125 a, The discrepancy between the soil sample and the spectrometer exposure rate results indicates the problems involved in obtaining a representative soil sample. The agreement in the values of the percentage exposure rates is quite good verifying the two assumptions discussed in Section II. 32 pe 1 ur/hr 4 wr/hr 9% Both the field spectra and the laboratory spectra indicated that isotopes other than ?°7’cs, °°co, and *7®°Sb were also present in the soil. The energies and/or concentration of these isotopes, however, were too small to contribute significantly to the total exposure rate. In order to more accurately determine the identities of these isotopes, samples of the analyzed by Ge(Li) soil at Locations 5 and 7 were also spectrometry. These spectra indicated the presence of *®°*Ru, *®°*Bu, ®**am, and possibly *°°Rh in addition to the isotopes already mentioned. weak 238 keV emitter was also detected 242 pe .O pxr/hr An unidentified (see Figure 8). NRDL LiF TLD dosimeters were placed every 150 ft. along this transect. HASL TLD dosimeters were placed near spectrom-— eter Locations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, although in the case of Location 2 the TLD dosimeter was not exactly in the center of the measurement site. In most cases the TLD's were taped to branches along the transect. In general, the TLD results show the same trend as the other total exposure rate data (see Table 1), although the NRDL results are slightly higher .O ur/hr 1% on the average. In order to determine if there was any significant difference in exposure due to the proximity of dosimeters to vegetation, a dosimeter of each type (NRDL and HASL) was placed on a stake in the middle of the open trail at Location 5 for comparison with the two taped to the vegetation. For this location, at least, there was no significant difference in the readings of the two sets of dosimeters. The high readings of the HASL dosimeter at Location 2 are probably due to the highly variable nature of the radiation field. This dosimeter was taped to a branch of a bush in a general area where the radiation field appeared to be lower than average as evidenced by the area survey results. However, it is quite possible the vegetation in this generally sandy 7 2t = SE Te APF RR CRIVT