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
{