_
~
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]