9
EVENT AND DESCRIPTION OF EXPORED GROUTS
relationship to the surface dese and depth dose
as dees the air dese mansnred in 0 “yest? esr”
beam in the chmic or laboratory.
source” beam air dems with comparable besliga eReri are contained:
It would
Rongelap, (irewp I... __.-
yor
Rongenk, (iroup II]... --
iw er
appear wader these circumstances aad in most
Ailinginae, Group IT...
rather than dose measured in air, would be the
Utink, Groep IV. 22-2 -_-
experimental conditions that the midline dow,
baer
wr
160
to.
date
°
-- ani en eee Bale AA tL
rie
‘ag, tt “.
e
3
5
49 EXPOSURE,
’
MANY SOURCES
ee
:
7
€
2
5
$
Rano L986
«
x
.
r
+
OILATERM. EXPOSURE,
OFVERGING SOURCE
et__
0
5
Le)
eo
1s
+
2
CM MASONITE
2
3%
y
3%
DEPTH DOSE DISTRIBUTION IN CYLINDRICAL PHANTOM, CO" FACILITY, (NMR!)
Fietas |.4—Comperison of drpta dose curves in maamite phantoms from
bilateral exposure to a single point source, and aimultancuns erposure to
malitiple sources with a ephcricel dietndution eround the phantom.
better common parameter in terms of which to
predict biological effect. On this assumption,
the wir dose values stated in Table 1.1 should be
multiphed by approximately 1.5 in order to
compare their etfects to those of a given air
dow from a “point source” beam geometry delivered bilaterally. If this is done, awsuming
a fallout of 12 houry, the following “point
381712 0-56 2
The geometry of radiation from a fallout field
is not identical either to the geometry of bilateral point sources or spherically distributed
sources since the plane source delivers the radiation largely at a yrazing angle. However, the
total field situation is better approximated by
solid than by plane geometry. Exponure geosetry in a radioactive cloud would be sphenvcal.