L. D. Comolly, DT. N. White, H-6 REVIDY OF REPORT DATED 30 APRIL 1953 ON PROJSCT 5.ha, OPSHATION defined in Bt) Doe Subject report has been reviewed in full by Hador John Servis, and in part by Kr, Willia: Kemedy. We ell agree that it ia a vory gocd report and have no critic In reading various reporta on the subject of fall-out, we have nbticed that it is customary to make a distinction between air bursts end te in a way that 4s probably quite satiefactory tc a11 who are fan the phenomena involved, It has occurred to us that to the u | distinction between an air burst and a tower shot may be sameshgt obscure. indeed there is now some evidence that, from the poim of view qf fall~ot, there has occurred at least one tower shot wiiech behaved much ljke an air burst, eo thet the distinction, on the basis of whether cr not & tower is present, does not seem ertirely satisfactory, From the eviderch available 4t appears that a more satisfactory criterion ia contact betweeh the fire ball and the surface, At least we know that fall-out has been huite intense when there has bean extensive oontact and that fall-out has always been relatively light when there was definitely no contact, Since subfect report will undcubtedly be widely read with conagderable interest, it in suggested that it might be useful to present afeoserhat nore definite staterent about what is meant by an air burst, perhaps} as a Loote note on this term in paragraph 1,1. Tre report is returned to you herewith. 223T COPY AVAILABLE Thoras K. write, a) Ens. Rept. USNEDL 009013 ect 2= 1.0. Comolly L-N. H. Sith 1 - File RG 326 US ATOMIC ENERGY CQMATISSION Location__ Lan : | Collection//“ Dur (unient FolderMeporty anil 44 TN. Whrike COPIED/DOE 1 ANT RF (oe {