Page 12 - CAMPAIGN Winter 2021

10
CAMPAIGN Winter 2021
into radioactive clouds to gain data despite knowledge of the men receiving significant doses of radiation. Penney gave evidence, stating that he did not regard these readings “as very serious as it was a one in a lifetime dose” (McClelland 1985, p. 208).
Document 8 relates that only the Sampling and Tracking Squadron “received doses of radiation”
during flying upon detonation of thermonuclear bombs off Christmas Island. By receiving doses of radiation, the squadron members underwent an element of risk and rigour.
Document 14 p. 8 reveals that for
the cloud flyers, one film badge was issued for each member of the Canberra crew yet “shielding effects from the aircraft body and equipment were anything but constant.” Before 1958, the range of pocket dosimeters was calibrated at ~0-0.5r, but from 1958 this increased 0-50r (document 14 p. 6); Document 18 shows that the maximal permissible exposure 0.5r per week. This is a notable change, as multiple documents from Operation Hurricane, Totem 2, Mosaic, Buffalo and Antler state radiation doses received were 0.5r, and the maximal permissible dose was 0.5r (document 18). If doses were higher than 0.5r, the actual level would not have been recorded due to the minimal calibration levels.
The impression of a lower risk and reading is given, when, in all probability this was not the case according to the recorded experiences of personnel.
Document 14 p.7 states that the pilot was the most vulnerable to a high radiation dosage and the rear crew had more effective protection in comparison to the pilot, however, “certain rays will have a better chance of causing damage to the
occupants than others. Dosimeters are not considered whether accurate or reliable particularly in wet humid climates where the leak rate can be considerable... all occupants are at hazard from this diffusion.” As already mentioned, Christmas Island and the surrounding Pacific has a hot, humid, tropical climate, hence, under these climatic conditions the dosimeters could not be trusted as an accurate representation of personal radiation levels, which was affected by being sideways, upright or otherwise (which in an aircraft was likely), as well as inaccuracies of film development, which added to the risk of service.
Document 14 p. 11 points out that film badges were the cheapest and simplest “method of assessment of aircrew dosage during cloud sampling... their accuracy as an indication of whole-body dose may leave much to be desired.” Again, the film badges were viewed at the time as an inaccurate representation of real data associated with personal radiation levels. This is unfortunate, as the film badges were the only metered check of personal radiation levels during cloud sampling flights.
Document 14 p. 13 clarifies that that there was understanding at the time that radiation readings would be higher in ocular tissues, a highly radiosensitive area, and, even placing a film badge near the eyes for the cloud flyers, would not give a reading of within the eye. The reading would give completely different results through the outer fibrous tunic to the cornea and beyond than through the epidermis, dermis and subcutaneous tissue; The contact matter is dissimilar, and penetration is non-identical.
This would have been the case for all personnel, whether in the air or on
the ground, as ionizing radiation affects the eyes differently even at low radiation dose rates, which can cause macular degeneration, cataracts or lens opacities. Hamada et al. 2019 mention the effect of ionizing radiation on the eyes after exploring the experiences and medical histories of atomic veterans.
The AWRE writes in document 15,
p. 6, that, “The biological principle that all radioactive materials are harmful and should, if possible, be avoided is applicable to peacetime considerations but it is obviously less pressing in times of war.” This document relates that entry to the lungs is harmful and isotopes remain in situ for life. Small particles <5mu remain for life, with “the likelihood of a later malignant neoplastic change cannot be ruled out”, showing a risk to the personnel at the nuclear tests. Additionally, the collection of radiation collecting papers at Maralinga and Christmas Island from the Canberra showed that the type used (Whatman No. 1) is “a type that has been subsequently found to be far from suitable for the task (document 18 p. 2). This is more than unfortunate since servicemen risked their lives at experimental radioactive bomb blasts under orders to fly through mushroom clouds to collect this data for analysis.
MacLellan 2017, p. 173 reveals the radiation risks and inadequate safety measures that the ground crew encountered in addition to the experiences of the cloud flyers. During 1983, Bryan Young, who was a member of the Valiant ground crew at Christmas Island, explained that he was wearing cotton whites whilst cleaning barrier paint from a cloud sampler aeroplane.