80
THE SHORTER-TERM BIOLOGICAL HAZARDS GF A FALLOUT FIELD
acute lethality in mice and rabbits.
228-242 (1958).
Rad. Res. 4,
19, D.C. Jowes, E. P. Avpen, and V. P. Bonn, Nelative Biological Effectiveness of 100 KVP and 250
KVP X-radiation,
Rad. Res, 6, 484 (1956).
20. ©. L. Prosser, E. Parner, and M. N. Swirr, The
clinical physiology of dogs exposed to single
total-body doses of X-ray. Atomic Energy
Commission Report MDDC 1272 (CH 3738)
28. F. Kutinarr, J. i. Moraax, and W. F, Cuamnens,
Jr, The use of small animals in medical radiation
hivlogy. NMRI, Research Report, Parts 1 and
2,°N MO06-012 04.43 (1952),
29. C.J. Roperts and A. H. Dan, X-ray depth dose
Measurements in a phantom dog, Atomic Energy
Commission Document, VR~241, 1953,
21, EP. Cronxrre and G. Brecuzr, The protective
effect. of granulocytes in radiation injury. An-
Fisuier, Sensitivity of abdomen of rat to Xradiation. Am. J. Physiol. 161, 323-330 (1950).
31. Handbook of Atomic Weapons for Medical Officers.
Prepared by the Armed Forces Medical Policy
50/30 of total body X-radiation for dags.
Air Force. Nav. Med. P-1330 (1951).
32. A. W. Quanrerson, G. V. Leroy, A. A. Lizpow,
(1946).
nals N.Y, Acad. Sci. 69, 815-833 (1955).
22, C. A. Guniser, The determination of the lethal dose
T. Vet, Resch. 14, 284-286 (1953).
Am.
23. R. D. Bocuse and F. W. Bisuoe, Studies on the
effect of massive doses of X-radiation on mortality in laboratory animals. H. §. Blair,
Biological Effects of External Radiation, KNES
series VI~2, McGraw-Hill, (1954).
24, J. L. Touts, B. G. Lamson, and 8. G. Mapnen,
Mortality in swine exposed to gamma radiation
from
an
atomic
409-415 (1954).
bomb
source.
Radiol.
62,
25, Operation Greenhouse, Scientific Directors Report,
Annex
2.2,
Document
WT-18. Available
through the Technical Information Service, Oak
Ridge, Tenn.
26, J. H. Rust, B. F. Traum, J. L. Wirotna, C. 8.
Simons, and C. L. Coman, Lethal dose studies
with burros and swine exposed to whole body
cobalt-60 ° irradiation. Radiol.
62,
569-574
(1954).
27. J. C. Porrern, The biological effect of Roentgen
tays of long and short wave length on the totally
irradiated rat. Radiol. 37, 724-725 (1941).
DISCUSSION ON TOPIC II
30, V. P. Bonn, M. N. Swret, A.C. Acoma, and M,C,
Gamma Energy Spectra and Geometry Factor
Couneil for Departments of the Army, Navy and
Dr. Cronxire. Thank you, Dr. Bond. Be-
fore throwing this open for general discussion
and comment, it was called to my attention
earlier by one of the members here that Dr.
E, C. Hammonn, N. L, Barrerr, J. D. Rosen-
BAUM, and B, A. Scuneropr, Medical Effects of
Atomic Bombs, McGraw-Hill, N. ¥. (1956).
LaRiviere in his presentation of Dr. Mather’s
33. A. A. Lizsow, 8. Warren, and E. Decourser,
Pathology of atomic bomb casualties, Am. J,
paper stated that 105 gamma radiation from
heptunium was not important. I don’t think
Path, 25, 863-1027 (1949).
34, G. V. Lanor, Hematology of atomic bomb casualties. Arch. Int. Med. 88, 691-710 (1950).
you meant that, because work done in your own
laboratory showed it was quite important,
Dr. LaRivrere. 1 am afraid he did say that
in his paper.
35. L, H. Hemezeman, H. Lisco, and J. G. Horrman,
The acute radiation ayndrome: a study of nine
eases and a review of the problem.
Med. 36, 279-510 (1952).
Am. Int,
Dr. Cronzrrs.
Possibly you would take
back to him that there is a little difference of
36. R. J. Hasr#ruice and L. D. Marinetut, Physical-
opinion, predominantly from work done in the
Division of Biology and Medicine at NRDL.
dosimetry and clinical observations on four hu-
man beings involved in an accidental critical
assembly excursion. Proc. International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy
The following comments were later supplied
by Dr. R. L. Mather:
Unfortunately I could notbe present at the
i1, 25-34, Geneva, 1955.
37. A. K. Gusrova and G. D. Batsocoiov, Two cases
of acute radiation disease in man. Prov. of the
International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy, 12, 35-44, Geneva, 1955,
meeting, and during the discussion exception
was taken to my statement that the 105 kev
quanta from Np** have relatively low penetration and biological effectiveness. The
statement is true to the extent that the usual
gamme radiation from radioactive sources is
of higher energy than 105 kev and will penetrate farther into a given material, particularly those materials with a high atomic
number which are usually employed for
shielding purposes. The biological effective-
hess per quantum of radiation is proportional
to the average amount of ionization which it
4
produces in a small volume of air (roentgens)
which when computed turns out to be closely
proportional to the energy of the quantum for
energies above 100 kev.
In relation to the
human body, however, a 105 kev quanta has
a 10 percent chance of passing through the
body,front to back, without experiencing any
interaction (rather good penetration).
Because of the very large proportion of 108
kev quanta in the typical fallout radiation 4
days post detonation this radiation may
account for 20 to 50 percent of the gamma ray
intensity (either energy flux or roentgen or
biological effectiveness) as stated. Neither
the hazard of this 105 kev radiation nor the
fact that it can be controlled by relatively
thin layers of dense materials should ba
ignored.
Dr. Cronkite. Dr. Borg, in your presentetion you were obviously discussing things that
were exclusively in a free air situation, without
buildings and so on around. I believe the intent of this svmposium was to eventually get
downto some practical situations of what might
happen to man.
I wouldlike not to get into a
dissertation on this, but for you to make some
comment on the general situation that existed
in Japan where there were large concrete buildings next to people. How does this influence
the dose that might be expected from prompt.
radiation?
Dr. Bore. The answeris that I don’t. know
exactly, but the problem has been brought up
before and Jooked into in this regard. The
calculations which I discussed were mado
assuming the detector to be well up in the air,
without even a ground interface nearby to
interfere.
Most of the measurements with
which they were checked, however, were made
close to the ground surface. There have been
attempts made to reason throughtheeffectthe
ground might have on a measurement made
81