CORRELATIONS ON DEBRIS FROM SILICATE BURSTS
1¢ —
T
[~
|
77
,
& LABORATORY A
|
& LABORATORY B
a,
a
.
io
a
10°
a
a
SLOPE = 0.509
a
—
tA Ld
107!
107?
ea
INTERCEPT = 5.75
COEFFICIENT
OF CORRELATION = 0.439
|
| iy
10°
a995
L
Ludi
10!
Fig. 3——Fractionation plot for “Ce in Small Boy.
All the data were reinvestigated by plotting and fitting the data
points of each laboratory separately. Differences in the degree of
correlation appeared which were sufficient to cast suspicion on part
of the data for '*Te, “cs, and ‘Cs. Calibration differences among
the laboratories also appeared to be obscuring the correlation in
some instances. Figure 4 illustrates this effect. When the data from
the three laboratories are treated separately, the three lines shown
are obtained with a reasonable degree of confidence. Note that their
slopes do not differ greatly. However, when the data are lumped together, the correlation is much less clear.
In spite of the difficulties involved in correlating the data, some
facts emerge fairly clearly, as can be seen in Table 1. First, the
same group of nuclides previously mentioned (®sr, *°sr, *y, !Ru,
16Ru, 1347, pe bog Mics MB, Mice, and ?%Np) fractionated from
*°Zr in all three shots, whereas °*Mo, '“4Ce, and ***Pu did not. Second,
'33Cs appears to fractionate about as severely as “Sr. Beyond these
basic points, the Sedan data display some differences from the data
obtained in the other two shots. This is not surprising in view of the
radical differences in the Sedan shot conditions. For Sedan the frac-
tionating nuclides other than '"Cs all showed a moreorless intermediate degree of fractionation—the slopes of the log—log plots were
between about 0.3 and 0.6—whereas, for Johnie Boy and Small Boy,