These are the people I am fighting for to publish the Navy reports on my Treasure Island website and on this Disaster Area website documenting the Navy’s contamination of Hunters Point shipyard by the US Navy’s Radiological Defense Laboratory based at Hunters Point and at Treasure Island, the Navy’s Atomic, Biological and Chemical Warfare Training Center.
1:50 USS independence next to the Nagato before Test Able 2:20 target ships mapped 4:14 The scientists and samples 6:00 Radio controlled drones 7:00 Manhattan project scientists at Kwajalein 9:40 dropping of the bomb 14:31 diffused cloud “dangerous radioactive particles in the air had become so diffused it was no longer a danger to the area.” 15:52 camera on bikini showing shock wave. 17:20 map of what ships got hit as they dropped the bomb off target. Independence noted 18:55 Independence seen just after explosion when the support ships entered the lagoon. 21:54 animals 24:31 Skate stating the inside were damaged, so they went inside it. 25:21 USS Independence 27:34 Baker Test, second test underwater explosion. 40:00 USS Independence
Aluminum, Brass, Concrete, Glass, Iron and Mild Steel, Lucite, Plexiglass and Other Acrylic Plastics, Monel, Paint, Plastics Other Than Acryiic Based Plastics, Porcelain, Rubber, Skin, Stainless Steel and Tile.
Immediate use of a synthetic detergent-sequestrant mixture has been reported to give better decontamination than if the use of the mixture is preceded by soap and water wash. However, no temperature was given for the water used and if the water was warm enough to cause the pores to open, the decontamination solution, normally used cold, would have a difficult time removing the activity. At Los Alamos steps
one and two of the recommended procedure normally give sufficient decontamination.
For decontamination of hair, omit the KMnO4 treatment.
A. Recommended procedure.
1. Lather with liquid soap, using cold water, rinse thoroughly. 2. If count still remains, wash with synthetic detergent and sequestrant in a ratio of 1:2. Rinse with water.
a. Sequestrants such as:
b. Do not use oxalates!
C.P. Cleaner, manufactured by Finley Products, Inc., is also satisfactory. Apply as label directs.
3. If count still remains, scrub with KMnO4 crystals wet with just enough water to make thick paste. Rinse thoroughly. Repeat 5 times. Remove color with a 4% NaHSO3 solution. (Use only as a last resort.)
4. Apply TiO2 paste and rub thoroughly. Remove by swabbing. Rinse thoroughly with water.
B. Decontamination solutions in order of decreasing effectiveness.
1. TiO2 paste (expensive) 2. KMnO4 paste; color removed with 4% NaHSO3
3. Synthetic detergent – sequestrant 4. C.P. Cleaner or similar hand cleaner 5. 3% trisodium nitrolotriacetate – synthetic detergent 6. 3% Na citrate, ph 7.0 7. 3% Na acetate, ph 2.0 8. 3% Na tartrate, ph 7.0 9. 3% Na lactate, ph 7.0 10. 3% glycine 11. 3% Na acetate, ph 7.0 12. Water with liquid soap 13. Isotonic saline solution
Purposely contaminating hands to see what damage it would do and to figure out how to protect hands during radiation tests. Also this shows how they lay out radiation tests with the names of the mailing lists. At the time of publication this was secret information so they kept track of who got which report. Note “* number” is the citation number. La140 is Lanthanum 140 a radioactive isotope which is a daughter product of Barium 140 and due to its use this means that at Camp Stoneman had a hot cell on hand to mix the radioactive materials into the sand so workers deposited the radiation using lawn fertilizer spreaders onto roofs, yards and roads in what is now modern day Pittsburg California.
This article is the result of the staff being contaminated by spreading radioactive materials all over buildings, streets and roads of what is present day Pittsburg California and was the second Camp Stoneman radiation test published in 1958. Previous studies had been conducted using more damaging long lasting radiological isotopes and they wanted to make sure that they were cleaning up with sufficient means to protect themselves from the radiation. Pittsburg California Radiation Experiments covering half of the City
Health and Safety Technical Objective AW-5C – Technical Developments Branch M. B. Hawkins, Head Chemical Technology Division E. R. Tompkins, Head Scientific Director Commanding Officer and Director P. C. Tompkins Captain J. H. McQuilkin, USN U. S. NAVAL RADIOLOGICAL DEFENSE LABORATORY San Francisco 24, California
ABSTRACT Hands of field test personnel became radioactively con- taminated with (a) dust slurry synthetic fallouts containing La140 tracer, and (b) La140 in acid solution. Two protective creams and several cleaning materials were used in an attempt to reduce adherance of contaminant and to facilitate decontamination. The protective creams were not found to be advantageous. Three experimental cleaning solutions (isotonic neutral solution of a complexing agent plus a detergent and germicide; an isotonic saline solution at pH 2.0 plus detergent and germicide; and a 3% citric acid solution) were found to decontaminate skin more readily than soap and water. A waterless mechanic’s hand cleaner was found to clean hands with the same effectiveness as soap and water.
ii U N C L A S S I F I E D
NONTECHNICAL SUMMARY The Problem Radioactive contamination of the skin of personnel following a nuclear weapon detonation or a radiological accident can constitute a serious health problem. However, study of preventing contamination or removing contaminant until now has been limited to laboratory-scale tests of creams and liquids for protecting and cleaning hands. Evaluation under field conditions has been lacking. Findings The hands of personnel became contaminated with synthetic fallout during a land reclamation field test. Two protective creams were used in an attempt to reduce adherance of the contaminant, and several cleaning materials to facilitate decontamination. The protective creams were not found to be advantageous. Three experimental cleaning solutions were found to decontaminate skin more readily than soap and water. A waterless hand cleaner was found to clean hands with the same effectiveness as soap and Water. –
iii U N C L A S S I F I E D
U N C L A S S I F I E D
The work reported was an outgrowth of an investigation conducted by this laboratory under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the U. S. Army (OCE). This investigation is described, as Program 6, Problem 3, in this laboratory’s Preliminary Presentation of USNRDL Technical Program for FY 1957, dated February 1956. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This test was made possible by the cooperation of Mr. J. D. Sartor, who was conducting a field test in which the synthetic fallout was produced and utilized. He and his entire team were most generous in donating time for the hand-cleaning tests.
The technical assistance of Mr. D. A. Gustafson, of the San Francisco Naval Shipyard Electronics Shop, was invaluable for maintaining continuous instrument operation.
iv. U N C L A S S I F I E D
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION INTRODUCTION
Radioactive contamination of the skin of personnel following a nuclear weapon detonation or a radiological accident can constitute a serious health problem. However, study of preventing contamination or removing contaminant until now has been limited to laboratory tests on the cleaning of contaminated skin. No information is available on the relative merits of cleaning materials used under field conditions.
Prevention through the use of rubber gloves is desirable, but under field conditions this may not always be practical or possible. Also, contaminants have been known to penetrate surgeon’s gloves.*1 Therefore, it is necessary to have alternate means of protecting or cleaning hands which are vulnerable to contamination under field conditions.
Various laboratories that utilize radioisotopes in research have published the results of case studies in which the skin of personnel which had become accidentally contaminated were decontaminated. Most of these decontaminations were performed with strong chemical reagents which are generally not applicable to field work inasmuch as they require careful supervision to prevent serious skin irritation.
Mild chemical skin decontamination methods were studied at USNRDL in 1949. *2 Two types of solutions that appeared suitable were developed: one type consisted of isotonic neutral solutions of complexing agents, plus a detergent and germicide; the other was an isotonic saline solution at pH 2.0, plus a isotonic and germicide. The toxicity of these solutions was studied in 1950; *3 both were found slightly irritating, probably due to the germicide. This study also showed that these solutionſ tended to increase the absorption into the body of a soluble Sr89CL2 contaminant.
At Operation CASTLE the hands of technical personnel and decontamination crews often became contaminated. Usually the contaminant was removable by scrubbing with soap and water or scrubbing with a mixture of
 U N C L A S S I F I E D
cornmeal and detergent, but on one particular individual such treatment did not remove the contaminant. An ammoniacal petroleum-based waterless hand cleaner was found to be effective in cleaning this individual’s hands.
Barrier creams, advertised as reducing dermatitis caused by contact agents, such as solvents, grimes, pollens, and irritating plants, are a possible preventive. The use of barrier creams has reduced the problem of skin contamination in one atomic energy plant;” but tests using barrier creamſ: to reduce the effect of other contact agents have not been conclusive. *4
Barrier creams may actually interpose a physical barrier between the skin and potential contaminating agents. The cream, if applied heavily enough, might even act as a shield against alpha and low-energy beta radiation. Personnel from this laboratory who have used various barrier creams found them generally useful for reducing the effect required to clean hands after working with ordinary industrial greases, paints, and grimes, and the creams caused no skin irritation. It was upon these bases that a test of the value of barrier creams was proposed for Operation REDWING as part of Project 2.8. Only limited data were obtained due to the effectiveness of the Radiological Safety Program. *5
USNRDL conducted a land target recovery field test at Camp Stoneman, Pittsburg, California, in September 1956. Full-scale decontamination procedures were used on limited areas contaminated with synthetic fallout; this provided an excellent opportunity to test methods and procedures of hand decontamination. This report describes the experiment which was undertaken. The objectives were to determine the effectiveness of barrier creams in preventing contamination from adhering to hands and to determine the effectiveness of a waterless cleaner and three experimental solutions in removing radiological contamination from the skin of the hands.
During the land target recovery tests the normal field pperation duties included: Le140 solution preparation; mixing the La140 solution with soil to make the synthetic fallout; dispersing the synthetic fallout; radiation survey; and decontamination operations. Selected test personnel were given the experimental protection of a barrier cream prior to entering the contaminated area. Any person returning from the contaminated area with over 500 c/min on his hands, as determined by the Radiological Safety Monitor, was directed by the monitor to the hand cleaning center where a sequence of count-clean-count was performed on the palms of his hands using the experimental procedures described below in the section headed “Cleaning.” When the experimental band cleaning sequence for an individual was completed, he was released to the Radiological Safety Group for routine personnel decontamination.
 U N C L A S S I F I E D
Three types of contaminant were used in this experiment. Most of the data on which this report is based came from contamination by synthetic fallout traced with La140; other data came from contamination by acid La140 solution used in preparing the synthetic fallouts. The La140 is a Beta and Gamma-emitting radioisotope with a 40-hr half-life.
The two types of synthetic fallout were: dry, using ambrose clay loam and slurry, using San Francisco Bay harbor bottom material. The La140 tracer concentrations for these synthetic fallouts were 7.5 µc/g and 0.75 µc/g, giving a total of four combinations.6 Previous experiments had indicated that the La140 was firmly adsorbed to, the synthetic fallout and that cleaning operations did not desorb the La140 from the bulk carrier material; in other words, the detection of La140 radiations was a good indication of the presence of synthetic fallout.”7
The third contaminant type was the acid La140 solution. The La140 in this solution was in a chemical form suitable for absorbing onto most solids, The La140 in this form was not a tracer for a bulk carrier material; it was the contaminant.
The routine rad-safe procedure for protecting the hands of those performing the La140 solution preparation included the wearing of surgeon’s gloves, while cotton gloves were worn when manual work was being performed. Additional experimental protection was provided to randomly selected personnel by the application of a barrier cream prior to working in the contaminated areas.
The creams tested were Cream A., a hard, wax-like cream,” and Cream B, a soft, easily smoothed cream similar to common cleansing cream.*8 Both were proprietary preparations selected as suitable for Wet work.
The hand cleaning was performed by test personnel under supervision. A vigorous l- to 2-min wash was prescribed, but not timed. Drying was done with paper towels. The formulations of the different washes tested and application procedures are given in Table 1
Soap and water washing was chosen as a control. The EDTA and saline solutions were selected as a result of previous work at USNRDL.*2 The waterless cleaner was selected because of favorable experience at Operation CASTLE. The citric acid was recommended by the Radiological. Safety Representative for the field tests.
“Kerodex 71,” manufactured by Ayrst Laboratories, New York, New York. – 3 U N. C. L. A. S. S. I. F. I. E. D
Two washings by the same method were performed in each case, unless one wash brought the count very close to the background count. More than two washings using the same method were performed When activity levels permitted.
In some instances of unusually high beta readings, more than one cleaning method was prescribed.
The instrument for routine initial radiological safety monitoring was a Geiger-Muller end-window count rate meter.* The instrument used in this study for assessing contamination on the palms of the hands was the USNRDL Large Area Beta Detector. This instrument, designed and built by the Nucleonics Division of USNRDL, consists of a modified AN/UDR-9 radiac set, a pre-amplifier, and a detector. A 5-min timer** replaces the normal switching and timing circuits of the AN/UDR-9 to simplify the operation of the instrument. The pre-amplifier is a 3-tube device with a voltage gain of approximately 1,000. The detector uses an 8 x 10 x 1/8-in, sheet of plastic scintillant.* The scintillant is coupled with 106 centistoke DC-200 silicone oil be a segmented plexiglas light-pipe, which is coupled to a 5-in. diameter photomultiplier tube.* The detector pre-amplifier combination is contained in a light-tight box with a removable cover. The instrument was set to give a 15-sec count. The physical relationship between a person with his hands in position for counting and the elements of the beta counter preamplifier is shown in Figure 1.
Two 12-µc samples of synthetic fallout were prepared for instrument standardization. Sample l was 0.75 µc/g San Francisco Bay mud (dried). Sample 2 was 7.5 µc/g San Francisco Bay mud (dried). The averaged 15-sec count was used as the standardization factor to convert from counts per 15 sec (c/15 sec) to microcuries (µc).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The effectiveness of the various methods tested is expressed as a residual fraction, the beta radiation reading of the palms of the hands taken immediately after a washing divided by the beta reading taken
** “Microflex” Timer, Eagle Signal Corp., Moline, Ill. *** “Scintilon B”, National Radiac, Newark, N. T. **** Type 6364, A.B. Dumont Inc., Clifton, New Jersey.
U N C L A S S I F I E D
Fig. 2 Comparison of Waterless Cleaner With Soap and Water
immediately before the washing (that is, the readings taken before and after any one of several washings). All types of contaminant are included in the evaluation of a cleaning method, unless otherwise noted.
The two barrier creams tested, when used in conjunction with a soap and water wash, gave approximately the same results as a soap and water wash with no special protection (Table 2).
The residual fractions for the soap, EDTA, and waterless cleaning methods were divided into three groups to determine gross effects due to initial contamination level. These group divisions were based on initial level: less than 0.03 µc, 0.03 to 0-3 µc, and greater than 0.3 µc. The logarithmic mean residual fractions are presented in Table 2. They were normalized to l µc, 0.l µc and 0.01 µc for convenience of comparison (Figs. 2 and 3). The results presented are for all three contaminant types combined. The British maximum permissible level9 of fixed radioactivity on the skin is 10*-5 µc/cm3, which is equal to 0.00, µc uniformly distributed on the palms of both hands.”
The U. S. has no comparable maximum permissible level.
U N C L A S S I F I E D
Fig. 3 Comparison of Aqueous Cleaning Methods
Waterless Hand Cleaner
The averages of the first Washings with waterless cleaner were approximately as effective as the equivalent soap washings (Table 2, Fig. 2). A review of the washing procedure will show that while the soap and water washing method was not limited by the amount of water that could be used, the waterless method used only 15 cc of cleaner for one Washing
The average residual contamination from Washing with EDTA was considerably lower than that of soap and water (Table 2, Fig. 3).
To further test the effectiveness of EDTA, we deviated from the original plan of using a single Washing method; the initial Washing was with soap, the second with EDTA, The result of this test showed that the
U N C L A S S I F I E D
residual fraction for the EDTA wash was smaller than residual fraction for the soap wash. Also, two EDTA washings removed more contamination than the one soap wash plus one EDTA wash.
Saline Solution, pH-2.
The average residual contamination from washing with the acidic saline solution was considerably lower than that of soap and somewhat higher than that of the EDTA (Table 2, Fig. 3).
A test, similar to the special test for EDTA, was performed using the saline solution (Table 2, Fig. 3). The first two washings were with soap. The third was with saline solution. The residual-fraction from the saline solution washing averaged about half the residual fraction for the equiv- alent soap wash, showing that the saline solution removed the contaminant to a greater degree than soap.
Citric Acid Solution.
The citric acid solution was given a cursory test (Table 2, Fig. 3). The average residual from the citric acid washing was approximately the same as that of the EDTA and saline solutions.
Miscellaneous Cleaning Methods.
Three individual case studies are reported (Fig. 5). In these, an assortment of methods was used on each subject to remove a relatively high level of contamination from the hands. Conventional methods were used at the beginning and as they appeared to lose effectiveness experimental methods were tried in an attempt to reduce contamination of the hands as much as possible. In two of these cases it appeared as though contamination were “fixed” at approximately 0.1 µc but upon changing to EDTA wash the hands were cleaned to less than 0.01 µc.
Near the conclusion of the test series, two individuals’ hands became contaminated to approximately 5 µc, presumably from the acid La140 solution. One sequence of soap scrub, water rinse, EDTA scrub, water rinse (using a nylon scrub brush and warm solutions, including rinse) was used as a washing procedure. The final levels were approximately 0.05 µc, or overall residual fraction of 0.01. The cleaning sequence used in these two cases may be of interest if further investigative work is to be performed.
In another instance a man mistakenly used the waste water from the day’s hand decontamination work (containing a combination of all cleaning solutions) as the wash for his hands. His hands had an initial contami- nation level of .006 µc, which was considerable lower than the average for the day; but the waste solution cleaned his hands to .002 µc, nearly background. This one case indicates that in the event of water shortage, cleaning solutions cans perhaps, be reused. Naturally, more data would be required to substantiate the idea and to explore possible adverse side effects.
A nylon brush was used to a very limited degree against resistant contaminant, as the Health Physics Representative had warned us that the contaminant would be driven into the skin by brushing. No adverse effects were observed. The results of one case where a nylon brush was used are presented (Fig. 4). Further investigation could be applied to reevaluating the effect of scrubbing the skin with a nylon brush, perhaps after an initial Wash without brushing.
No attempt was made to determine toxic effects of the cleaning preparation or barrier creams. Each person used several materials over the period of the field operation; therefore effects could not be isolated. Several persons, who did not regularly use the soft cream emollient which was available, complained of chapped skin. Previous works indicated a Slight toxicity of two cleaning solutions traceable primarily to the disinfectant.
Comparison of Contaminant Types.
In a parallel analysis the data for soap, washing were separated by contaminant type and compared, i.e. , acid La140 solution, slurry 0.75 µc/g, slurry 7.5 µc/g, loan 0.75 µc/g, loam 7.5 uc/g. Slurry contaminant with 7.5 uc/g was the only one that showed a noticeably different residual fraction; it apparently was easier to remove than other contaminants. As there were only four data points showing this effect no definite conclusions can be drawn concerning the effect of contaminant type.
Initial Level Effect.
The effectiveness of the first washing was related to the initial contamination level. In general, a lower residual fraction was obtained from the washing of hands contaminated to a higher initial level of La140. This would be expected if there were a maximum level of tightly adhering synthetic fallout. There was no observable difference in the residual fractions, with respect to contamination level, for the second or third Washings.
Comparison With Previous Laboratory Study.
Comparison of some of the findings from this field test and a laboratory experiment performed in 1949, *2 upon which a portion of the field test work was based, show that in tooth cases EDTA and saline solutions were more effective decontamination agents than soap, leaving a residual fraction of approximately half that of soap. Laboratory experiments using rats gave much lower residual fractions than those observed at the field test; however, the second Washings at the field test gave residual fractions numerically almost the same as the second washing on the skin from a cadaver in laboratory tests. An additional factor, which lends further interest to the correspondence of
U N C L A S S I F I E D
the findings, is that the contaminating agents were quite different: synthetic fallout (and La** in acid solution, in a few instances) was used for field work, while a neutral solution of Sr** was used in the laboratory experiments.
Laboratory-scale decontamination tests were performed with the cooperation of human volunteer subjects*10 at approximately the same time as the field tests. A synthetic fallouts composed of Ambrose clay-loam traced with La140, was dry-sprayed onto a 10-cm2 area of the underside of the forearm, then rubbed into the skin with a rounded glass rod.
The residual fractions resulting from the cleaning operations were much lower for the laboratory tests than for the field tests, indicating that the methods were more effective in removing the synthetic fallout under the laboratory conditions. This may have been a result of a com- bination of effects, among which are the type of skin studied (i.e., palms vs underside of forearm), the total area contaminated, the mechanical action grinding the synthetic fallout into skin and mechanical action of scrubbing, the degree of supervision, the synthetic fallout contact time, etc.
However, the qualitative findings of both tests were essentially the same: barrier creams offered no large decontamination advantage, the first wash was the most effective wash (when a single cleaning agent was used), waterless mechanic’s hand cleaner was at least as effective a decontamination agent as soap and water, and EDTA and citric acid were more effective than soap as decontamination agents.
Potential Decontamination Methods
Some cleaning formulations have been suspected of increasing the absorption of Sr89C12 solution into the body.*3 However, before any cleaner is disqualified for this reasons all its properties should be weighed in the light of anticipated field con- ditions. It may be that after the contaminant has been in contact with skin for several hours, the additional absorption caused by the use of a special cleaner would be negligible. Furthermore, it may be possible that for some instances of high level contamination, a two-part wash (such as described in the second paragraph under “Miscellaneous Cleaning Methods,” would be desirable in an effort to maximize removal and minimize absorption.
The wetting agent, used alone in 0.5-percent solution has been shown to be a good decontamination agent.”*2 It may be advantageous to further evaluate this agent, for absorptions toxicity, and decontamination effectiveness under field conditions a
U N C L A S S I F I E D
The barrier cream pre-treatments did not detectably alter the effort required to remove the contaminants by soap and water washing.
The waterless hand cleaner showed the same effectiveness as soap and water in removing contaminant from the hands, but required the least total material volume of all cleaners tested.
The EDTA, saline, and citric acid solutions (as formulated) were more effective than soap and water in removing the contaminant.
There was no observable difference in decontamination effectiveness traceable to contaminant type.
There is no method yet which has shown itself to be reliable enough in cleaning contaminated hands to be used without the necessity of a radiation check after washing, to comply with peace-time maximum permissable levels. Approved by: E. R. Tompkins Head, Chemical Technology Division
For the Scientific Director
U N C L A S S I F I E D
Towler, G. S. Utilization of Barrier Creams in Atomic Energy Plants. Atomics Eng. Technol. , Vol. is No. 3, p. 88.
Mayer, S. W. & Britton, J. B. The Removal of Radioactive Contaminants From Skin by Solutions of Complexing Agents, Keratolytics and Detergents. U. S. Naval Radiological Defense. Laboratory Report AD-118(C), 29 April 1949.
Loeffler, R. K. , Thomas, V. A Quantitative Study of Percutaneous Absorption. II. Toxicity and Effect. Upon Absorption of Two Decontamination Solutions • U. C. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory Report AD-25l.(B), 2 October 1950.
Madson’s As Patch Tsäts on Skin Prepared With Kerodex. Acta Dermato Vernereological, Vol. 32, supplementum 22 (1952), p. 213.
Heiskell, R. H. Shipboard Radiological Counter–Measure Methods. Project 2.8, Operation REDWING, Interim Test Report ITR-1322, U. S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, July 1956 (Classified).
Weisbecker, L. W. , Lane; W. B. “Hot Laboratory for Producing Synthetic Radioactive Fallout.” Advances and Problems in Nuclear Engineering. Pergamon Press, Inc London, 1957
Wiltshire, L. L., et ai. The Absorption of La 140 on Ambrose Clay Loam. U. S. Naval. Radiological Defense Laboratory Technical * Memorandum No. 67; 3 January 1957
Private Communications, Dr. G. H. Hiatt’s Eastman Kodak Co., and Pat , No. 2,221,139 and 2,249,523.
Dunster, H. J., The Derivation of Maximum Permissible Levels of Contaminé+ion of Surfaces by R&#icactive Materials • Atomic Energy Research Establishment (Great Britain), AERE HP/R 1495, 5 July 1954.
Friedman, W. F., Decontamination of Synthetic Radioactive Fallout From the Intact Human Skin. Am. Ind. Hyg: J., Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 15, February 1958.
U N C L A S S I F I E D
l–6 Chief, Bureau of Ships (Code 3,8)
7 Chief, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
8 Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics (Code AEl,0)
9 Chief, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts (Code SS)
10-11 Chief, Bureau of Yards and Docks (D–ll,0)
12 Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-Cll)
13 Chief of Naval Operations (Op-36)
14 Commander, New York Naval Shipyard (Material Lab.)
15–17 Director, Naval Research Laboratory (Code 2021)
18-32 C0, Office of Naval Research, FPO, New York
33 Office of Naval Research (Code l;22)
34 Naval Medical Research Institute
35 CO, Naval Unit, Army Chemical Center
36 U.S. Naval School (CEC Officers)
37 CO, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering (Res. and Eval. Lab.)
38 Director, Aviation Medical Acceleration Laboratory
39 CO, Naval Schools Command, Treasure Island
40 CO, Naval Damage Control Training Center, Philadelphia
41 U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
42 CO, Fleet Training Center, Norfolk
43 CO, Special Weapons Training Center, San Diego
44 Commander, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Silver Spring
45 Commandant, Twelfth Naval District
46 Office of Patent Counsel, San Diego
47 Commander Naval Air Force, Atlantic Fleet (Code 16F)
48-49 Chief of Research and Development (Atomic Div.)
50 Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations
51-52 Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2
53 Chief of Engineers (ENGEB, Dhein)
54 Chief of Engineers (ENGNE)
55 Chief of Transportation (TC Technical Committee)
56 Chief of Ordnance (ORDTN-RE)
57 Ballistic Research Laboratories
58 Chief Chemical Officer
59 The Quartermaster General
60 CG, Chemical Corps Res., and Dev. Command
61 Hd. , Chemical Corps Materiel Command
U N C L A S S I F I E D
62 President, Chemical Corps Board
63-65 CO, BW Laboratories
66 CO, Chemical Corps Training Command (Library)
67 CO, Chemical Corps Field Requirements Ageooy
68-70 CO, Chemical Warfare Laboratories
71-72 CG, Aberdeen Proving Ground (Library)
73 Office of Chief Signal Officer (SIGRD-8B)
74 CO, Army Medical Research Laboratory
75-76 Director, Walter Reed Army Medical Center
77-78 Brooks Army Medical Center
79 Hq. U.S. Army Nuclear Medicine Research Detachment, Europe
80 CG, Continental Army Command, Fort Monroe (ATDBV-l)
81 CG, Quartermaster Res. and Eng. Command
82 President, Quartermaster Board, Fort Lee
83 Director, Operations Research Office (Librarian)
84 CO, Dugway Proving Ground
85-87 The Surgeon General (MEmI)
88 CO, USASRDL, Fort Monmouth
89 CG, Engineer Res. and Dev. Laboratory (Library)
90 CO, Transportation Res. and Dev. Command, Fort Kusti8
91 NLO, CONARC, Fort Monroe
92 Director, Office of Special Weapons Development, Fort Bliss
93 CO, Ordnance Materials Research Office, Watertown
94 CO, Watertown Arsenal
95 CO, Frankford Arsenal
96 Tokyo Army Hospital
97 Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence (AFCIN-3B)
98 Commander, Wright Air Development Center (WCRDO)
99 Commander, Wright Air Development Center (WCRTY)
100 Office of Surgeon General (AFCSG-1S)
101 Commander, Air Res. and Dev. Command (RDTW)
102 Directorate of Installations (AFOIR-ES)
103 Director, USAF Project RAND (DAPD)
104-105 Commandant, School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph AFB
106 CO, School of Aviation lIedicine, Gunter AFB
107 CG, Strategic Air Command (Operations Analysis Office)
108 Office of the Surgeon (SUP5), Strategic Air Command
109 Commander, Special Weapons Center, Kirtland AFB
110 Director, Air University Library, Maxwell AlB
111-112 Commander, Technical Training Wing, .3415th TTG
113 CG, Cambridge Research Center (CRZT)
OTHER DOD ACTIVITIES
114 Chief, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
115 Commander, FC/AFSiP, Sendia Base (FCTG Library)
116 Commander, FC/AFSWP, Sandia Base (FCDV)
AEC ACTIVITIES AND OTHJlRS
117 OIC, Livermore Branch, FC/AFSWP
118 Assistant Secretary of Defense (Res. and Dev.)
119 National Library of Medicine
120-129 Armed Services Technical Information Agency
130-131 Federal Civil Defense Administration
132 Also Products, Inc.
133-135 Argonne Cancer Research Hospital
136-145 Argonne National Laboratory
146-147 Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
148-150 Atomic Energy Commission, Washington
151-152 Atomics International
153-154 Babcock and Wilcox Company
155-156 Battelle Memorial Institute
157-158 Bettis Plant
159 Boeing Airplane Company
160-163 Brookhaven National Laboratory
164 Brush Beryllium. Company
165 Chicago Operations Office
166 Chicago Patent Group
167 Columbia University (Failla)
168 Columbia University (Hassialis)
169 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
170 Committee on Atomic Casualties, Washington
171 Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation
172-173 Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation
174 Convair-General Dynamics Corporation
175-177 Defense Research Member
178 Department of Food Technology, MIT
179 Dow Chemical Company, Pittsburg
180 Dow Chemical Company, Rock;y Flats
181-183 duPont Company, Aiken
184 duPont Company, Wilmington
185-186 General Electric Company (ANPP)
187-192 General Electric Company, Richland
193-194 Goodyear Atomic Corporation
195 Hawaii Marine Laboratory
196-197 Iowa State College
198-200 Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
201-202 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Marietta
203-204 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
205 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
206 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Hardy)
207 Mound Laboratory
208 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
209-210 National Bureau of Standards (Taylor)
211 National Lead Company, Inc., Winchester
212 National Lead Company of Ohio
213 New Brunswick Laboratory
214-215 New York Operations Office
216 Nuclear Development Corporation of America
217 Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies
218-222 Oak Ridge National Laboratory
223 Patent Branch, Washington
224-229 Phillips Petroleum Company
230-231 Public Health Service, Washington
232 Radioisotopes Laboratory (Thoma)
233 RAND Corporation
234 Sandia Corporation
235 Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.
236 Technical Research Group
237 Tennessee Valley Authority
238 The Martin Company
239 Union Carbide Nuclear Company (C-31 Plant)
240-241 Union Carbide Nuclear Company (ORGDP)
242-244 United Aircraft Corporation
245 U.S. Geological Survey, Naval Gun Factcry
246 UCLA Medical Research Laboratory
247 University of California Medical Center
248-250 University of California Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley
251-252 University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore
253 University of Chicago Radiation Labcratory
254 University of Rochester (Technical Report Unit)
255 University of Tennessee (Hall)
256 University of Utah (Stover)
257 University of Washington (Applied Fisheries Lab.)
Camp Parks is a Air Force Base that was previously a Navy Base used for radiation experiments in the late 50’s to mid 60’s where they purposely spread radioactive materials onto streets, yards and buildings in order to figure out how to clean up after a nuclear blast. The Navy created dirty bomb incidents all over the Bay Area and trained military personnel from all branches to clean up after a nuclear blast to remove the radiation by scrubbing, firehosing or with street sweepers etc. In the early days, the late 1940’s they thought that fallout was not dangerous, it was not until Operation Castle in 1954 when radioactive fallout fell onto Enewetak Atoll where US military personnel were stationed as well as natives and they got radiation burned from the fallout.
Camp Parks Cobalt 60 Experiments Camp Parks was used for many radiation experiments Which I will list above when I get the articles up on the site. Fortunately in Complex III tests they decided to limit the amount of radiation they spread onto the grounds, the roads and buildings to .1R per hour which today is a nuclear accident in a nuclear power plant.
United States Navy Medical News Letter, Vol. 30 Friday, September 20, 1957 No. 6 p.29
The U S Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, San Francisco Naval Shipyard (Hunters Point), will conduct a seminar during the 3-day period, 17 – 19 October 1957, under the sponsorship of the Commandant, Twelfth Naval District. Speakers and discussants scheduled to present the program include prominent military and civilian physicians and scientists.
The Chief of Naval Personnel has authorized the awarding of one (1) retirement point credit to eligible inactive Naval Reserve Medical Department officers for daily attendance, provided they register such attendance with the authorized military representative present. Security clearance is not required.
Additional information concerning this program may be obtained by writing to the District Medical Officer, Twelfth Naval District, 50 Fell St., San Francisco, Calif.
Description of the Atomic, Biological and Chemical training center at Treasure Island Navy Base including the showers necessary to decontaminate the students from the Biological and Chemical Training Center at Treasure Island.
Official record from the 1995 Human Radiation Experiments Hearings in the US Congress detailing the Plutonium Injections by Dr. Joseph Hamilton and Dr Robert Stone, of the University of California Berkeley who conducted Plutonium injection experiments on unsuspecting victims in San Francisco at UC San Francisco and at the Chinese Hospital in San Francisco at the same time they were consulting on the cleaning of ships at Navy Bases all across the Pacific to clean ships used in the 1946 atomic Tests at Bikini Atoll. Dr. Hamilton would go onto set the safe level of radiation exposure used by the US Navy in radiation test well into the 1960s in the Bay Area. The problem being they were only concerned with preventing radiation sickness and not the long term effects of exposure to radiation. This resulted in not only their own deaths but countless tens of thousands of people being exposed to nuclear radiation needlessly to this very day! The Liability of UC Berkeley in this crime against humanity is off the charts! Continue reading “Plutonium injections – Human Radiation Experiments at UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco by Joseph Hamilton and Robert Stone”→
Gavin Newsom the current Governor of California’s cousin Lawrence Pelosi was Lennar’s Vice President of Naval Base Acquisitions and Darius Anderson who was with the Treasure Island Community Development had a fundraiser where he retired 400,000 dollars of Gavin Newsom’s campaign debt according to Dr Sumchai. Lawrence Pelosi is related to Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom. TDr. Sumchai states that Tetra Tech sent truckloads of waste to Keller Landfill near Pittsburg California in Contra Costa County making the problem a statewide issue and she raised this with then Governor Jerry Brown.