(b) Delayed or late effects, such as (1) fire storm, (2) persisting induced and fallout ionizing radiations, (3) persisting lack of utilities (light, heat, and water, garbage and sewage disposal), communications and transportation (food and water, medical aid and supplies).

2. OTHER WEAPONS

One must think of other weapons of use to a potential enemy and be prepared for attack with BŴ and CW agents as well as conventional explosives and armament.

Keeping the above in mind, it is obvious that planning to provide complete protection in case of war is a very complex matter, indeed. However, the situation is not, in fact is far from a hopeless one technically. First, it is necessary to recognize that protection for survival can be a potent factor in improving the war deterrent and the retaliatory postures of the United States and her allies. Secondly, even in peacetime safety really is a relative matter and the objectives of protective construction should be to sharply minimize casualties and hence maximize survival. In truth, casualties in the high millions could occur without protection, while with protection even under massive attack they could be held to thousands or at the most to the low millions. The significance of this last statement needs little further comment, though the contribution blast, radiation, and thermal prophylaxis, if actually practiced, could make in easing the tasks of the medical profession in time of crisis deserves the strongest possible emphasis.

Finally, what is known of primary, secondary, tertiary, and miscellaneous blast effects along with the events exemplified by the two Japanese nuclear explosions and the Texas City disaster in 1947— all of which can again take place in unprepared urban areas-forms a potent, almost unassailable argument for protective construction. Too, biological blast data can contribute to the design of shelters, particularly simple structures useful in sparsely populated areas especially those in the fringe or relatively low-pressure areas surrounding prime target complexes. Synthesis of all physical and biological effects information into a design concept to provide internal environments acceptable to man, complete with necessities not luxuries, is certainly possible and perhaps quite feasible. At any rate, such thinking provides an encouraging vision which is a hopeful thought appropriate to closing this discussion.

SUMMARY

1. A brief summary of laboratory and field research carried out since 1951 dealing with the biological effects of blast from bombs was presented.

2. The scope of blast biology was defined as including primary (pressures), secondary (missiles), tertiary (displacement), and miscellaneous (dust and nonradiant thermal phenomena) effects and the objectives of past and current investigations were noted.

3. Experiments with and without test animals carried out by a blast biology task group in the 1953, 1955, and 1957 Nevada field test operations were described, including instances of recovery of living animals from underground structures tested "open" which were placed

as close as 1,050 feet from a nuclear device, the yield of which was about 1.5 nominal. At this location the pressure outside the structure was between twofold and threefold that estimated to exist near the epicenters of the explosions at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

4. Laboratory investigations encompassing additional assessment of field data were noted. These included the biological effects of penetrating and nonpenetrating missiles, the pathology of building debris, dynamic decelerative impact loading and the design, construction, and operation of a modified blowdown wind tunnel as the major piece of equipment in an unusual blast facility conceived primarily for biological blast research.

5. The fact that biological blast data concerned only one facet of weapons effects was emphasized as was the requirement for the designer of protective structures first to synthesize all known physical effects information in order to appreciate the environmental alterations against which man must be protected, and secondly, to gather biological effects and related findings to assure that the environment "created" inside a shelter would indeed be acceptable to human occupants.

(NOTE.-Bibliographic list attached. Other significant papers are noted in the reference lists of the documents noted.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY-BLAST BIOLOGY, CETG PROJECT 33

1. "Radiation Effects on Pneumococcal Infection Produced by Subcutaneous Injections into White Mice," W. E. Clapper, J. E. Roberts, and G. H. Meade, Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med., 86: 420-422, 1954.

2. "Radiation Effects on Pneumococcal Infection Produced by Subcutaneous Injections into White Mice," W. E. Clapper and G. H. Meade, Report AECU-3267, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Technical Information Service Extension, Oak Ridge, Tenn., October 1953 (published in 1957).

3. "The Effect of Foreign Body Particles on Infections in Mice," W. E. Clapper and G. H. Meade, Report AECU-3272, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Technical Information Service Extension, Oak Ridge, Tenn., August 15, 1955.

4. "Technical Photography (High Speed-Blast Biology)," M. A. Palmer and R. S. Harper, Operation Teapot Report WT-1197, December 1955.

5. "Electrocardiographic Measurements at Operation Teapot," H. H. Sander and O. J. Birdsong, Technical Memorandum 261-55-51, Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex., December 5, 1955.

6. "Biological Effects of Blast from Bombs. Glass Fragments as Penetrating Missiles and Some of the Biological Implications of Glass Fragmented by Atomic Explosions," I. G. Bowen, D. R. Richmond, M. B. Wetherbe, and C. S. White, Progress Report AECU-3350, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Technical Information Service Extension, Oak Ridge, Tenn., June 18, 1956.

7. "Distribution and Density of Missiles from Nuclear Explosions," I. G. Bowen, A. F. Strehler, and M. B. Wetherbe, Operation Teaport Report WT-1168, December 14, 1956.

8. "The Biological Effects of Pressure Phenomena Occurring Inside Protective Shelters Following Nuclear Detonation," C. S. White, T. L. Chiffelle, D. R. Richmond, W. H. Lockyear, I. G. Bowen, V. C. Goldizen, H. W. Merideth, D. E. Kilgore, B. B. Longwell, J. T. Parker, F. Sherping, and M. E. Cribb, Operation Teapot Report WT-1179, October 28, 1957.

9. "The Biologic Response to Overpressure. I. Effects on Dogs of Five- to Tensecond Duration Overpressures Having Various Times of Pressure Rise," D. R. Richmond, M. B. Wetherbe, R. V. Taborelli, T. L. Chiffelle, and C. S. White, Jour. Aviat. Med., 28: 447-460, 1957.

10. "Blast Biology-A Study of the Primary and Tertiary Effects of Blast in Open Underground Protective Shelters," D. R. Richmond, R. V. Taborelli, T. L. Chiffelle, V. C. Goldizen, J. D. Ward, M. B. Wetherbe, V. R. Clare, and R. T. Sanchez, Operation Plumbbob Report ITR-1467, November 29, 1957.

11. "Tertiary Effects of Blast-Displacement," R. V. Taborelli and I. G. Bowen, Operation Plumbbob Report ITR-1469, December 20, 1957.

12. "Missile Studies with a Biological Target," V. C. Goldizen, D. R. Richmond, and T. L. Chiffelle, Operation Plumbob Report ITR-1470, November 29, 1957. 13. "The Internal Environment of Underground Structures Subjected to Nuclear Blast. I. The Occurence of Dust," C. S. White, M. B. Wetherbe, and V. C. Goldizen, Operation Plumbbob Preliminary Report ITR-1447, November 22, 1957.

14. "The Internal Environment of Underground Structures Subjected to Nuclear Blast. II. Effects on Mice Located in Heavy Concrete Shelters," D. R. Richmond, T. L. Chiffelle, R. T. Sanchez, and J. D. Ward, Operation Plumbbob Report ITR-1507, November 29, 1957.

Classified reports

15. "Effects of Overpressures in Group Shelters on Animals and Dummies," Operation Upshot-Knothole Report WT-798, J. E. Roberts, C. S. White, and T. L. Chiffelle, September 1953 (Conf. RD).

16. "The Biological Effects of Blast-A Critical Review," Clayton S. White, Report TID-5251, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Technical Information Serv ice, Oak Ridge, Tenn., September 15, 1954 (Conf. RD).

17. "Engineering Aspects of the Effects of Overpressures on Ground Group Shelters," James Clark and Robert Crawford, Operation Upshot-Knothole, Project 23.15, submitted to R. L. Corsbie November 12, 1954.

18. "The Biophysics of Penetrating Missiles-Conditions Critical for Penetration," I. G. Bowen, J. P. Henry, W. H. Lockyear, M. A. Palmer, D. R. Richmond, and C. S. White, Report TID-5284, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Technical Information Service, Oak Ridge, Tenn., January 4, 1955 (Conf. DI). 19. "Distribution and Density of Missiles from Nuclear Explosions," I. G. Bowen, A. F. Strehler, and M. B. Wetherbe, Operation Teapot Report WT-1217, March 1956 (Conf. RD).

20. "The Effects of Noise in Blast-Resistant Shelters," F. G. Hirsch, Joan Longhurst, D. R. McGiboney, and H. H. Sander, Operation Teapot Report WT-1180, submitted to R. L. Corsbie, June 12, 1956.

21. "Missiles Secondary to Nuclear Blast," I. G. Bowen, R. V. Taborelli, and V. R. Clare, Operation Plumbbob, Report ITR-1468, March 31, 1958 (Conf. FRD). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to you, too, for making it possible for me to come here today instead of yesterday.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You are certainly very welcome. Thank you for your testimony today.

This will conclude, Mr. Corsbie, your list of witnesses, I believe. Thank you for bringing them to us and for the testimony that they have given. We will start in at 10 o'clock in the morning with the FCDA witnesses; Mr. Gallagher and his associates will before us at

that time.

Thank you all for going through this long hearing. I thought it was necessary to get it off of the board today.

(Whereupon, at 1:15 p. m. the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m. Friday, May 2, 1958.)

CIVIL DEFENSE

Part I-Atomic Shelter Tests

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY OPERATIONS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met in room 1501-B, House Office Building, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. Chet Holifield, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representatives Holifield, Fascell, Griffiths, Lipscomb, and Minshall.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff administrator; Carey Brewer, senior defense specialist; Paul Ridgely and Robert McElroy, investigators.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The subcommittee will be in order.

This morning we have as our first Federal Civil Defense Administration witness Mr. Gerald Gallagher, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. I understand that you have a statement to make, Mr. Gallagher, and also that you will introduce the succeeding witnesses. You may proceed, sir.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF GERALD GALLAGHER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. GALLAGHER. It is our aim this morning to give the committee a streamlined review of some of the technical activities of the Federal Civil Defense Administration which bear on the problem of shelters for protection against nuclear weapons as well as certain other activities relating to the protection of people.

Following this brief general statement, I propose to have several FCDA staff members and some other gentlemen who have advised and assisted us in various parts of this program either as consultants or research contractors to pick up various parts of the problem for presentation and discussion.

Your kindness in fitting Dr. Newmark into yesterday's hearing was very much appreciated, sir. There are eight people in all whom I would like to introduce today for short presentations. This will probably be a tight schedule and I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, if you desire more extended treatment of any parts of this program we will be very happy to arrange it.