Mr. HOLIFIELD. This is getting a little bit afield from the purpose of the investigation, but the information which is needed for human protection against nuclear weapons can be obtained, in the main, by the testing of smaller weapons without the necessity of testing the megaton-type weapon, is that not true?

Mr. CORSBIE. Yes. Progress can be made. I would hesitate to try to say exactly in what degree, but certainly a test of small-yield weapons provides, for instance, massive, instantaneously delivered doses of radiation which are not obtainable within a laboratory. It also provides certain blast effects, although of short duration, that are not obtainable in laboratory shock tubes or wind tunnels in the same way.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Unless there are further questions, we will proceed with your witnesses, Mr. Corsbie.

Mr. CORSBIE. Mr. Chairman, the next item will be covered by Dr. Paul Tompkins who was originally Director of program 32 of the civil effects Plumbbob test, a study dealing with countermeasures and decontamination.

After the program was well launched, Dr. Tompkins was compelled to withdraw as Director but was able to remain as a consultant. The operational responsibilities were given to Dr. Miller of his staff. Dr. Tompkins will cover the radiological shelters.

Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with Dr. Tompkins, I would like to ask Mr. Corsbie one question if I may.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Go ahead.

Mr. MINSHALL. You mentioned on page 8 of your statement:

We need to know on a continuing basis about the ways in which blasts, heat radiation, and light and so forth and radioactive fallout affect people and food. You say these can be conducted, as far as blast and heat are concerned, pretty accurately and satisfactorily on a laboratory basis. Why could the others not be conducted on a laboratory basis? Mr. CORSBIE. I thought I said that we could make progress in the laboratory. It would be less efficient and our information would remain less certain. In other words, there would be many more uncertainties in it. But somewhat like the technology associated with many of our other needs of life, say, in putting up this building, we continue to study, we need to know more and more about it, but at almost any stage after initial data is established, with some risk or based on judgment, one can proceed to use that information.

The intent here was merely to point out the need for continuing study. It is not a static subject, but a dynamic one. I doubt that we would ever reach a stage where we could say we know all about anything.

Mr. MINSHALL. As counsel has pointed out then, you feel there is a need to continue bomb testing?

Mr. CORSBIE. Yes, sir. I thought this was clear. I tried to emphasize that insofar as effects are concerned more rapid progress could be obtained if people responsible for the effects tests could use weapons of known characteristics. Then one could predict the radiation, the blast, and the thermal and could investigate more precisely the various parameters that are under study.

Mr. MINSHALL. It is your considered opinion then, Mr. Corsbie, that you could continue these bomb tests at Yucca Flats and the other

areas you have out in Nevada, on a clean bomb basis without any effect on the surrounding countryside?

Mr. CORSBIE. We could certainly conduct them within our present operational criteria.

Mr. MINSHALL. What do you mean by that?

Mr. CORSBIE. Well, I mean by operational criteria that before any operation, a great deal of study is given to what will or what will not hurt off-site population. After we have established the criteria with such margin of safety, no damage should occur.

Mr. MINSHALL. What would be the ultimate procedure that would not be in your operational criteria? Going in the other direction, what would happen? You do not believe these tests can be conducted in a safe manner, then?

Mr. CORSBIE. I think the whole history of tests at Nevada indicates that they can be and have been conducted in a safe manner.

Mr. MINSHALL. You sort of qualified it though in response to the question I just previously asked. You said within our operational criteria. What was the implied qualification?

Mr. CORSBIE. Our operational criteria are regarded most seriously by the Atomic Energy Commission and any findings such as those that have come from the National Academy of Science and National Research Council are duly examined by the Atomic Energy Commission in establishing the operational criteria for any nuclear detonation. We always try to make full use of what is being recommended by competent councils, authorities, or individuals and to incorporate such guidance into operational criteria which is written for each series.

Mr. MINSHALL. Do you feel you have enough technical information to go ahead on a nationwide shelter construction program that would be adequate, based on the tests to date?

Mr. CORSBIE. I think there is enough information now to start a program on fallout shelters, or on shelters against blasts. I do not think we have enough information to warrant the discontinuance of future investigation.

Mr. MINSHALL. We have enough information though from a civil defense viewpoint on the tests we have already conducted; is that not so?

Mr. CORSBIE. To start a program. That is my opinion.

Mr. MINSHALL. Then no further testing is necessary as far as the civil defense point of view is concerned?

Mr. CORSBIE. I did not intend to imply that. formation to initiate a program. We can say, complish this objective in fallout protection." accomplished as to blast protection."

We have enough in"This shelter will acThat "This will be

I would be the first to say that in my opinion our knowledge is not complete and we need to continue to study. I am not sure now that we can design the most economical blast shelter or perhaps the most economical fallout shelter. I think it is important to continue to study this to see whether or not it is costing more than is actually 'needed to accomplish the objective. This is what I mean by enough 'information.

Mr. MINSHALL. In other words, you do not believe it would be wise to start on a nationwide shelter program at this time until we have further data?

Mr. CORSBIE. I think we are in good enough shape, relative to data, for experienced engineering people and biomedical people to come up with designs for fallout and blast shelters that would accomplish the objectives as I see them now.

Mr. MINSHALL. Then why is more testing necessary if you have all the information now?

Mr. CORSBIE. It is the further refinement of the information.
Mr. MINSHALL. That is all I have.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. It seems like to me the burden of your testimony is that the field of information is never complete and that new types of weapons, new hazards, will create new problems, and that there will always be need in any scientist's mind to explore further the realm of the unknown.

Your explanation of criteria, it seems to me, might be clarified by saying that if the National Academy of Sciences set, for instance, 300 milliroentgens as being the allowable off-site exposure, you set that up as a criteria and the sizes of your bombs and the weather conditions and the height at which it is exploded and all of these things are made to conform to the safety factor rather than to other factors which might ignore the safety factor which has been set by the best medical and scientific advice.

Mr. CORSBIE. That is substantially correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In other words, the safety of the general population and the protection of the population against an excessive dosage is your basic criteria. Upon this you start building the rest of your testing criteria?

Mr. CORSBIE. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. So the public can be sure you start not from the base of the size of a weapon you wish to explode, but you start with the base of the allowable off-site exposure and the allowable exposure to the personnel who are in close proximity?

Mr. CORSBIE. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Dr. Paul Tompkins, who is before us this morning I would just like to say this for the benefit of the subcommitteeis an old friend of mine and an acquaintance of many years' standing. He is the scientific director of the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory located at Hunters Point, Calif. This is a laboratory which has, I believe, up to a thousand people working in it. Is that not true, Dr. Tompkins?

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL C. TOMPKINS, SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES NAVAL RADIOLOGICAL DEFENSE LABORATORY, AND DIRECTOR, CETG PROJECT 32

Dr. TOMPKINS. It is closer to 600, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And you have been in existence since the 1946 tests in the Pacific?

Dr. TOMPKINS. That is right.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. This laboratory is looked upon as the most authoritative source of radiological knowledge in the nuclear field in existence in the world today and Dr. Tompkins, within the scientific profession, has as high standing as any man in the world with regard to the types of laboratory experiments which have been conducted by our country during the 12 or 13 years we have been exploding these weap

ons. He was recently special consultant to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in connection with a special subcommittee study of radiation.

You may proceed, sir.

Dr. TOMPKINS. I would request your permission to withhold my story until Mr. Vortman and Dr. Harris have given the blast and biological effects. If this is satisfactory, I would like to request a change

in order.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Very well. Would you like to have Mr. Vortman or Dr. Harris?

Mr. CORSBIE. May I suggest Mr. Vortman?

STATEMENT OF LUKE VORTMAN, DIRECTOR, CETG PROGRAM 34, SANDIA CORP.

Mr. VORTMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have just given to Mr. Corsbie to give to you a prepared statement from which I will read most of my remarks.

It is my purpose here to present the results of the CETG program 34 Plumbbob experiments, together with some pre-Plumbbob experiments that best illustrate certain points regarding the physical effects of blast.

While the projects cited are from full-scale tests, most have been supplemented by laboratory or small-scale experiments which have been more enlightening than the full-scale tests in many cases.

APPLICABLE FULL-SCALE EXPERIMENTS

Ground-level structures: Operation Plumbbob project 34.2. The purpose of project 34.2 was to evaluate the relative merits of rail steel and intermediate-grade steel for reinforcing blast-resistant reinforced concrete structures. It is not known at this time which steel is better. Nevertheless, the experiment is worth describing because it illustrates the precision with which blast loading and structural response can be predetermined.

Half of the reinforced concrete slabs constructed were reinforced with rail steel and half with the intermediate grade. Pairs consisting of both types were placed as shown in figure 1.

CLEAR