120

exposure period for background
determination.

The background

0

Nal scintillator response — uR/h

exposure was essentially ail contributed by cosmic radiation during the
3-month exposure period and during
the aircraft flight to LLL.

Additional TLD's were stored on
the periphery of the lead pig to
identify possible inadvertent
exposures.

The average background

exposure for the two types of TLD's
was subtracted from all field

100
90
80
70

measurements so that the results
represent only the terrestrial
radiation exposure rates.

0

We

found that sunlight had a negligible
“effect on this packaging arrangement.

Fig. 2.

The correspondence between the
results obtained with the Nal

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

lon chamber response — uR/h

Comparison of responses of
the Nal scintillator and the
pressurized ion chamber.

scintillator and the pressurized

linear, deviates more markedly from

ion chamber is presented in Fig. 2.

the 1:1 relationship.

The ion chamber readings have been

.

The TLD results indicated that

reduced by 3.3 UR/h, the cosmic-ray

the CaF, TLD's overresponded by

contribution at that latitude.

approximately 21% relative to the LiF.

The

figure shows that the Nal scintilla-

This is consistent with similar

tor overresponded because of its

studies made at Enewetak Ato11+ and

nonlinear energy characteristics.

with environmental monitoring per-

The discontinuity at about 30 UuR/h

formed by LLL in the U.S.

occurs at a range switching point

response varies with energy and this

on the scintillator.

ratio (1.21) corresponds to an

Three locations

The over-

were measured on both low and high

average gamma energy of about 500

range, and those results are

keV.

shown in solid circles.

the CaF, enhanced low-energy response

On the

This is reasonable based on

scintillation instrument's low

and the predominance of 1376.

range of 0 to 30 uR/h, a correspondence

activities distributed in the soil.

near 1:1 is observed.
range,

On the higher

the correspondence,

though

To assess the beta contribution
to the LiF exposure rates, various

Select target paragraph3