" Data from Teak and Oracge indicate auch sore clearly the advantages and
disadvantages of testing devices at hizh altitudes as compared to steocpisric
OT underground testing.
It is clear thar lack of cetecradility is not one of
the “advaotases.”
|
Chapters 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11 discuss measurements relatirg to the fourth
objective.
|
‘
.
“\
oh
Displacement of the burst point relative to Program 32 instr=ment
carriers caused serious degradation in quality of Yeray data.’
Improper angular orientation between burst and tocal theraal detectors
at Teak Stations 252 aod 209, together with a narrow field of view (about 15
degrees) over vhich theranl detectors approximate blsc«-body absorbers, complicaced analysis of these data.
Much rime aod postcalibration bave allowed
;
|* 1
\
\
significant results to be extracted.
Fila badges wereusedon alllover stations, acd data
from these, together with cotal dose data from other stations, are giveo in
Cuapter 4. * Gamma -yay dose-rate records from the logarithmic detectors at the
lower altitude stations gave excellent time-dependent daca.
In view of the
complexity of gamma-ray dose calculations in such aa extremely inhouogeneous
,
6\
gropazation oediua and for such highly uncertain source characteristics, these
-i*
2 Ie