_ ~ RADIATION PROTECTION WITHIN A BTANDARD HOUSING STRUCTURE siderably less than indicated here. Thus, by observing precautions, occupants of standard too houses may secure considerable protection from 75 fallout, without structures. of these Robert T. Graveson 25 Mr. Houuanp (AEC): Doesn'tthe falling off of the outward curve offer the explanation that. PLAISTIG as you get higher, you gel into irregularities? 25 15 Mr. Graveson. No. When we are over a uniformly contaminated plane without a clean area between us a high percentage of that dose comes from a very close circle. Therefore even at these heights we are looking into irregulari- ties. As soon as the slant distance becomes relatively large with respect to the height we are looking edgewise at little irregularities of the surface. Mr, SHartno (NRDL). I would like to commentthat both experimental data and theoretical studies at. our laboratory indicate what the — PA 910.0 50 010.0 \ 7§ 100 2 4 ENERGY & 8 10 1.2 4 ENERGY— MEV RESPONSE OF PHOSPHORS Fieure 2.—Energy —Mev, Energy Response of Phosphors. appears to confirm the absence of shielding by ‘the walls. Vertical profiles of radiation intensity vs. height were taken both inside and outside the building. Tarte 1.~RADIATION—HEIGHT PROFILE A (eet) any modification DISCUSSION a ee wtt o FROM COgg RESPONSE-% DEVIATION THE SHORTER-TERM BIOLOGICAL HAZARDS OF A FALLOUT FIELD Gtation1 (tar/br) 20, 0 15,0 12.0 10. 5 10.0 Station? (arr) Atations (mur/br) Station 4 Gmrfir} 0.6 1.0 Joo... Lb 1.2 0. 05 2.7 22 a] 5.90 4.0 25 2 os 4.8 These profiles are plotted in Figure 5. The outside profile agrees with tentative calculations of the response from a large uniform source. The inside profiles do not remain constant 63 STATION 2 i 2.8 to contamination on the roof, however, it is much more likely that a more complete field of view was obtained into irregularities of the outside surface. CONCLUSIONS An appreciable reduction in radiation intensity was noted near the center of the build- ing. An occupant might receive between Mo and % of the radiation intensity that would be experienced in openfield. Theeffect of ground unevenness allows even greater reduction in the intensity at points close to the floor. The radiation intensity which would be encountered in 2 basement would almost certainly be con- © 60 oO oO ves ots STATION 3 \ 6 ATION 4 S80 ened 08 ° f° though this might be expected, since the slant distance to the active source area does not change appreciably for the height range measured. The increase in intensity might be due 10.0) 9-0 00.8 5 “eX1.6 B YEISS” — Vs of? REFR 16. 08.8. 22.6 \ | “50 PORCH \ 10.0 S "14.0 ol S10 | 3.5 STATION | ‘0 Qo |e Fiaurz 3.—Plan View. 150 TELEPHONE Poet]