed effective dose equivalent of 1836mSv this will be

delivered over perhaps 10 years. If we assume 25% of this is in the first year, the dose

per week is 1/52 of this i.e 8.8mSv. This is below the threshold for clinical

deterministic effects though we might expect skin rashes, nose bleeding and upper

respiratory problems, coughs, bronchitis etc, (and upset stomachs from particlesswallowed) immediately after exposure since the doses are, of course, not in reality

averaged over kilograms of tissue but are located near the particles, the point made by

the ECRR analysis. From this point of view, the Uranium particles are perhaps more

dangerous as a long term genotoxic hazard since the plutonium “hot particles” will

kill cells rather than mutate them. This will be “wasted energy”. All of these

symptoms were reported by Christmas Island veterans in my BNTVA Children’s

study. In other words, these are chronic low doses over a long period of time. Their

effects would be observable objectively through biological markers such as

chromosome defects like those found in the New Zealand veterans by Al Rowland’s

studies and many of the exposed individuals will have suffered general ill health and

perhaps died early. The genetic transgenerational effects would also show as they didin Fallujah Iraq.

4. Grapple Y: Seawater source of rainfall

In my 2nd Supplementary report, Jan 2012, I employed a report released under the

Freedom of Information requests to re-analyse the fallout and rainout from the

Grapple Y test which was carried out over the sea in the SW corner of the island. I

argued that heavy rain occurred after this test and assumed that this rain resulted from

the drawing into the mushroom cloud the moist tropical air from sea level. However

information has come available since then which throws new light on the issue.

Photographs and films taken by the Canberra aircraft of the development ofthe mushroom cloud show what seems to be an object being drawn into the mushroom



cloud. I append the photograph and a cropped section in Figs 1 and 2. Close

examination of the cloud development shows a large mass (or more than one)

apparently being drawn up from the surface into the fireball. As this mass enters the

fireball, a skirt of what seems to be water vapour is thrown down from the mushroom,

and this is followed by a second skirt in the last frame. Thus we are left with what

looks like two “petticoats” of vapour below the mushroom head, with a gap betweenthem. This seems to be a property of air bursts over the sea. In Fig 3 I show a photo of

a USA air burst Truckee (210kT) over the sea near Christmas Island (Light 2007). The

“petticoats” are clearly apparent. These are not seen in any photos of air burst devices

over the land (in 100 photographs of atomic explosions I have examined (Light 2007)

but I cannot say they do not exist.

I have used a laboratory travelling microscope to determine the dimensions of

the labeled object seen flying upwards into the Grapple Y mushroom. If we take the

Mushroom head diameter to be 8 miles diameter (13km) which is based on the Sniff

measurements and speeds (given in my 2nd Supplement) then the dimension of this

object modeled as a cylinder are L = 1.77km; D = 0.59km. The volume of this is thus

484 million cubic metres. We do not know what this object is. If sea water this isabout half a billion tons of sea water splashed up and drawn into the fireball. If water

vapour as a cloud at formation it is about ten million cubic metres of water. I believe

this is caused by the blast driving a hemispherical depression in the sea and the filling

of the depression and recovery from hydrostatic pressure resulting in the explosive

meeting in the centre of the water rushing in to replace the displaced water. Anyone

who has dropped a large rock in a pond knows that a vertical mass of water is ejected

following the closure of the temporary hole in the water surface. What would happen

when this was lifted into and hit the hot centre? It would explode into water vapour

which would be driven outwards radially and would condense where it met the

extremely cold air existing at that altitude. This would create the petticoat. Further

separated similar water elements would create further petticoats separated by the gaps

in their arriving at the hot centre. However speculative this description of the petticoat

effect is, there is no doubt that a very large object, is clearly seen apparently moving

upwards into the centre of the fireball.

There is a different possible interpretation. The object might be a condensation

phenomenon resulting from water drawn into the fireball from the sea condensing out

as the air cools and the fireball rises. In this case there would only be 10 million cubic

metres of water in the object (based on mean water vapour density in a cloud).

The impact of the blast on the sea surface is large. Using the relationships in

Glasstone 1957 it can be shown that the overpressure at the blast front of a 3Mton

device is roughly 3 atmospheres (50psi) at a distance from the centre of 1800m. Thisrepresents the pressure exerted by column of water of 32m. The effect of this and its

magnitude depend on the position of the Grapple Y burst and its height. In Fig 4 I

show a map which shows sea depths between two positions given in different

documents for the burst. The height of the burst was intended to be about 2500m but

John Large has analysed the situation and is of the opinion that the detonation

occurred far lower than this at about 1500m (Large 2010). He also believes that large

amounts of surface material were drawn into the cloud, indeed as I argue here and as

the photographs show. The depth of the sea at the referenced location of Grapple Y

was between 1m and 60m (see Fig 4). Whatever the position, the shock wave at the

surface will have been formidable. The blast will have pushed aside the water and hit

the sea bed over perhaps one third of the hemispherical shock wave radius at sea levelof several kilometers. The material will have been incorporated into the rapidly rising



Fig 1. The Canberra photos of the Grapple Y development. These are

sequential (top left to bottom right).

5. Discussion

The data provided in the unclassified Gist by (BP) is of maximum levels of alpha

materials in the cloud sampling data. The activities are stated to be up to 10 times thereal values, data which we are not allowed to see. Since I assume the purpose of the



secrecy is to ensure that we do not see the true nuclide ratios, this 10-fold will not be

uniform across the nuclides. Therefore we cannot claim that the inhalation doses are

accurate. But it does seem that we can say that they are not in error by more than a

factor of ten. There are some interesting results from this exercise. First, it seems that

U-234 is a far greater hazard in terms of effective dose than U-235 or U-238. Second

it seems that the Plutoniums are greater hazards than the Uraniums even if we employthe ECRR weighting factors. The quantities of plutonium in the fallout are very great,

even allowing for the factor of ten included in the gisting process. The baseline is that

it is quite clear that the alpha emitter contamination represented a serious hazard, and

even if only a fraction of the material came to earth in the rainout, it will have

constituted the source of significant internal doses. If only 1% of the plutoniums from

the Grapple Y test came to earth the committed effective doses over one year will

have been of the order of 100s of mSv and these doses will have been delivered to

veterans who did not experience any tests and will have not been issued with any

badges. As I have pointed out above, these are committed effective doses and the first

year dose will perhaps by 25% of the overall lifetime committed does given by the

ICRP and ECRR dose coefficients. Their effects will; also have been largely chronic.Do we have any independent evidence for these contaminations? We do. First,

we have a report from the New Zealand Department of Health survey stating clearly

that Uranium was found in many samples. In any case by the time of the New Zealand

survey the glassy alpha particulates will have been washed into the porous coral soil.

Second, we have more contemporaneous evidence in the anomalous beta gamma

ratios reported by AE Oldbury in the 1963 and 1962 decontamination reports which I

have discussed in my earlier supplements. These flag up far greater contamination by

Uranium than I have calculated from the gisted data.

The quantities of Uranium and Plutonium calculated for the various bombs

seem reasonable in terms of mass, particularly for the U-238. These calculations show

what enormous amounts of radioactivity were involved in these nuclear tests, and in

my expert opinion, it is inconceivable that the veterans will have been adequately

protected from exposure to the contamination given the combination of poor

measurement routines and the magnitude of the explosions relative to the size of the

island. The mechanisms for contamination are clearly apparent.



Fig 2. The mysterious object in the Grapple Y cloud (indicated). See also the

“petticoats” of water vapour below the mushroom cap..



Fig 3. Truckee the US 210kT nuclear test at Christmas island 1962 and the

petticoats (Light 2007)



Fig 4 Depths of the sea at point lying between two different reported positions

of the Grapple Y test A and K. Note that the radius of the fireball at sea level was

about 10km and so the actual position is of second order importance relative to the

diameter of the fireball and ultimate cloud.

Refs:

Clare PM, Grinstead KH and Saxby WN (1987) Annual Background Radiation: UK

and Christmas island 1956-64. SFS/MOD (PE) AWRE 1986 amended 1987; AWESTDN 14/87. Aldermaston

CRC (1981) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics Boca Raton USA: CRC Press

Eisenbud M and Gesell T (1997) Environmental Radioactivity San Diego, USA:

Academic Press

Light M (2007) 100 Solar 1945-1962 Stockholm: Bokforlaget Max Strom

McEwan AC, Matthews KM, Gregory LP (1981) An Environmental radiation survey

on Christmas Island, Kiribati: Department of Health. New Zealand National Radiation

Laboratory No 1981/9.



ICRP23 (1975) Report of the task Group on Reference Man. ICRP23 Oxford:

Pergamon Press

Oldbury AE (1963) SSCTD Technical Memorandum No 6/63 Operation DOMINICDecontamination Group Report AWRE SSCTD 6/63

Oldbury AE (1962) Decontamination of Cloud Sampling Aircraft AWRE report T

16/62

UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation Vol 1 Sources. New

York: UN.

Health consequences of exposures of British personnel to radioactivity whilst serving in areas where...

Documents

Transcript of Health consequences of exposures of British personnel to radioactivity whilst serving in areas where...