Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
Transcript of Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 1/88
Y 3. At7
22/CE *
AFC
M^CH R E P O R T
AEC Category: HEALTH AND SA FETY
Documents Colle
F E B 18
COMPARATIVE NUCLEAR E F F E C T S
OFBIOMEDICAL IN TEREST
Clayton S . White, I. Gera ld Bowen , Donald R . Ric hmond , and Rober t L Corsb ie
Issuance Date: January 12, 196 1
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 2/88
NOTICE
This report is published in the interest of providing information which may prove of
value to the reader in his study of effects data derived principally from nuclear weapons
tests.
This document is based on information available at the time of preparation which
may have subsequently been expanded an d re-evaluated* Also, in preparing this reportfor publication, some classified material m ay have been removed. Users are cautioned
to avoid interpretations an d conclusions based on unknown or incomplete data*
PRINTED IN USA
Price $1.00. Available from the Office of
Technical Services, Department of Commerce.
Washington 25 , D . C.
USAEC Office of Technical Information ExtensionOak Ridge, Tennessee
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 3/88
COMPARATIVE N U C L E A R E FFE C T S
OF BIO MEDIC A L I N T E R E S T
ByClayton S. White, I. Gerald Bowen,Donald R . Richmond, and Robert L. Corsbie
Approved by : R . L . CORSBIE
Director
Civil Effects Test Operations
Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education an d Research,
Albuquerque, N . Mex.
U. S . Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Biology and Medicine,
Washington, D . C .
September 1960
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 4/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 5/88
ABSTRACT
Selected physical an d biological data bearing upon the environmental variations created bynuclear explosions are presented in simplified form. Emphasis is placed upon the "early" co nsequences of exposure to blast, thermal radiation, and ionizing radiation to elucidate the com
parative ranges of the major effects as they vary with explosive yield an d as they contribute tothe total hazard to man. A section containing brief definitions of the terminology employed isfollowed by a section that utilizes text an d tabular material to set forth events that follow nu
clear explosions and the varied responses of exposed physical an d biological materials.
Finally, selected quantitative weapons-effects data in graphic an d tabular form are presentedover a wide range of explosive yields to show the relative distances from Ground Zero affected
by significant levels of blast overpressures, thermal fluxes, an d initial an d residual penetrating ionizing radiations. However, only the "early" rather than the "late" effects of the latterare considered.
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 6/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 7/88
FOREWORD
Following submission of the initial draft of this brochure to the Atomic Energy Commis
sion, the Civil Effects Test Operations of the Division of Biology an d Medicine, arranged for a
critical review by over 25 selected individuals, all knowledgeable in the field of weapons ef
fects. Although most of the reviewers recognized the preliminary nature of the work, pointed
out errors, and offered suggestions an d constructive criticism, they expressed considerable
interest in the presentation. This led to a collaborative effort between the Lovelace Foundation and the Civil Effects Test Operations to provide a corrected version of the first draft for
reproduction, which essentially comprises the material that follows. Major revisions of thedata are underway. Consequently, the present publication is regarded as an interim measure
to serve only until an expanded text of the work can be made available. Since nuclear effects is
a dynamic subject under continuous study, the reader can look to the future for the periodic
appearance of quantitative data that will refine the basic understanding of nuclear phenomenol
og y an d the response of exposed physical an d biological materials.A ll the information contained herein is from unclassified sources, including scientific
journals, text books, and Weapons Test Reports that docuinent studies made during full-scale
nuclear tests, many of which were carried ou t under the direction of the Civil Effects Test
Operations. Since great effort was made to keep the Weapons Test Reports unclassified and tonote bibliographic references, those interested can review the original publications. Too, much
of the quantitative weapons-effects data utilized were drawn from the very informative anduseful text The Effects ofNuclear Weapons, and the authors wish to acknowledge their indebt
edness to this work which was so competently edited an d prepared by Samuel Glasstone for the
Department of Defense an d published by the Atomic Energy Commission in June 1957. We arealso grateful to personnel of the Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N ew Mexico, wh o not onlycontributed suggestions regarding the data included on residual radiation, bu t lent their analyti
cal skill an d arranged machine computations from which all the fallout charts were drawn.
Clayton S. White, M.D.
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 8/88
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
The authors wish to express their deep appreciation to members of the Staff of the Sandia
Corporation and the Lovelace Foundation wh o contributed computational, analytical, illustrative, editorial, and secretarial work that made this brochure possible.
Among the many individuals at Sandia Corporation with whom discussions were held, wewish particularly to express our thanks to Dr. W. W. Bledsoe, Mr. D . A. Young, Mr. M,
Cowan, and Mr. B. N. Charles for their critical suggestions and analytical help along with
timely machine computations.
Among the many persons at the Lovelace Foundation who contributed, we are especially
grateful for additional machine computations to Mr. R ay W. Albright, who, along with Mr.
Robert Ferret, Mr. Malcolm A. Osoff, Mr. E . Royce Fletcher, an d Mr. Jerome Kleinfeld,
also lent analytical aid. Mr. John L. Howarth aided in preparing some of the text dealing with
ionizing radiations.
The illustrative tasks, including graphs, the many fallout charts and photographic repro
ductions, were handled by Mr. Robert A. Smith, Mr. George A. Bevil, Mr. Edward M.
Johnsen, and Mrs. Holly Ferguson.
Editorial and secretarial duties fell to Mrs. Isabell D . Benton, who, aided by Mrs.
Barbara Kinsolving, typed the entire manuscript and spent many long hours checking the
tables, text, an d bibliographic references.Lastly, the Lovelace Foundation wishes to acknowledge the support of the Division of
Biology and Medicine of the U . S . Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support
Agency who have jointly funded the work in Blast Biology over the past year. The coordinatedunderstanding of both organizations has allowed perusal of work consonant with the interestsof each agency including completion of this text, compilation of which was begun in previousyears under contract with the Atomic Energy Commission.
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 9/88
CONTEN TS
ABSTRACT...............FO R E WO R D...............ACKN O WLE DGM E N T S .............IN TRODUCTIO N...............7TERMINOLOGY AN D DEFINITIONS
...........9
Bursts............... 9Explosive Yield..............9Fission Yield...............9Blast Pressures..............9Thermal Radiation..............0Ionizing Radiation.............. 0
ORIENTATION...............2Physical Parameters.............2
Blast Effects.............. 2Pressure (Incident, Reflected, Dynamic) and Wind Velocity
..... 2
Pressure and Structures
...........2
Pressure and Missiles............2Pressure and Displacement of Man.........2Thermal Effects.............. 2
Ball of Fire...............2Emission..............2Attenuation..............2Shielding.............. 4Augmentation.............. 4Ignition Energies.......... . .24
Ignition Points for American Cities.........4Fire Storm
..............4
Ionizing-radiation Effects
............4
Initial Radiations .............4Neutrons..............4Gamma-rays.............4Emission.............. 4Attenuation ..............6Augmentation.............6Neutron-Gamma Ratios...........6Shielding..............6
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 10/88
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
Residual Radiation............8Emission.............8
Decay...............2Attenuation..............2Shielding..............2
Biological Parameters.............2Blast Effects..............2
Primary (Pressure Effects)
...........2
Fast-rising Overpressures of Long Duration
.......5
Slowly Rising Overpressures of Long Duration.......5
Orbital Fracture............5Stepwise Fast-rising Overpressures of Long Duration . . . , .35
Fast-rising Overpressures of Short Duration.......7
Eardrums..............7Secondary (Missile) Effects...........7
Penetrating.............7Nonpenetrating.............0
Thermal Effects.............0Skin Burns..............0Extent of Burn and Mortality
...........0
Healing Time of Experimental Burns
.........0
Flash Blindness.............0Retinal Burns.............0lonizing-radiation Effects............4Acute Exposure.............4Chronic Exposure.............4Accumulative Genetic Effects..........4Emergency Exposure............4Hospitalization.............4
QUANTITATIVE WEAPONS-EFFECTS DATA.........7
Comparison of Blast, Thermal Radiation, and Ionizing ,Radiation
.....8
Tabular Weapons-effects Data for Selected Parameters . . . . . .48
Tabular Comparative Weapons-effects Data for Selected Parameters ...9
Graphic Scaled Ranges for 100-rem Initial Ionizing Radiation, 1-psi Blast Over
pressures, and Thermal Fluxes Required for Second-degree Burns as a
Function of Explosive Yield...........0Graphic Scaled Ranges for 30- and 100-rem Initial Ionizing Radiation, 1- and 5-psi
Blast Overpressures, and Thermal Fluxes for Second-degree Burns as a
Function of Explosive Yield (1 , 20, 100, and 1000 K t)......1
Graphic Scaled Ranges for 30- an d 100-rem Initial Ionizing Radiation, 1- and 5-psi
Blast Overpressures, and Thermal Fluxes for Second-degree Burns as a
Function of Explosive Yield ( 1 and 10 Mt) . . . . . . .52
Graphic Scaled Ranges for 30- and 100-rem Initial Ionizing Radiation, 1- and 5-psiBlast Overpressures, and Thermal Fluxes for Second-degree Burns as a
Function of Explosive Yield (20 Mt)
.........3
Graphic Expanded Plots of Scaled Ranges for 30- and 100-rem Initial Ionizing
Radiation, 1- and 5-psi Blast Overpressures, and Thermal Fluxes for Second-
degree Burns Applied to 1-kt Explosive Yield.......4
Graphic Expanded Plots of Scaled Ranges for 30- and 100-rem Initial Ionizing
Radiation, 1- and 5-psi Blast Overpressures, and Thermal Fluxes for Second-
degree Burns Applied to 20-kt Explosive Yield.......5
10
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 11/88
CONTENTS (Continued)
Graphic Expanded Plots of Scaled Ranges for 30- and 100-rem Initial Ionizing
Radiation, 1- and 5-psi Blast Overpressures, and Thermal Fluxes for Second-
degree Burns Applied to 100-kt Explosive Yield.......5
Graphic Comparison of Yield-Range Relations for 1- and 5-psi Blast Over
pressures, 30- and 100-rem Initial Ionizing Radiation, and Thermal Fluxes
Required for Second-degree Burns.........7Tabular Comparison of Relations Between (a ) Residual Radiation and (b) Blast,
Thermal, and Initial Radiation Effects Within the Immediate Target Area, Giving
Ranges and Areas Measured Within the First-degree Burn Line for a 20-Mt
Surface Burst (5 0 per cent Fission Yield)........3Graphic Comparison of Range and Areas for Selected Weapons-effects ParametersWithin the Immediate Target Areas, Including Isodose-Rate Contours for Residual
Radiation A ll Estimated for a 20-Mt Surface Burst (5 0 per cent Fission
Yield)...............9Penetrating Residual Ionizing Radiation.........Q
Tabular Data Showing Dose Rate and Accumulated Dose as Functions of Time ( 1 Hr
to Infinity) and Various 1-hr Reference Dose Rates (3 0 to 3000 R/hr) 6 0
Computed Infinity Isodose Contours (100 and 1000 R ) for 20-Mt Surface Burst
(1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using Wind Patterns of Four Selected Days . . - 61
Computed Isodose-Rate Contours (100, 1000, and 10,000 R/hr) at H + * /4 and H + 2 Hrfor a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using Wind Pattern of M ay 12,
1956...............2Computed Isodose Contours (100, 400, 1000, an d 4000 R ) at H + 1 and H + 2 Hr for
a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 Mt Fission Yield), Using Wind Pattern of M ay 12 ,
1956...............3Computed Infinity Isodose Contours (100, 400 , 1000, 3000, and 8000 R ) at Near
Ranges for 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using Wind Pattern ofM ay 12, 1956..............4
Computed Isodose-Rate Contours (100 and 1000 R/hr at H + 2 Hr and 100, 1000, and
20 ,000 R/hr at H + % Hr) for a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using
Wind Pattern of Aug. 1, 1956...........5Computed Isodose Contours (100, 400 , 1000 , an d 5000 R ) at H + 1 and H + 2 Hr for a
20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using Wind Pattern of Aug. 1,
1956
...............6
Tabular Data Showing Computed Areas Included Within Isodose-Rate Contours
(100 to 20 ,000 R/hr) at H + V and H + 2 Hr for a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M tFission Yield), Using Wind Data for Aug. 1, 1955, May 12, 1956, and Aug. 1,
1956...............7Tabular Data Showing Computed Areas Included Within Isodose Contours (100 to
20 ,000 R ) at Infinite Time and H + 2 and H + 1 Hr for 20-Mt Surface Burst
(10 Mt Fission Yield), Using Wind Patterns of Aug. 1, 1955, May 12, 1956,Aug. 1, 1956, and M ay 12, 1954..........7
Tabular Data Showing Computed Areas Included Within Isodose Contours (100 to
20,000 R ) at 1, 2, and 24 Hr, 1 Week, 1 Month, and Infinite Time for Surface
Bursts of 1, 20 , and 100 K t (100 per cent Fission Yield) and 1, 10, and 20 Mt(50 per cent Fission Yield), Assuming a 15-mph Wind at A ll Altitudes 68
Weighted Hodographs Showing General Directions of Fallout for Summer Seasons
from a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using Wind Data Sampled at
Random Bimonthly over Five Years.........9Weighted Hodographs Showing General Directions of Fallout for All Four Seasons
from a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield), Using Wind Data Sampled at
Random Bimonthly over Five Years.........011
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 12/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 13/88
I L L U S T R A T I O N S (Continued)
15 Infinity Isodose Contours for a 20-Mt Surface Burst Predicted for the WindPattern of M ay 12, 1956............4
16 Isodose-Rate Contours at Indicated Times for a 20-Mt Surface BurstPredicted for the Wind Pattern of Aug. 1, 1956 . . . . . . . . ,55
17 Isodose Contours for a 20-Mt Surface Burst Predicted for the Wind
Pattern of Aug. 1, 1956............g18 Directions of Fallout from a 20-Mt Surface Burst at Albuquerque forSummer Seasons Computed Using Wind Data Sampled Randomly
(Bimonthly over Five Years)
...........g
19 Direction of Fallout from a 20-Mt Surface Burst at Albuquerque
Computed Using Wind Data Sampled Randomly (Bimonthly over Five
Years)................020 Probabilities for Fallout Gamma Radiation from 1-Mt Burst (Summer Season) . . 71
21 Probabilities for Fallout Gamma Radiation from 1-Mt Burst (Winter Season) . . 72
22 Probabilities for Fallout Gamma Radiation from 20-Mt Burst (Summer
Season)...............323 Probabilities for Fallout Gamma Radiation from 20-Mt Burst (Winter Season) . . 74
24 Probabilities for Fallout Gamma Radiation from 20-Mt Burst (Spring Season) . . 75
25 Probabilities for Fallout Gamma Radiation from 20-Mt Burst (Fall Season) . . 73
26 Computed "Maximized" Isodose-Rate Contours for 20-Mt Burst
....7
27 Computed "Maximized" Isodose Contours for 20-Mt Burst
.....3
28 Computed "Maximized" Infinity Isodose Contours for 20-Mt Burst....9
29 Computed "Maximized" Infinity Isodose Contours for 20-Mt Burst 39
TABLES1 Calculated Wind-velocity Relations with Pressure Parameters (Sea Level) . . 23
2 Relation Between Overpressure an d Physical Damage.......33 Relation Between Overpressure and Missile Parameters......34 Blast Displacement of 165-lb Anthropometric Dummies......35 Thermal Energies Required to Ignite Houses an d Material . . . . . .25
6 Exterior Ignition Points in and near Surveyed American Cities . . . . .25
7 Percentage of Total Initial Gamma-radiation Dose Received at Ranges of 0.5
an d 1.5 Miles from 20-kt and 5-Mt Nuclear Detonations, Respectively, as aFunction of Time.............5
8 Approximate Relative Contributions of Neutrons an d Gamma Rays to the
Initial Radiation Expressed as Percentage of Total Biological Dose of600 an d 20 0 Rem for Different Explosive Yields.......7
9 Approximate Shielding Characteristics of Material Against Initial Gamma
Radiation Showing the Relation Between Shield Density and the Thickness
That Will Reduce the Radiation by One-half........710 Approximate Attenuation Factors for Initial Gamma Radiation as a
Function of Shield Thickness for Indicated Materials . . . . . .2911 Approximate Shield Thickness Required to Attenuate Neutron Radiation
by the Indicated Factors............912 Decay of Residual Gamma Radiation from an Explosion Having a 1-Mt
Fission Yield..............313 Seven-tenths Rule for Approximating Decay of Residual Gamma Radiation . . .33
14 Approximate Times of Fall of Various Sized Radioactive Particulates from80,000 Ft an d Distance Traveled in a 15-mile Wind (a t All Altitudes) asRelated to Proportion of Initial Gamma Activity at Altitude and at Sur
face Corrected for Decay During Transport........313
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 14/88
TABLES (Continued)
15 Approximate Attenuation of Residual Gamma (0.7 Mev) Radiation with
Distance Above Earth's Surface..........416 Shielding Factors for Typical Light Residential Structures Against Gamma
Rays Simulating Penetrating Residual Radiation.......417 Approximate Attenuation Factors for Gamma Rays from Fission Products
as a Function of Shield Thickness for Indicated Materials . . . . .34
18 Shock-tube Mortality Data for Fast-rising Long-duration OverpressuresWhen Incident an d Reflected Pressures are Applied Almost Simultane
ously
...............6
19 Exposure to Slow-rising Overpressures of Long Duration . . . . . - 36
20 Orbital Fracture in Dogs Exposed to Slow-rising Long-duration Overpressures . . 36
21 Mortality Data for Guinea Pigs Exposed Against, and at Various Distances
from, the E nd Plate Closing a Shock Tube to Fast-rising Long-duration
Overpressures When the Incident an d Reflected Overpressures areApplied in Two Steps............3
22 Fast-rising Short-duration Overpressures Required for Near 100 Per Cent
Mortality in Dogs.............323 Relation Between Overpressure an d 50 Per Cent Mortality for Animals Exposed
to Single Sharp-rising Overpressures of Indicated Durations . . . . .33
24 Pressure Tolerance of the Eardrums of D og and M an . . . . . . -39
25 Velocity-Mass Probability Relationships Required for Small Window-glass
Fragments to Traverse the Abdominal Wall and Reach the Peritoneal
Cavity of Dogs..............926 Effects of Missiles on Human Cadavers.........927 Impact Velocity Required for Puncturing Rabbit Eyeball Embedded in Gelatin . . 39
28 Effects of Missile Impact on the Chest and Head........129 Velocities of Impact Against a Hard Surface Associated with 50 Per Cent
Mortality of the Indicated Species of Animals with Extrapolation to M an . . .41
30 Approximate Impact Velocities and Equivalent Heights of Drop for Fractureof Human Sjpine, Skull, Feet, and Ankles.........1
31 Thermal Energies for Burns of Bare White Skin........232 Comparison of Thermal Energies Applied over 54 0 Msec Required for Burns
of the Skin of White and Negro Volunteers
........2
33 Mortality in Treated Burn Cases Related to Percentage of Body Area Burned . . 42
34 Estimated Relative Importance of Concomitant Second- an d Third-degree
Burns Associated with an Average Mortality of 50 Per Cent in Treated Cases . . 43
35 Estimated Healing Time for First-, Second-, and Third-degree Burns and
Simplified Clinical Comments...........336 Probable Effects in Humans of Acute Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Over
the Whole Body..............337 Estimate of Effective Dose and Lethality of Various Dose Rates to M an . . .45
38 Estimated Doses for Varying Degrees of Injury to M an . . . . . .45
39 Estimated Clinical Course and Hospitalization Requirements for Humans
Exposed to Various Acute Doses of Penetrating Radiation . . . . -45
40 Weapons-effects Data for Selected Parameters
........8
41 Comparative Weapons-effects Data
..........9
42 Comparative Effects Data for a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 M t Fission Yield) . . .58
43 Accumulated Radiation Dose and Dose Rate as a Function of the 1-hr Reference
Dose Rate and Time after Detonation.........044 Areas (in Square Miles) Enclosed Within Specified Isodose-Rate Contours
Computed for Penetrating Fallout Radiation and Unshielded Conditions
from a 20-Mt Surface Burst (1 0 Mt Fission Yield) at Albuquerque Using
Wind Patterns of Indicated Dates..........714
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 15/88
TABLES (Continued)
45 Areas (in Square Miles) Included Within Specified Isodose Contours Computed
for Penetrating Fallout Radiation and Unshielded Conditions from a 20-Mt
Surface Burst (1 0 Mt Fission Yield) at Albuquerque Using Wind Patterns of
Indicated Dates.............746 Computed Areas for Penetrating Fallout Radiation Inside Indicated Isodose
Contours at Specified Times After Detonation for Various Explosive
Yields
...............8
15
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 16/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 17/88
INTRODUCTION
The advent of nuclear weapons and their integration into programs vital to national defenseemphasize the need for broad public knowledge of nuclear effects. Also, the increasing employ
ment of nuclear materials in an expanding variety of peaceful applications serves notice that
the public must learn to live in a nuclear age. Regardless of whether the future holds continued
peace or the necessity of surviving a national emergency involving nuclear war, each individual
citizen should share with the Government the responsibility of providing sensible levels of pro
tection against nuclear effects.
The purpose of this publication is to provide citizens and Government alike with a singlesimplified source of information about nuclear weapons and related biological data which deals
in a comparative way with effects du e to blast and to thermal and ionizing radiations. Such data
will help the average man assess for himself the risks he an d his family face in the nuclear
era and will provide background information for decisions and action regarding protective co nstruction.
Accordingly, in the material that follows selected weapons-effects data have been assembled for quick reference to aid those interested in the physical and biological effects of nuclear
weapons. The quantitative data are preceded by two sections chosen to facilitate orientation ofthe reader. The first section contains brief definitions of the terminology employed throughout
the brochure. The second section deals grossly with the physical and biological consequences
of the several environmental variations created by nuclear explosions. Such information will
foster appreciation of the comparative ranges for the major effects as these vary with explo
sive yield an d as these contribute to the total hazard to man.It is well to point ou t here that the values for an y given effect can vary considerably de
pending on many factors, not the least of which are weapon design and yield, location of burst,
weather, terrain, and range from the detonation. Even though the numbers chosen are the out
come of experimental, theoretical, and full-scale studies in which many uncertainties were
appreciated, they nevertheless represent best approximations an d are reasonably valid for the
purposes of orientation an d planning. However, it should be pointed ou t that the figures for
overpressure are thought to be reliable within 20 per cent; those for thermal radiation within
a factor of 2; an d those for initial ionizing radiation within factors of 2 and 10 for the lower an dhigher explosive yields, respectively.
17
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 18/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 19/88
TERMINOLOGY AN D DEFINITIONS
Bursts
S U R F A CE BURSTS : Bursts on or above the surface at heights that involve contact between the
fireball an d the surface of the earth.
TYPICAL Am B U R S T S : Air bursts in which there is no contact between the fireball and surface of earth an d in which the heights are such as to produce maximal blast damage to
an average city.
Explosive Yield
KILOTON (kt): A unit of explosive yield for a nuclear explosion; it is equivalent in energy to
the energy released by the detonation of 1000 tons of TNT.MEGATON (Mt): A unit of explosive yield equivalent in energy to 1000 kt, or 1,000,000 tons, of
T N T .
Fission Yield
FISSION Y IE L D: That portion of the total explosive yield of a nuclear explosion attributable to
nuclear fission. The units are kilotons andmegatons. Megatons of fission yield are to
be distinguished from megatons of total yield.
Blast Pressures
O V E R P R E S S U R E : The transient pressure variation above the ambient produced by an explosion;
it travels radially from the source of the detonation.
LOCAL-STATIC OR I N C I D E N T PRESSURE: The overpressure measured side-on to the ad
vancing front of an explosive-produced overpressure.
REFLECTED P R E S S U R E : The instantaneous pressure that occurs when a pressure frontstrikes a surface.
D Y N A M I C P R E S S U R E (Q): The difference between the pressures measured head-on an d side-on to an advancing pressure pulse associated with an explosion. Thus Q , or dynamic
pressure, is a measure of the force exerted by the blast winds. Hurricane wind velocities by definition are 75 mph or greater.
P O U N D S PER S Q U A R E I N C H (psi): A unit used to express the force exerted by blast-produced
pressures.MAXIMAL O V E R P R E S S U R E (Pmax< ): The maximal overpressure existing at any location due
to an explosion. This may refer to incident or reflected pressures.P R I M A R Y , S E C O N D A R Y , AN D T E R T I A R Y B L A S T EFFECTS: Primary, secondary, and terti
ary blast effects are biologically those due, respectively, to (1 ) pressure variations perse, (2 ) the impact of penetrating or nonpenetrating missiles energized by the blast, and
(3 ) the physical displacement of a target by blast winds (may be damaging during the ac-celerative or decelerative phase of the experience).
19
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 20/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 21/88
R E L A T I V E BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS (RBE)*t: A n expression used to compare the
biological effectiveness of different kinds of ionizing radiation,
HAD : A unit of absorbed dose (1 rad = 10 0 ergs/g).R O E N T G E N E Q U I V A L E N T MAN (rem)*t: The unit of the R BE dose; it is equal to the radiation
dose in rads multiplied by an appropriate RBE.t [Note: Although there are very real
distinctions between exposure dose (r), absorbed dose (rads), and biologically effective
dose (rem), the roentgen and rad units are, numerically speaking, no t too different.
Neither does the rem value for X or gamma radiation numerically vary much from those
expressed in roentgen or rad units since the R BE by definition is approximately 1. Once
the absorbed dose (in rads) for neutrons is converted to rem, using an appropriate RBE,the numerical value represents a gamma equivalent of the neutron dose. Consequently,
for practical purposes, the reader may regard the rem values noted in future sections
of the brochure as roughly equivalent numerically to the exposure dose in roentgens.
Although, strictly speaking, this is technically incorrect, the errors involved in such an
approximation are generally much smaller than the other sources of uncertainty and
seem acceptable on this basis.]
EFFECTIVE BIOLOGICAL D O S E (EBD) : This is the accumulated exposure dose of radiation
corrected for biologic recovery and repair that has occurred at a particular and speci
fied time after exposure. Some consider radiation injury as approximately 90 and 10 per
cent reparable and irreparable, respectively, with the former being accomplished in
about three months, but nearly 50 per cent complete in on e month, t Recognizing the E BD
will allow a more refined prediction of medical and biological effects of radiation and
the recovery therefrom.EFFECTIVE A CCU M U L A T E D DOSE (EAD) : The accumulated exposure dose of radiation cor
rected by a factor proportional to the E BD as appropriate to the time in question.
Taken from £ / . S . Bureau of Standards Handbook 62 , 19 56 , 4 8 to which the reader is referred for more precise definitions and explanations. Also see Radiological Health Handbook,
U. S . Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1957. 2 8tFor the data given later covering initial radiations, the rem values were computed using
an R BE for bomb neutrons of 1.7, as was done in The Effects ofNuclear Weapons.2 4{See National Council on Radiation Protection Subcommittee 14 Handbook, Exposure to
Radiation in an Emergency. 4 9
21
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 22/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 23/88
Table 1 ALCULATED WIND-VELOCITY RELATIONS WITH PRESSURE PARAMETERS (SEA LEVEL)*
Maximum pressure,
Incident
1
2
5
10
Reflected
2
4
11
25
psi
Dynamict
0.02
0.10.6
2
Wind
velocity,
mph
40
70
160
290
Maximum pressure,
Incident
20
30
50
100
Reflected
60100
200
500
psi
Dynamict
8
16
40
12 5
Wind
velocity,
mph
500670
940
1400
*Data computed from
tA hurricane wind of 12 0 mph exerts a dynamic pressure of about 0.25 psi.
Table 2 ELATION BETWEEN OVERPRESSURE AND PHYSICAL DAMAGE*
Type of
structural material
Glass:
Window
Plate
Houses:Wooden
Brick
Apartments, brick
Over
pressure,
psi
0,1
0.02
1*2
4-5
54-5
5-7
Physical effects
Damage
Damage to large
glazed areas
50 per cent damaged
Destroyed
Destroyed
Moderate damage
Severe damage
Type of
structural material
Reinforced concrete
Frame buildings
Wall-bearing massive
buildings
Motor vehicles
Parked aircraft
Over
pressure,
psi
4-6
6-8
6-8
8-10
2-3
10-15
1-3
4-6
Physical effects
Moderage damage
Severe damage
Moderate damage
Severe damage
Light damageSevere damage
Minor to major
repair required
Unusable to de
stroyed
*Selected from SCTM 195-58(51). 4 1
Table 3 ELATION BETWEEN OVERPRESSURE AND MISSILE PARAMETERS*
Max.
pressure,
psi
1.9
3.85 .0
8.515.017.317.3
Type of
missile
Window glass
Window glass
Window glass
Natural stones
Natural stones
Natural stones
Irregular steel
objects
Velocity,
Geometric
mean
108
168170
2 75
692
43 2
2 40
ft/sec
Range
50-178
60-310
50-400
167-413
379-1100
300-843
195-301
Mass,
Geometric
mean
1.45
0.58
0.13 0
0.23 0
0.50 0
0.21 0
34.5
g
Range
0.03-10
0,01-10
.002-140
.038-22.2
.043-8.82
.010-13.4
9.0-86.0
Max. missile
density,
missiles/sq ft
0.4
15 9
388
35
4.7
99 .1
3.6
'Reports WT-1168, 5 AECU-3350, 6 and TID-5564. 4 4
Table 4 BLAST DISPLACEMENT OF 165-LB ANTHROPOMETRIC DUMMIES*
Max.
pressure,
psi
5.3
6.6
Max.
Q ,psi
0.7
15.8
Initial
dummy
position
Standing
Prone
Standing
Prone
Max. horizontal
velocity,
ft/sec
21.0
0
Not known
Not known
Time to max.
velocity,
sec
0.5
Not known
Not known
Displacement,
ft
21.9 dow nwind
None
2 5 6 downwind,
44 to right
12 4 downwind,
2 0 to right
*Report WT-1469.4
2 3
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 24/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 25/88
Table 5 HERMAL ENERGIES REQUIRED TOIGNITE HOUSE S A ND MATERIAL*
Material
Ignition energy, cal/cm2
20 kt 10 M t
Wooden houses:
Weathered
Freshly painted white
Newspaper
Wool flannel, black
Cotton shirting, tan
Cotton auto seat covers, green,
brown, white
Rayon taffeta, wine
Fine kindling fuels
Fine grass
1 2
25
3
8
7
9
2
5
5
6
1 6
1 3
1 6
3
7
1 0
*Selected from
Table 6 EXTERIOR IG NITION POINTS IN A ND NEAR SURVEYED AMERICAN CITIES*
Classification of area
Wholesale distribution
Slum residential
Neighborhood retail
Poor residential
Approx. No.
ignition points
per acre
27
20
1 1
9
Classification of area
Small manufacturing
Downtown retail
Good residential
Large manufacturing
Approx. No,
ignition points
per acre
7
4
3
3
*Selected from 24
Table 7 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INITIAL GAMMA-RADIATION DO SE RECEIVED AT
RANGES OF 0.5 A N D 1.5 MILES FROM 20-KT A N D 5-MT NUCLEAR DETONATIONS,RESPECTIVELY, AS A FUNCTION OF TIME*
Percentage of
Explosive
yield
20 kt
5 M t
Range,
miles
0.5
1.5
initial gamma-radiation dose
delivered at indicated times
1 sec
67
5
2 sec
78
1 7
4 sec
88
43
7 sec
95
76
1 0 sec
97
90
15 sec
1 00
98
20 sec
1 00
1 00
* Selected from 2 4
25
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 26/88
remainder of the initial gamma radiation is given off by the rising fireball an d radio
active cloud.The initial ionizing radiation moves away from the source at speeds equal to,
an d somewhat less than, the speed of light for the gamma rays an d neutrons, respec
tively. This radiation undergoes attenuation with distance for a number of reasons, the
most important being (1 ) the greater area over which the radiation is spread with increasing range; (2 ) absorption by air, which is generally less effective for high than for
low energy radiation an d more effective for neutrons than for gamma rays; and (3 )
scatter by air molecules and other material contained in the atmosphere. Appreciation
of the comparative attenuation of the initial neutrons and gamma rays by air is given bya quantity known as the "relaxation length" of the radiation, which is that distance required to reduce the radiation dose by a factor of e (= 2.7183) , the base of the natural
logarithms. The relaxation length is dependent upon the air density (and hence the mass
of material traversed by the radiation) an d the energy and kind of radiation involved.
A t sea level an d for initial bomb radiation, the relaxation length is 338 yards (1014 ft)for gamma and 24 2 yards (726 ft) for neutron radiations. A consequence of this fact isthat neutron dose decreases more rapidly with increasing range than does the gamma
dose, and at the greater ranges only gamma rays contribute significantly to the hazard
from initial radiation.
Three factors contribute to increase the radiation exposure of a given targetduring the first minute after a nuclear explosion above the dosage du e to radiations com
ing from the fissioning material, the fireball, an d the nuclear cloud. These are: (1 )
scatter of radiation from materials, including air, close to the target; (2 ) activation orexcitation of materials in the vicinity of the target by neutrons, particularly the nitrogen
contained in the atmosphere and elements in soil and structures; and (3 ) a decrease in
air .density associated with the negative phase of the blast pressures, which results in
less attenuation of the gamma radiation by air and which is particularly effective in in
creasing the range of gamma rays for the larger yield explosions; i.e., the relaxation
length applicable to gamma rays increases with lower air density and hence attenuation
by the atmosphere decreases.
The relative contribution of neutrons and gamma rays to the initial
radiation is sensitive to the design and yield of the nuclear device, to range, and to fac
tors that contribute to attenuation and augmentation of the radiation. Some appreciation
of the interplay of all these intangibles as they control the percentage of neutron an d
gamma dose is shown in Table 8 , which gives the approximate neutron and gamma portions of the hazard as these vary with explosive yield. The ranges used for each yield
are those in which the radiation would be 600 an d 20 0 rem. The yields for which the
gamma and neutrons would each contribute 50 per cent of the total biological dose of
200 and 600 rem would be near 15 and 30 kt, respectively. Table 8 shows that for
yields less than these the neutrons contribute more of the dose than do the gamma rays.The reverse is true for the higher yields. Likewise, for higher doses than those shown,and therefore at lesser ranges, the neutron contribution would be greater than listed inTable 8 . There are, of course, uncertainties with regard to Tables 7 and 8 which con
cern fission-fusion ratios for a given explosion because as the fission portion of the
total yield decreases, so does the delayed gamma-ray contribution to the initial radia
tion that arises mostly from fission products in the fireball, stem, and cloud. To the
contrary, the neutron an d prompt-gamma contributions to the initial radiation will in
crease.Shielding from penetrating initial radiation arising from a nuclear explosion in
volves many complexities, not the least of which concern differences between neutrons
and gamma rays, the wide energy range of each, and variations associated with shield
thickness and materials* However, certain practical generalizations are useful. Forexample, the reduction of gamma radiation is related to the density of material through
which the radiation passes, as illustrated in Table 9, which notes the thickness of mate
rials of specified density that attenuate the radiation by a factor of 2. The reader will
note that the product of the density of the shield an d the half-value layer is about equal
to 800 . Thus, if the density (x) in pounds per cubic foot of a potential shield is known,
26
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 27/88
Table 8 APPROXIMATE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF NEUTRONS AND GA MMA RA YS
TO THE INITIAL RADIATION EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BIOLOGICAL
DOSE OF 600 AN D 200 REM FOR DIFFERENT EXPLOSIVE YIELDS*
Total
biologic
dose,
rem
200
600
Kind of
radiation
Neutrons
Gamma
Neutrons
Gamma
Approximate percentage contributions of gamma rays and neutrons
to the initial radiation for indicated yields
1 kt
70
30
62
38
20 kt
48
52
57
43
1 00 kt
30
70
38
62
500 kt
5
95
7
93
1 Mt
2
98
3
97
5 Mt
-0
-100
199
20 Mt
-0
-100
~0
-100
NOTE: The levels of exposure chosen "fixed" the range for each yield; e.g., the ranges were
those which resulted in a total biologic dose of 20 0 and 60 0 rem.
*Selected from
Table 9 APPROXIMATE SHIELDING CHARACTERISTICS OF
MATERIAL AGAINST INITIAL GA MM A RADIATION SHOWIN G THE
RELATION BETWEEN SHIELD DENSITY A ND THE THICKNESS
THAT WILL REDUCE THE RADIATION BY ONE-HALF*
Materials
Lead
Steel
Concrete
Earth
Water
Wood
Density,
Ib/cu ft
70 7
490
144
1 00
62.4
34
Half-value thickness,
in.
0.6
1.5
6.0
7.5
13.0
23.0
Product
735
864
750
811
782
NOTE: Assumes 4.0 Mev is an adequate representation of the en
ergy of initial gamma radiation and incorporates build-up factors
correcting for thick shields and broad radiation beams (see pages
353 to 360 and 374 to 380,
*From
27
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 28/88
its half-value thickness can be estimated by dividing 800 by this number; i.e., 800/x =
half layer thickness in inches. Also, through the use of numbers close to those in Table
9 , it is possible to compute the thickness of materials that will attenuate initial gamma
radiation by different amounts. A s a convenience, Table 10 shows such data for quick
reference.
Also of interest are recent studies of Ritchie and Hurst 3 3 noting the shielding from
initial gamma radiation provided by light-frame houses. Such data incorporate the angular distribution of radiation which occurs under full-scale nuclear conditions. Figure 1
shows gamma attenuation as a function of penetration distance for tw o identical houses
measured in opposite orientations with dosimeters placed 42 and 84 in . above the floor.Similar data from the same authors 3 3 are presented in Fig. 2, which gives the attenua
tion values for initial neutron radiation as a function of house-penetration distance. Al
though the shielding afforded by houses may reduce the neutron dose by as much as a
factor of 2, the attenuation is appreciably less than this for gamma rays. In any case,
the shielding potential of houses against bomb radiations is small, but, at certain com
binations of range an d yield, it could be critical in reducing radiation fatalities.
In general, shielding against neutrons is much more complex than shielding against
initial gamma rays, and there is no straightforward correlation between attenuation an dthe density of material as applies with good approximation to gamma radiation. A n ade
quate shield must not only attenuate fast neutrons, but must also capture the slowed-
down neutrons and absorb any radiation that accompanies the capturing process. Boron
or boron-containing minerals, such as colemanite, are useful as absorbers of thermal
neutrons, the process being accompanied by the emission of low-energy gamma rays(0 .48 Mev). Since the latter are not difficult to attenuate, the inclusion of boron has advantages in shielding against neutrons an d will significantly reduce the induced radiation
on surfaces covered with colemanite or in boron-containing materials such as concrete. 2 4
Table 11 shows the thickness of different types of concrete which will reduce neutron
radiation by a factor of 2, i.e., the half-value thickness, and by factors varying from 10
to 100,000.
RESIDUAL RADIATION
The residual ionizing radiation, that occurring subsequent to 1 min following a nuclear ex
plosion, arises mainly from bomb residues including fission products, activated bomb
and other debris, and unfissioned uranium or plutonium. Although beta and alpha particles form a significant portion of the residual radiation, the present discussion will
be limited to gamma rays, the penetrating portion of the residual radiation.Penetrating gamma radiation from radioactive material in the rising fireball,
stem, and cloud is emitted "continuously" as it is when there is induced radiation in
soil, water, structures, and other materials. In case of an explosion in air wherein the
fireball makes no contact with the earth, the hazardous materials, as small particu-lates and gases, are carried to altitude and subsequently either fall back to the earthas dictated by gravity and the winds aloft in time periods like minutes, hours, and days
(early fallout) or are carried to the higher reaches of the atmosphere to undergo non-
uniform world-wide distribution and eventual deposit on the earth's surface in periodslike weeks, months, and many years (delayed fallout). The larger the yield, the higher
the fireball, stem, and cloud are carried and the more likely is fallout to be a delayed
as well as an early problem.
Surface or near-surface explosions carry tons of material, some of it radioactive byneutron activation, up into the stem and cloud where it is mixed and condensed with fis
sion products and bomb debris. This mixture also either falls back to earth in the
shorter time periods or reaches altitudes wherein world-wide distribution occurs, depending much upon explosive yield. However, the surface burst tends to maximize the
early fallout problem with which the subsequent text will deal.
The amount of radioactive debris formed in a nuclear explosion is mostly a function
of fission yield rather than total explosive yield, although neutrons from fusion reac
tions add to the induced radioactivity. Too, the induced components of the penetratingresidual radiation are sensitive to the character of the materials exposed in the vicinity
28
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 29/88
Table 10 PPROXIMATE ATTENUATION FACTORS FOR INITIAL G A M M A RADIATION
A S A FUNCTION OF SHIELD THICKNESS FOR INDICATED MATERIALS*
Shield thickness for the
Attenuation
factor
2
4
10
50
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Lead
(710 Ib/cu ft)
0,6
1.3
2.2
3.6
4.3
6.3
8.2
9.9
Iron and steel
(490 Ib/cu ft)
1.3
2.6
4.3
7.3
8.5
12
16
19
Concrete
(144 Ib/cu ft)
5.5
11
18
30
3 5
52
68
8 4
indicated materials, in.
Earth
( 100 Ib/cu ft)
8
16
26
43.
51
73
93
112
Water
(62.4 Ib/cu ft)
12
25
42
70
8 3
124
168
203
Wood (Fir)
(3.4 Ib/cu ft)
22
44
73
123
145
216
291
396
*From . 2 4
Table 11 APPROXIMATE SHIELD THICKNESS REQUIRED TO ATTENUATE
NEUTRON RADIATION BY THE INDICATED FACTORS
Type of
concrete or
aggregate
Ordinary*
Ordinaryf
Ordinary
Ordinary!
Ordinary +1.25% Pyrex
Magnetite
Limonite
Limonite +
scrap iron
Limonite +
scrap iron +
0.7% Pyrex
Concrete
density,
Ib/cu ft
144
143.3
146.7
149.8
149.2
236.0
164,2
275.5
224.7
Concrete thickness to reduce neutron radiation by
indicated factors, in.
2 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
3
2.2
4.2J
3.5
2.9t
3.3{
l.W
2.2J
2.Of
10
7.3
14
12
9.6
11
6.3
7.4
6.6
20
15
28
23
19
22
13
15
13
3 0
22
52
3 5
29
33
19
22
20
40
29
64
47
3 8
44
25
30
26
50
37
70
58
48
55
32
37
59
*Data from Glasstone 2 4 for bomb neutrons.
tData from Blizard and Miller4 for thermal neutrons.
tHalf-value thickness (attenuation by a factor of 2) from Callan 1 0 for thermal neutrons.
Other data calculated,
§Data from Price et al. 2 9 for fast neutrons.
29
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 30/88
UJ
ocr
UJ
e n
C O
O
a
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
S 0.5
L U
Qe n
0.4
0.3
HOUSE
42" STATION
84 "STATION
HOUSE 2
o
O
i I I8 12 16 20
HOUSE PENETRATION DISTANCE (FEET)
24 28
Fig. 1 Attenuation of gamma radiation by typical single-story Japanese houses.
(Data from Ritchie and Hurst. 3 3 )
30
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 31/88
10
0.9—
0.8LU
V)
§ 0.7
c
0.6
V):D oX
L U
ge n
0.5
oQ
0.4
HOUSE 1 HOUSE 2
42" STATION •
84" STATION •o
O
0.3 I I I I I I8 12 16 20
HOUSE PENETRATION DISTANCE (FEET)
24 28
Fig. 2 Attenuation of fast neutrons by typical single-story Japanese houses.
(Data from Ritchie and Hurst. 3 3 )
31
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 32/88
of an explosion; e.g., some elements when made radioactive remain so for long periods
of time, others only for short periods.
Fortunately, the intensity of the residual nuclear radiation decreases with time after
an explosion, as shown by Table 12, which indicates that only about 2 and 0.2 per cent of
the gamma radiation at 1 hr remain 1 day an d 1 week, respectively, after the detonation.
For general applications, the seven-tenths rule is useful in making rapid approximations
of the decay with time of a known level of residual gamma radiation measured at a par
ticular time. The rule states that as time increases by a factor of 7, the gamma-ray in
tensity decreases by a factor of 10. The application of this simple relationship is illus
trated in Table 13 .Besides radiation decay there are other factors that tend to decrease the resid
ual radiation reaching, or existing at, a given surface area. The first is the height of
the cloud and stem, which is mostly yield dependent. The second is the particle size ofthe fallout debris* The third is the winds aloft, and the fourth is weathering and leach
ing of the soil by wind and rain, which tends to spread the radioactive material furtheror to carry it into subsurface layers of the soiL The first three factors bear upon the
time of fallout arrival and the total surface area over which it is spread. Both a delay
in arrival and an increase in area decrease the level of contamination. Table 14 illus
trates these facts by giving the particle-size distribution of material in an atomic cloud
at an altitude of 80 ,000 ft; their time of fall to the earth's surface; the distance travelled
by particulates of selected size groupings during this period, assuming a 15-mph wind at
all altitudes; and the average radiation of selected size groupings expressed as a per
centage of the initial activity in the cloud right after the burst and when the particleswould arrive at the surface of the earth, allowance being made for decay during transport through the atmosphere. Consider the radiation contained in the 15 0 to 75/jt group
of particles to average about 18 per cent of the total activity just after the burst. Subse
quently, decay occurs during transport to and from an altitude of 80,000 ft . In coming
down, the particles would be transported 59 to 240 miles for the larger and smaller par
ticles, respectively, taking from about 4 to 16 hr. The average activity in this range ofparticle sizes would have decayed to near 0.015 per cent of the initial dose rate by the
time the particles reached the surface of the earth.Once the penetrating radiation is on the ground, a "flat" radioactive surface is
formed, and attenuation with distance above the surface is not straightforward, first,because radiation is received from below and laterally at all angles and, second, be
cause the radiation is scattered from the air molecules, the so-called "sky-shine."Practically, doses received at increasing distances above the surface do not fall of fvery rapidly, as Table 15 shows; e.g., at 20, 150, and 500 ft the radiation has decreased
by factors of about 2, 3, and 10, respectively.
The above information bears somewhat upon shielding provided by above-ground
structures against radiation from a uniformly contaminated plane. The problem is com
plicated by (1 ) the redistribution of source material due to the presence of the structure-material on the roof rather than the ground-and (2 ) the attenuation of radiatiqn due to
structural materials and the contents of the building. However, Table 16 sets forth ap
proximate protection factors that can be expected from shielding by light-frame structures against simulated penetrating fallout radiation. The table also notes that a sheltercovered by 3 ft of earth will give a shielding factor of 1000 or more against radiation
from fallout. Table 17 presents shielding data for various materials showing the attenu
ation factors for penetrating residual radiations. Since the latter have energies averaging less than those of the initial gamma radiation, shielding is less difficult, and the
reader should not confuse the attenuation factors for initial gamma radiation given in
Table 10 with those for fallout gamma rays set forth in Table 17 .
Biological Parameters
BLAST EFFECTS
It is now known that the tolerance of mammals (if the ear
drums and sinuses are ignored) to variations in environmental pressure depends a great
32
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 33/88
Table 12 DECAY OF RESIDUAL GAMMA RADIATION
FROM AN EXPLOSION HAVING A 1-MT FISSION YIELD*
Time after
explosion
1 hour
1 day 1 week
1 month
1 year
Activity,
megacuries
300,000
6,600
64 0
110
5,5
Activity,
%
10 0
2.2
0.213
0.037
0.0018
*Data from
Table 13 SEVEN-TENTHS RULE FOR APPROXIMATING DECAY
OF RESIDUAL GAMMA RADIATION*
Time after burst
Hr
1
7
49
343
2401
days
0.04
0.29
2.04
14.3
100
Time factor
1
7
? 2
? 3
7 4
Dose rate,
r/hr
1000
10 0
10
1
0.1
Dose-rate
factor
1
1/10
1/100
1/1000
1/10,000
NOTE: These data are based upon the formula generally used;
i.e., R t = Rjt"1 ' 2 , where Rt is the dose rate at some instant and R t
is a later dose rate after an interval of time, t, has passed. This
relationship is not strictly applicable to very early or very late
times after a burst, nor does it apply to a given location on the
earth's surface until fallout is complete.
*Data from
Table 14 APPROXIMATE TIMES OF FALL OF VARIOUS SIZED RADIOACTIVE PARTICULATES
FROM 80,000 FT AND DISTANCE TRAVELED IN A 15-MILE WIND (AT ALL ALTITUDES) AS
RELATED TO PROPORTION OF INITIAL GAMMA ACTIVITY AT ALTITUDE AND AT SURFACE
CORRECTED FOR DECAY DURING TRANSPORT*
Particle
diameter,
M>340
340-250
250-150150-75
75-33
33-1616-8
8-5
Time
of fall,
hr
Up to 0.75
0.75-1.4
1.4-3.93.9-16
16-80
80-340
340-1400
1400-3400
Distance
traveled in
15-mph wind, miles
Up to 11
11-21
21-5959-240
240-1200
1,200-5,100
5,100-21,000
21,000-51,000
Percentage
of initial
activity
3.8
12,6
14.518.1
Percentage of
initial activity
deposited
0.0394
0.0964
0.04600.0154
*Data from
33
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 34/88
Table 15 PPROXIMATE ATTENUATION OF RESIDUAL G AM M A
(0.7 M E V ) RADIATION W ITH DISTANCE ABOVE EARTH'S SU RFACE*
Distance above
ground, ft
20
150
30 0
Attenuation
factor
2
3
5
Distance above
ground, ft
50 0
1000
2000
Attenuation
factor
10
30
30 0
NOTE: Theattenuation factors
apply to 0.7-Mev gammarays,
which
simulates reasonably well a surface covered with fission products,
*Data from
Table 16 SHIELDING FACTORS FOR TYPICAL LIGHT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
AG AINST GAMMA RAYS SIMULATING PENETRATING RESIDUAL RADIATION
Reduction factors*
Structure
Two-story wood-frame houset
One -story woo d ramblert
Two-story brick veneer!
Shelter (earth covered)
3 ft below gradett
Location
2nd floor, center
1st floor, center
Basement, center
Basement, corner
Basement, corner shelter
1st floor, center
1st floor, center
Basement, center
Roof con
tribution
0.076
0.034
0.015
0.10
0.034
0.015
Ground con
tribution
0.500.57
0.028
0,54
0,14
0.021
Total
0.58
0.60
0.043
0.64
0.17
0.036
Protection
factorf
1.71 .7
23§
4 0 1 T
< 1 0 0 1 T
1 .66**
28 §
1000 or
more
*Reduction factor represents the dose rate at a specified location divided by the dose rate outside at 3 ft
above ground.
tProtection factor represents the outside dose rate at 3 ft above ground divided by the dose rate inside
at the specified location.
tAfter Eisenhauer. 1 8 '
§ Applies to basement with no exposed walls.
fAfter Auxier; 1 Auxier, Buchanan, Eisenhauer, and Menker;2 and Strickler and Auxier.3 9
**Applies only for detector locations below window sill.
ttFrom
Table 17 APPROXIMATE ATTENUATION FACTORS FOR GAMMA RAYS FR OM FISSION
PRODUCTS AS A FU NC TIO N OF SHIELD THICKNESS FOR IN DICATED M ATERIALS*
Attenuation
factor
2
4
10
50
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Lead
(710 Ib/cu ft)
0.28
0.64
1 ,0
1 .6
1 .9
2.73.5
4.3
Shield
Iron and steel
(490 Ib/cu ft)
0.7
1.8
2.7
4.2
4.8
6.8
8.8
11
thickness for indicated materials, in.
Concrete
(144 Ib/cu ft)
2.56.6
9. 7
14
16
22
27
32
Earth
(1 00 Ib/cu ft)
3.5
8.9
13
20
23
32
39
46
Water
(62.4 Ib/cu ft)
4.8
13
19
29
33
4 556
70
Wood (Fir)
(3.4 Ib/cu ft)
9.2
25
36
55
62
88
1 10
140
*Data from
34
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 35/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 36/88
Table 18 SHOCK-TUBE MORTALITY DATA FOR FAST-RISING LONG-DURATION OVERPRESSURES
WHEN INCIDENT A N D REFLECTED PRESSURES ARE APPLIED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY*
Animal
species
Mousef
Rabbitf
Guinea pigt
Ratf
DogJ
Overpressure for indicated mortality, psi
1 per cent 50 per cent 99 per cent
Incident
7
9
10
1 0
1 5
Reflected
20
25
28
28
40
Incident
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
17
Reflected
30
33
37
39
48
Incident
15
1 5
1 6
1 8
20
Reflected
44
44
48
53
56
Threshold pressure
for lung injury,
psi
Incident
4
6
6
8
7
Reflected
1 0
1 5
1 5
1 9
20
Man§ 35-45 45-55 55-65 15-25
NOTE: All incident and reflected overpressures were empirically determined. Because of geometric
factors there necessarily was not the same relation between incident and reflected overpressures for ex
periments with the smaller and the larger animals; e.g., the reflection of a given incident pressure is less
in the presence of a larger animal than it is for the smaller animal.
* Reports WT-1467, 3 0 TID-6056, 3 1 TID-5564, 4 4 and unpublished data from an AEC project being con
ducted at Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
tDurations of overpressure were 6 sec.
^Durations of overpressure were 400 msec.
§ Tentative estimate for overpressure durations greater than 50 0 msec.
Table 1 9 XPOSURE TO SLOW-RISING OVERPRESSURES OF LONG DURATION*
Max.
o v e r p r e s s u r e ,
p s i
1 6 7
1 1 8
156
1708 6
130
Time t o
max.
pressure,
msec
155
8 5
8 6
6 0
2 8
3 0
D u r a t i o n o f
o v e r p r e s s u r e ,
s e c
5
20
20
1 0
1 0
1 0
Ruptured
eardrums
Yes
Yes
Yes
YesYe s
Yes
Damage observ ed
Hemorrhagic
sinuses
Yes
Yes
Yes
YesYes
Yes
Lung
contusion
None
None
Minimal
NoneNone
Minimal
*Richmond et al. 3 2
Table 20 ORBITAL FRACTURE IN DO GS EXPOSED TO SLOW-RISING LONG-DURATION OVERPRESSURES*
Occurrence of orbital fracture for indicated times to maximal pressure (Pm ax )
1 0 to 20 msec 21 to 30 msec Totals 1 0 to 30 msec Totals 31 to 16 0 msjecOver
pressure, Number Orbital % Number Orbital % Number Orbital % Number Orbital %
psi animals fracture fracture animals fracture fracture animals fracture fracture animals fracture fracture
40-80
81-120
121-160
161-200
201-240
T o t a l s
15
12
9
0
112
4
0
2 0
100
100
44
2
1 0
6
9
1
2 8
0
0
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
3 3
1 0 0
1 4
2
1 1
1 1
1 0
3
3 7
0
0
14
3
8
0
0
9
40
1 0 0
2 2
3
4
6
3
0
1 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*Overpressure durations ranged from 5 to 20 sec. Data from Richmond, AE C Project, Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque,
N . Mex. (unpublished)
36
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 37/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 38/88
Table21MORTALITY DATA FOR GUINEA PIGS EXPOSED AGAINST , AN D AT
VA RIOUS DISTANCES FROM, THE EN D PLATE CLOSING A SHOCK TUBE TO
FAST-RISING LONG-DURATION OVERPRESSURES W H E N THE INCIDENT AN D
REFLECTED OVERPRESSURES A RE APPLIED IN TWO STEPS*
Distance
from
end plate,
in.
0
1
2
3
6
1 2
Number
animals
1 40
75
78
87
99
1 09
Overpressuref associated
with 50 % mortality, psi
Incident
12.1
13.4
15.6
16.9
18.7
18.2
Reflected
36.7 .7
40.8 2.1
48.3 1.3
52.8 .9
58.6 1.6
57,1 1.1
Time between applica
tion of incident and re
flected pressures,
msec
Essentially none
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.63
1.36
* Report TID-6056. 3 1
fThe overpressure durations were between 6 and 8 sec.
Table 22 FAST-RISING SHORT-DURATION OVERPRESSURES
REQUIRED FOR NEAR 1 00 PER CENT MORTALITY IN D OGS *
Maximum static
overpressure, psi
Overpressure
duration, msec
216
219
1 25
85
79
76
1.6
1.6
4.1
8.6
10.3
11.8
*Data from Desaga.
Table 23RELATION BETWEEN OVERPRESSURE A ND 50 PER CENT MORTALITY FOR ANIMALS
EXPOSED TO SINGLE SHARP-RISING OVERPRESSURES OF INDICATED DURATIONS*
Overpressures for 50 % mortality at indicated durations, psi
Animal
speciesf
Mouse
Rabbit
Guinea pig
Rat
Dog
6 to
Incident
1 1
1 2
13
14
8 sec
Reflected
30
33
37
39
400 msec (t)t
Incident
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 7
Reflected
31
33
35
37
48
80 msec (t)J 3 to
Incident Reflected Incident
1 1
1 3
1 4 38 1 3
11
4 msec
Reflected
29
36
35
39
*Data from Report TID-6056 3 1 and unpublished work, AEC Project, Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque,
N . Mex.tAnimals exposed against the end plate closing a shock tube to incident and reflected overpressures that
were applied almost instantaneously.
t(t) = tentative data.
38
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 39/88
Table 24 PRESSURE TOLERANCE OF THE EARDRUMS OF DO G AND MAN
Maximum pressures for the noted conditions
Species
Dog*
Mant
Minimal,
psi
5
5
Average,
psi
31
20-33
Maximal,
psi
90
43
*Data from 1953, 1955, and 1957 Nevada Field Tests; see WT-1467. 3 0
TData from Zalewski.4 7 Human eardrum tolerance varies with age, hencethe variation from 33 psi (for ages 1 to 1 0 years) to 20 psi (for ages above
20 years). Se e also Report TID-5564.4 4
Table 25 VELOCITY-MASS PROBABILITY RELATIONSHIPS
REQUIRED FOR SM ALL WINDOW-GLASS FRAGMENTS TO
TRAVERSE THE A BD OM I N A L WALL A N D REACH THE
PERITONEAL CAVITY OF DOGS*
Mass of glass
fragments,
g
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.010.0
Impact velocities for indicated
probabilities of penetration in per cent, ft/sec
1 per cent
320
235
1 60
1 40
1 1 5
50 per cent
57 0
41 0
27 5
24 5
1 80
99 per cent
1000
73 0
48 543 0
35 5
*Data from Report AECU-3350. 6
Table 26 EFFECTS OF MISSILES ON H U MAN CADAVERS*
Type
missile
Sphericalbullets
Bullets
Mass,
g
8.7
8.77.4
7.46-106-15
Velocity,
ft/sec
1 9023 0
360
513
420-266
751-476
Effect on man
Slight skin lacerationPenetrating wound
Abrasion and crack of tibia
Travels through thigh
Threshold for bone injury
Fractures large bones
*Data from Journee. 2 7
Table 27 IMPACT VELOCITY REQUIRED FOR PUNCTURING RABBIT
EYEBALL EMBEDD ED IN GELATIN*
Shape
of steelmissile
Sphere
Sphere
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Mass
Grains
0.85
16.0
2,1
4.2
16.0
64.0
255.0
Grams
0.06
1.04
0.14
0.27
1.04
4.15
16.52
V 5 0 impact
velocity,ft/sec
350
1 5220 5
1 23
11 9
7393
Effect on rabbit eye
Fifty per cent chance
of puncturing wall
of eyeball with loss
of aqueous humor
(fluid).
*Data from Stewart, Report CWLR 2332.
39
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 40/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 41/88
Table 28 FFECTS OF MISSILE IMPACT O N TH E CHEST AN D HEAD
Threshold velocities for
missiles of indicated weights, ft/sec
Biological effects observed 0.8 Ib 0.4 Ib
Lung hemorrhages *
Side of impact only (unilateral)
Impact side and opposite side (bilateral)
Ri b fracture*Internal lacerations from fractured ribs*
Fatality within 1 hr*
Experimental fracture
human skullf
4511 0
6090
15 5
80
12 5
12 012 0
17 015 to 23 ft/sec range of velocities for
10 Ib object (7-15 Ib weight range ofhuman adult head)
*UnpubIished data from dogs, A EC Project, Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, N . Mex.f Computed from data of Gurdjian, Webster, and Lissner. 2 5
Table 29 VELOCITIES OF IMPACT AGAINS T A H ARD SU RFACEASSOCIATED WITH 50 PER CENT MORTALITY OF THE INDIC ATED
SPECIES OF ANIMALS WITH EXTRAPOLATION T O M A N * f
Species
of
animal
Mouse
Rat
Guinea pig
Rabbit
Man
(computed)
Averageanimal
mass,
g
19
18 0
65 0
2,600
72,574
(160 Ib)
Impact velocity for
50 per cent mortality
Ft/sec
38
44
31
31
27
M ph
26
30
21
21
18
Equivalent height of fall
(approx.),
ft
22
30
15
15
11
NOTE: The regression equation fitted to the animal data an d used in
computing the predicted V 5 0 for man is
log V 5 0 = 1.6792-0.517 log m
V 5 Q = velocity associated with 50 per cent mortality infeet per second and m = average weight of the ani
mal in grams. Standard error for estimating V 5 0 is
0.0448 log units or about 10.5 per cent.
*National Safety Council release on urban automobile accidents shows
40 and 70 per cent of fatalities were associated, respectively, with speeds
of or less than 20 and 30 mph t Quoted from DeHaven. 1 5
tData AEC Project, Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, N . M ex ,
Table 30 APPROXIM V E IMPACT VELOCITIES AN D EQUIVALENT HEIGHTS OF DROP
FOR FRACTURE OF H U M A N SPINE, SKULL, FEET, AN D ANKLES
Effects on man
Experimental
skull fracture*
Fracture of feet
and anklesf
Fracture of
lumbar spinet
Impact
Ft/sec
13.5-22.9
12-13
8
velocity
M ph
9.5-15.0
8-9
6
Equivalent
height of drop,
in.
37-91
25-30
12
Comment
Range of 1 to 99 per cent frac
ture of cadaver heads dropped
on flat metal surface
Impact-table data using cadavers
with knees locked
Estimated for impact on hard
surface in sitting position
*Data from Gurdjian, Webster, and Lissner. 2
fData from Draeger et al. 1 7
JComputed from data of Ruff. 3 4
41
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 42/88
Table 31 HERMAL ENERGIES FOR B URNS OF BARE WHITE SKIN*
Thermal energy for the indicated
explosive yields, cal/cm2
Degree of burn 1 kt 20 kt 10 0 kt 1 M t 10 Mt 20 Mt
First degree
Second degree
Third degree
2.0
4.1
6.0
2.5
4.9
7.3
2.7
5.4
8.1
3.2
6.2
9.4
3.77.2
10.8
3.87.5
11.4
*Data from
Table 32 COMPARISON OF THERMAL ENERGIES
APPLIED OVER 540 MSEC REQUIRED FOR BURNS OF
THE SKIN OF WHITE AND NEGRO VOLUNTEERS*
Thermal energy, cal/cm2
Degree of burn White subjects Negro subjects
NoneFirst degree
Second degree
Third degree
2.0
3.2
3.9
4,8
Not stated
Not stated
1.8-2.9
3.3-3.7
*Data from Evans et al. 1 9 and Brooks et al. 7
Table 33 MORTALITY IN TREATED BURN CASESRELATED TO PERCENTAGE OF BODY AREA BURNED*t
Average mortality
read from probitcurve, %
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
Area burned,
% of totalbody area
22
4149
55
60
65
70
75
81
89
96
* Number of cases, 405.
tData from Schwartz, Soroff, Reiss, and Curtis, Re
port MEDEW-RS-12-56. 3 6
42
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 43/88
Table 34 STIMATED RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CONCOMITANT
SECOND- AND THIRD-DEGREE BURNS ASSOCIATED WITH AN
AVERAGE MORTALITY OF 50 PER CENT IN TREATED CASES*t
Third-deg ree
burn a r e a , %
4 6
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
Second-degree
burn a r e a , %
0
1 1
2 1
3 0
3 9
T h i r d -degree
burn a r e a , %
2 0
1 5
1 0
5
0
Second-de gree
burn a r e a , %
48
5 7
6 7
7 6
8 5
* Number of cases, 405.
fData from Schwartz, Soroff, Reiss, and Curtis, Report MEDEW-RS-
12-56. 3 6
Table 35 STIMATED HEALING TIME FOR FIRST-, SECOND-, AND THIRD-DEGREE
BURNS AND SIMPLIFIED CLINICAL COMMENTS*
Degree ofburn
Healing time,
days Comments
First 8
Second 8-16 (uninfected)
Up to 42 (infected)
Third 2 0 to 30 (uninfected
small burns
epithelize)
2 0 to 42 (larger burns
healing with scar
formation)
Many months (skin
grafting required)
Burning pain 2 4 hr; soreness and redness 8 days
Intense burning pain 2 4 hr; swelling by 1 hr (can
be very serious if face is involved)
Blistering 2 to 30 hr; ooze serum 34 days; scar
(scabbing) 6 to 10 days; aching and tenderness
8 4 days
Brief intense pain followed by blanching and sub
sequent insensitiveness to pin prick; swelling
up to 2 days (can be very serious if eyes and
lips are involved); blistering around third-
degree burn, 24-36 hrs; soreness 7-10 days
Separation of destroyed skin 3 to 4 weeks with
ulceration; epithelization 4 weeks (small
burns); scar formation 6 weeks; areas wider
than 2 cm (0.8 in.) require plastic surgery
*Data from Butterfield, Seager, Dixey, and Treadwell. 8
Table 36 PROBABLE EFFECTS IN HUMANS OF ACUTE
EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION OVER THE WHOLE BODY*
Acute dose,
r Probable effect
0 25 No obvious injury
25 50 No serious injury; possible blood changes
50-100 Blood-cell changes; some injury; no disability
100-200 Injury; possible disability
200 400 Injury and disability certain; death possible
400 Fatal to 50 per cent
600 or more Fatal
*Data from U. S . Department of
Health, Education and Welfare,2 8 citing
as the source of the information.
43
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 44/88
Appreciation of the hazard to man from retinal burns resulting from fireball light isapparently far from complete, particularly for bursts above or in the high terrestrialatmosphere. However, a few data are at hand from experience during Operation Hard
tack in 1958* when two devices in the megaton range were detonated in the vicinity ofJohnston Island, one at an altitude of about 100,000 ft and the other above 200,000 ft. The
latter explosion did not produce an intensity of thermal radiation on the earth's surface
at Johnston Island sufficient to produce first-degree burns in humans* N o data were obtained from the lower explosion because of cloud cover. A biomedical project employing
rabbits to investigate the hazard of burns to the retinal tissue of the ey e observed retinal
burns (0 .5 mm) out to distances of 345 miles. This involved a potential hazardous area
of near 374,000 square miles in clear weather. It was concluded that an individual wouldhave to be looking directly at the fireball of a nuclear detonation to receive permanent,
serious impairment of vision from a high-altitude burst.
IONIZING-RADIATION EFFECTS
The probable early effects in humans of acute exposure to varying doses ofionizing radiation over the whole body are listed in Table 36. 2 8
exposure to radiation is no t acute bu t is prolonged, some tissues of the
body undergo repair, an d the degree of the biological effect depends, among other things,
upon the balance maintained between the continuing repair and radiation damage. For
doses accumulated over a one- or two-day period, the repair process is not very effec
tive, but, on an d after the third day, particularly at low dose rates, very appreciable dif
ferences occur. Tables 37 and 38 summarize applicable estimates made by the U. S.
Public Health Service. 2 8 Long-term genetic effects attributable to exposure to ionizing
radiation above the natural background (4.3 to 5.5 r over 30 years in the United States)
are no t clearly definable. However, responsible individuals have estimated that from 30
to 8 0 r accumulated dose would double the mutations that occur spontaneously. In view
of this, a Genetics Committee of the National Academy of Sciences 5 0 has recommended
that radiation exposure (1 ) be held as low as possible, (2 ) as an average for the popula
tion, be limited to no t more than 10 r accumulated dose to the reproductive organs up to
the age of 30 years, and (3 ) be limited for individuals to 50 r to the reproductive organs
up to age 30 an d to 50 r additional up to the age 40.
It is of interest to note here that a responsible body of scientists hasconsidered the question of the maximal permissible radiation exposure in case of an
emergency. The following statement was made: However, it can be stated with some
confidence that total doses of 150 to 20 0 r, delivered acutely or over days or months,would result in no apparent acute effects and serious late effects in only a small percent
of those exposed, "tSuch an opinion is consistent with experience gained in human radiation acci
dents and treatment summarized by Gerstner. 2 2 ' 2 3 This author also noted the percentage
of the exposed population that might require hospitalization. The data, along with a very
general assessment of the clinical course, are noted in Table 39.
* Joint A E C - D O D News Release, dated June 15, 1959. 5 2
tNational Academy of Sciences National Research Council Report,
p. 17 , 1958 . 5 1
44
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 45/88
Table 37 STIMATE OF EFFECTIVE DO SE A N D LETHALITY OF VARIOUS
DOSE RATES TO MAN*t
Dose,
r/day
200
10 0
50
Day
1
3
5
1 0
1
3
5
1 0
1
3
5
10
1 5
Accumulated
dose, r
20 0
600
1000
2000
10 0
300
50 0
1000
50
150
250
50 0
75 0
Effective
accumulated
dose, r
20 0
542
81 9
1326
100
271
409
66 3
50
13 5
204
33 0
395
Estimated mean
survival time,
days
20
1 5
1 0
1 5
1 5
30
30
30
Estimated per
centage of deaths
in 30 days
30
60
85
100
8
35
50
75
0
1 5
25
40
50
*From
tBased on 250-kvp X rays. Corrections should be made for higher energy radiations; e.g.,
1000-kvp X or gamma radiation would have a relative biological effectiveness of approxi
mately 70 per cent of 250-kvp X rays.
Table 38 ESTIMATED DOSES FOR VARYING DEGREES OF INJURY TO MAN*?
Dose rate,
r/day
50 0
10 0
60
30
1 0
3
0.5
Period of
time
2 days
Until death
1 0 days
1 0 days
36 5 days
Fe w months
Many months
Effect
Mortality close to 10 0 per cent
Mean survival time approximately 1 5 days
1 00 per cent mortality in 30 days
Morbidity and mortality high with
crippling disabilities
Disability moderate
Some deaths
N o drop in efficiency
N o large-scale drop in life span
*From
tBased on 250-kvp X rays. Corrections should be made for higher energy radi
ations; e.g., 1000-kvp X or gamma radiation would have a relative biological effec
tiveness of approximately 70 per cent of 250-kvp X rays.
Table 39 ESTIMATED CLINICAL COURSE A N D HOSPITILIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
HU M ANS EXPOSED TO VARIOUS ACUTE DOSES OF PENETRATING RADIATION*
Individuals following indicated Individuals
T^M clinical symptoms, % _ nA.,. in?.Dose, hospitilization,
r Trivial Light Moderate Serious Grave Fatal
0-200 98 2
200-300 1 33 64 2
300-400 6 68 26
400-500 3 58 39
500-600 6 94
Above 600 10 0
%
None
2
941 00
10 0
10 0
Maximal
time of
hospitilization,weeks
0
6
7
9
1 1
1 1
"Compiled from Gerstner,2 2 ' 2 3
45
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 46/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 47/88
Q U ANTITA TIVE W EAPONS-EFFECTS D ATA
T he material that follows, along with the explanatory remarks for each table or illustration, sets forth selected weapons-effects data, all referable to sea-level surface altitudes, as a
function of explosive yield for surface and typical air bursts. S om e assessment of the com
parative hazard to man from blast, thermal radiation, and ionizing radiation can be obtained by referring to previous sections of the brochure.
Perhaps the reader will share with the authors the conclusion that planned protection from
weapon-produced variations in the environment is desirable and that provision of such protec
tion would markedly enhance the chances of survival for a high percentage of the population
should nuclear war ever occur.
47
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 48/88
Comparison of Blast, Thermal Radiation, and Ionizing Radiation
TABLE 4 0 : WEAPONS-EFFECTS DATA FOR SELECTED PARAMETERS
In Table 40 are tabulated the approximate ranges from Ground Zero (GZ) and the circularareas over which the indicated selected weapons effects may occur as a function of explosive
yield. It was assumed that slant ranges for initial ionizing radiation and thermal data are a
reasonable approximation of the ground range an d that atmospheric conditions were clear.
(Data are from
Explosive yield
Selected parameters Ikt 20 kt 100 kt 1 Mt 10 Mt 20 Mt
700 rem (initial)
100 rem (initial)
3 0 rem (initial)
5 psi (typical air burst)
5 psi (surface burst)
1 psi (typical air burst)
1 psi (surface burst)
Second~degree burns
First-degree burns
Fireball
Crater (surface burst, dry soil)
700 rem (initial)
100 rem (initial)
30 rem (initial)
5 psi (typical air burst)
5 psi (surface burst)
1 psi (typical air burst)
1 psi (surface burst)
Second-degree burns
First-degree burns
Fireball
Crater (surface burst, dry soil)
0.42
0.62
0.74
0.39
0.28
1,00
0.86
0.48
0.69
0.044
0.012
Range from GZ for Various Parameters, Miles
0.70
0.99
1.18
1.06
0.77
2.71
2.35
1.72
2.47
0.14
0,031
0,96
1.29
1,51
1.81
1.32
4.64
4.02
3.40
4.97
0.28
0.058
1.44
1.81
2.07
3.90
2.85
10.0
8.65
9.00
13.3
0.69
0.12
2.04
2.55
2.91
8.40
6.14
21.5
18.6
23.8
36.0
1.7
0.26
2.27
2.88
3.30
10.6
7.74
27.1
23.5
31.9
49.2
2.3
0.32
Area Corresponding to Above Ranges, Square Miles
0.55
1 . 2 1
1.72
0 . 4 8
0.25
3.14
2.32
0.73
1.50
0.006
0 . 0 0 0 4 5
1 , 5 4
3 . 0 8
4 . 3 7
3 . 5 3
1 . 8 6
23.1
1 7 . 4
9 . 2 9
1 9 . 2
0.062
0.0012
2.90
5 . 2 3
7 . 1 6
1 0 . 3
5 . 4 7
6 7 . 6
5 0 . 8
3 6 . 3
77.6
0 . 2 5
0.0096
6 . 5 1
10.3
1 3 . 5
47.8
25.5
3 1 4
2 3 5
2 5 4
5 5 6
1 . 5 0
0.045
1 3 . 1
20.4
26.6
2 2 2
1 1 9
1 4 5 0
1 0 90
1 7 8 0
4 0 7 0
9,08
0 . 2 1
1 6 . 2
2 6 . 1
3 4 . 2
3 5 3
1 8 9
2 3 1 0
1 7 3 0
3 2 0 0
7 6 0 0
16.6
0.32
48
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 49/88
TABLE 41: COMPARATIVE WEAPONS-EFFECTS DATA
Table 41 gives the approximate ground ranges in miles for selected values of initial ioniz
ing radiation, overpressure, and thermal radiation computed for typical air bursts of indicated
yields assembled in such a way as to aid appreciation of the interrelation between the individ
ual effects. For example, a ground range of about 3 miles is shown for 100-rem initial radia
tion from a 20-Mt detonation; at this distance an overpressure near 19 psi can be expected
along with a thermal load of over 1000 cal/cm2 . Ten miles from GZ, 1 psi is predicted for a
1-Mt explosion; at this location there would occur less than 10 rem and about 6 cal/cm2 of
initial ionizing and thermal radiation, respectively. Referring to Table 31, one can see that
6 cal/cm 2 of thermal energy is sufficient to produce second-degree burns to the exposed bare
skin.
Since the data in Table 41 are for typical air bursts, no significant short-term fallout
hazard would occur. As in the previous table, slant ranges for ionizing and thermal radiations
were considered to be a reasonable approximation of the ground range.
The symbols > and »mean greater than and much greater than, < and «mean less than
and much less than, respectively.
(Data are from
Initial ionizing radiation,
overpressure, and thermal
radiation Ikt 20 kt 100 kt 1 Mt 10 Mt 20 Mt
30-rem range, miles
Pressure, psi
Thermal, cal/cm2100-rem range, miles
Pressure, psi
Thermal, cal/cm27 00- rem range, miles
Pressure, psi
Thermal, cal/cm21-psi range, miles
Radiation, rem
Thermal, cal/cm25-psi range, miles
Radiation, rem
Thermal, cal/cm2Second-degree burn:
Range, miles
Pressure, psi
Radiation, rem
0.74
1.70
1.70.
0.62
2.30
2.50
0.42
4.3
6.9
1.00
0.88
0.39
900
7.00
0.48
3.6
380
1.18
4.16
12.4
0.99
5.55
18.0
0.70
9.1
38
2.71
2.02
1.06
64
15,8
1.72
2.2
<1 0
1.51
6.60
36.0
1.29
8.30
52.0
0,96
11.2
97
4,64
3.30
1.81
< io
24.5
3.40
1.7
<10
2.07
11.1
18 2
1.81
12.4
240
1.44
14.9
400
10.0
5.90
3.90
<10
46.0
9.00
1,2
<10
2,91
15,6
880
2.55
17.4
>1000
2.04
20.5
X L O O O
21.5
11,4
8.40
<10
89.0
23.8
<1
«10
3.30
17.0
>1000
2.88
18.8
>1000
2.27
22.5
>1000
27.1
13.8
10.6
<1 0
105
31.9
< 1
«10
49
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 50/88
FIGURE 3: ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS DU E TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION , AN D
IONIZING RADIATION FOR INDICATED EXPLOSIVE YIELDS
The scaled ranges and areas applicable to 10 0 rem of initial radiation, 1 psi, and second-
degree burns for typical air bursts are shown in Fig. 3 as these parameters vary with explo
sive yield. The relative gain in range and areas covered by blast and thermal effects compared
with initial ionizing radiation as weapon weight increases deserves emphasis. For yields of 1
M t or less, the areas in which at least second-degree burns will occur are smaller than those
for at least 1-psi overpressure; whereas for the higher yields the reverse is true. Slant ranges
for ionizing and thermal radiation were assumed to be reasonable approximations of the ground
range. (Data are from
IKT 20 KT 100 KT 10 MT 20 MT1-40
- 0
-20
SecondDegree —b— —
Burn* f
Second Degree Burns
Second Degree Burns
-10
-20
<-40
50
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 51/88
FIGURE 4: ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS DUE TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION, A N D
INITIAL IONIZING RADIATION FOR 1-, 20-, 100-, A N D 1000-KT EXPLOSIVE YIELDS
The scaling relations for 30 and 10 0 rem of initial radiation, 1 and 5 psi, and second-
degree burns are shown to the same scale in Fig. 4 for typical air bursts ranging from 1 kt to
1 M t. The reader will note that the 100-rem radius extends well beyond the 5-psi line for a
1-kt yield. These tw o radii are almost equal for 20 kt, bu t the 5-psi line extends much beyondthe 100~rem range for yields of 100 and 1000 kt. Slant range for ionizing and thermal radiation
was considered a fair approximation of the ground range. (Data are from
20 KT 100 KT I MT
IO O RE M (2.3 PSI)Range: 0.62 m iAr ea: 1 . 2 1 tq mt
30 REM (1.70 PSI)Range: 0.74 m iArea: 1.72 sq ml
5 PSIRange: 0.390 m iArea: O.478 s q mi
IO
100 REM (8.3 PSI)Range: 1 .29miAr ea: 5.23 s q m t
30 REM (6.6 PSI)Rang*: 1 . 5 1 miArea: 7.16 s q m l
Second Degree BuRange: 0.485 m iArea: 0.739 s q m i
Second Degree BurnsRange 1.72 m iAreo 929 m i
I Range: 1 . 8 1 ml
Range 4 64mi Area: 10.3 sq m iArea: 67.6 s q m i
Second Degree BurnsRange. 3.40 miArea: 36.3 sq m i
100 REM (J2.4 PSI)Ra nge : 1 . 8 1 m iArea: 10.3 s q m i
30 REM ( 1 1 . 1 PSI)R ang*: 2.07 m lArea:13.5 s q m i
r 0
-
-
-0
PSIR ange: 3.9OmiArea: 47.8 s q m i
51
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 52/88
FIGURE 5: ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS D UE TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION, AN D
INITIAL IO NIZING RADIATION FOR 1- AN D 10-MT EXPLOSIVE YIELDS
A comparison of the radii and ranges for 1 - and 5-psi blast overpressure, 30 and 10 0 rem
of initial radiation, and second-degree burns is shown to the same scale for typical air bursts
of 1- and 10-Mt yields. Slant ranges for ionizing and thermal radiation was assumed to be a
reasonable approximation of the ground range. (Data are from
\ MT
Total initial Dose
of 100 REM(12.4 PSI)
' Ra nge: 1 . 6 1 miArea: 10.3 sq m i
Total Initial Dose
of 100 REM (174 PSI)
Range: 2.55 mi
Area : 20.4 sq m i
10 MT
5 PSf
Range: 3.90 mi
Area: 47.B sq mi
10 --Second Degree Burns (1.2 PSI)
Range: 9.00 m i
Area: 254 sq m i
60 sq mi
I PS IRange. 1O.O mi
Area: 31 4 s qm i
320sq m i
-25
-20
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 53/88
FIGURE 6 : ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS DUE TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION, A N D
INITIAL IONIZING RADIATION FOR A 20-MT EXPLOSIVE YIELD
A comparison of the indicated effect parameters is shown for the 20-Mt typical air burst
drawn to the same scale as in Fig. 5 . It was assumed that the slant ranges for thermal and
ionizing radiation were reasonable approximations of the ground ranges.
It is instructive to contemplate Fig. 6 from the point of view of human hazard. Exposureto 10 0 rem of initial radiation would cause no incapacitation. However, casualties from ther
mal and blast would be very high at the 100-rem location, about 3 miles from GZ, where the
overpressure and thermal flux would be close to 19 psi and over 1000 cal/cm 2 , respectively.
Indeed, casualties from blast, flash burns, an d fire would be heavy out to the 5-psi location,
where houses would.be completely destroyed by blast (see Table 2). Still further out, injuries
would lessen and be minimal owing to blast at the 1-psi line where wooden-frame houses suffer
5 0 per cent damage. Serious flash and fire hazards for unprotected persons would exist o ut to,
and even beyond, the second-degree burn line. One reason for this is the fact that thermal
fluxes required to ignite fine kindling fuels are very close to those which produce second-
degree burns of the bare skin. There would be no immediate fallout problem since the case
under discussion involves an air burst.
(Data are from
Total Initial Dose of
100 REM (18.8 PSI)
Range: 2,88 mi
Area: 26.1 sq mi
30 REM (17.0 PSI)
-5
-0
-25
-20
-15
- 0
-10
-15
-20
- 0
53
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 54/88
FIGURE 7: ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS D U E TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION, A N D
INITIAL IONIZING RADIATION FOR A 1-KT EXPLOSIVE YIELD
Figure 7 shows an expanded plot of selected effects data for a typical air burst at a yield
of 1 kt. It was assumed that slant ranges for ionizing and thermal radiation are reasonable approximations of the ground ranges. (Data are from
-1.0
-.9
-.8
-.6
-.5
- .4
-.3
-.2
-0
-.3
-.4
-.5
-.7
- .8
*— 1,0
54
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 55/88
FIGURE 8 : ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS DUE TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION, A N D
INITIAL IONIZING RADIATION FOR A 20 -KT EXPLOSIVE YIELD
Figure 8 shows an expanded plot of selected effects data for a typical air bursts at a yield
of 20 kt. It was assumed that slant ranges for ionizing and thermal radiation are reasonable
approximations of the ground ranges. (Data are from
100 RE M (5.6 PSI)3.08 sq mi
5 PSI, 3.53 sq mi
30 R E M(4.2 PSI)
I- 2.5
- .0
- .5
-1.0
-5
— 0
-5
— 1.0
— 1.5
.0
L- 2.5
55
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 56/88
FIGURE 9: ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS DUE TO BLAST, THERMAL RADIATION, A N DINITIAL IONIZING RADIATION FOR A 100-KT EXPLOSIVE YIELD
Figure 9 shows an expanded plot of selected effects data for a typical air burst at a yield
of 10 0 kt. It was assumed that slant ranges for ionizing and thermal radiation are reasonable
approximations of the ground ranges. (Data are from 2 4 )
100 RE M (8.3 PSI)
5,23 sq mi
30 REM (6.6
7.16 sq m i
PS!)
5 PS I
10.3 sq
— 4
-i 2
L_ rt 0
-
— 3
-
5 6
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 57/88
FIGURE 10: APPROXIMATE DISTANCE V S. YIELD RELATIONSHIPS FOR OVERPRESSURE,
THERMAL RADIATION, AND INITIAL IONIZING RADIATION FOR A TYPICAL AIR BURST
Figure 10 summarizes graphically the yield-distance relationships for effects produced by
typical air bursts and allows a comparison of the ground ranges for 30 an d 100 rem of initial
radiation, 1 and 5 psi, an d first- and second-degree burns. It was assumed that clear weather
conditions prevailed and that slant range for ionizing and thermal radiation represented a rea
sonable approximation of the ground range. (Data are from
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE-IELD RELATIONSHIPS
FOR OVERPRESSURE, THERMAL AN D PROMPT
IONIZING RADIATION FOR THE TYPICAL AIR BURST
I I 1 I I I II I I I I I I I I I 1 I I II III I I I I IIKT 10 KT 100 KT IMT
EXPLOSIVE YIELD
10MT
57
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 58/88
TABLE 4 2 : COMPARATIVE EFFECTS DATA FO R A 20-MT SURFACE BURST (10 MT FIS
SION YIELD)
Table 4 2 presents approximate comparative effects data in tabular form for a surface
burst of 20-Mt total yield. These data are presented graphically in Fig. 11. The presence of
fallout radiation is the principle difference between this type explosion and one detonated in the
air. Ranges for the 1- and 5-psi lines are somewhat shorter for the surface burst compared
with the air burst.
Assumptions made in computing the fallout pattern were (1 ) an effective wind of 15 mph
and (2 ) 5 0 per cent of the total yield was derived from fission. The latter assumption was
necessary since the fusion process does not contribute significantly to the radioactivity of the
fallout; i.e., the total yield determines the spatial extent of the fallout; whereas the fission
yield fixes the amount and hence the level of radioactive contamination.
The somewhat hypothetical "1-hr reference dose rates" in roentgens per hour were used
as a means of illustrating the relation between the fallout hazard within the immediate target
area and the blast, radiation, and thermal effects. The 1-hr reference dose rate is defined as
the dose rate 1 hr after the detonation, assuming that fallout were complete at that time. Thesomewhat artificial significance o f these dose rates in terms of accumulated dose is discussed
in connection with Table 4 3 .
(Data are from
Range, miles Area, square miles
A t least first-degree burns 49.2
A t least second-degree burns 31.9
A t least third-degree burns 29.0
At least 1 psi 23.5
A t least 5 psi 7.74
A t least 3 0 rem (initial) 3.30
A t least 10 0 rem (initial) 2.88
At least 30 r/hr fallout (1-hr reference dose rate)
A t least 10 0 r/hr fallout (1-hr reference dose rate)
A t least 3 0 0 r/hr fallout (1-hr reference dose rate)
A t least 1 0 0 0 r/hr fallout (1-hr reference dose rate)
A t least 3 0 0 0 r/hr fallout (1-hr reference dose rate)
A t least 1 psi and less than 30 r/hr
A t least 1 psi and less than 10 0 r/hr
A t least second-degree burns and less than 1 psi
A t least second-degree burns and less than 3 0 r/hr
At least second-degree burns and less than 10 0 r/hr
7 6 0 0
3 2 002 6 4 0
1 7 3 018 9
34.2
26.1
1660*
1240*
895*
489*
183*
881
1240
1460
2110
2800
* Measured only to first-degree burn line. Effective wind assumed to be 15 mph.
5 8
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 59/88
FIGURE 11 : COMPARATIVE EFFECTS FOR A 20-MT SURFACE BURST
Figure 11 graphically presents the effects data set forth in Table 42 referable to a surface detonation of a nuclear weapon having an assumed fission yield of 1 0 Mt bu t a total yield of20 Mt.
The somewhat hypothetical fallout contours in terms of the 1-hr reference dose rates aredepicted on ly to the first-degree burn limit approximately 49 miles from GZ, although thefallout might actually extend several hundred miles from the target area as dictated by thewinds aloft. In the illustration a 1 5 mph effective wind was assumed.
25 20
\
-50
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
— 0
-10
-15
-20
-25
25 20 15 20 25
5 9
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 60/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 61/88
FIGURE 12 : INFINITY ISODOS E CO N T O UR S FOR A 20-MT SURFACE BURST COMPUTED
FROM WIN D DATA ON FOUR SELECTED DAYS
Infinity isodose contours for penetrating fallout radiation were computed for a 20-Mt sur
face burst (10 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque for wind patterns of four selected dates. No
radiation shielding was assumed. The computed center of the path of 100-jj, fallout particles isshown to illustrate that winds aloft may change in velocity and direction as a function of time
and hence influence the ground path of particulates falling from various altitudes. Ranges from
GZ and the outline of neighboring states an d cities are also presented to facilitate appreciation
of the shape of areas that may be contaminated with radioactive debris. For areas included in
side the isodose contours, see Table 45. Computations and data were furnished by Sandia Cor
poration, Albuquerque, N . Hex. See C owan 1 3 an d Young and Bledsoe4 5 for details of the fallout
model employed; see Young 4 6 for a variety of fallout contours similar to those which follow.
Weighted Hociograph for 100 mcron Particle
_ _.__
Lo,Veg«i / / TT J50!?'l-* ^
/ CALIFORNIA
\
Bakenfield
August 1, 1955
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 62/88
FIGURE 13 : ISODOSE-RATE C O N T O U R S AT INDICATED TIME FOR A 20-MT SURFACE
B U R S T PREDICTED FOR THE WI N D PATTERN OF MA Y 12, 1 9 5 6
Isodose-rate contours for penetrating fallout radiation without shielding were computed for
a 20-Mt surface burst (10 M t fission yield) at Albuquerque for the wind pattern of May 12, 1 9 5 6 ,
showing 100-, 1000-, and 10,000-r/hr contours at 15 min after the explosion and the 100- and
1000-r/hr contours 2 hr after the explosion. H-hour indicates zero time or the moment of the
burst. H + V and H + 2 hr denotes time V4 and 2 hr after the detonation, respectively. For
areas inside the contours, see Table 4 4 . Computations and data were supplied by Sandia Cor
poration, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
14 0
120-
100
80
70
60
30
20
20-
30 L
Roton.
Questa* • Red River
• Cuba
Springer
.Wagon Mound
1,OOOr/V(H + 2)
100 r/Kr (H + 1/4)
1,000 r/hr (H +1/4)
10,000 r/hr (H + 1/4)
12 0 130
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 63/88
FIGURE 14: I SOD OSE C O N T O U R S FOR A 20-MT SURFACE B U R S T PREDICTED FOR THE
WIND PATTERN OF MAY 12 , 1956
Isodose contours were computed for penetrating fallout radiation without protection orshielding for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque for the wind pattern
of M ay 12, 1956 , showing the regions inside which the accumulated exposure dose would be
100 , 400, 1000, 4000, r or more at H + 1 and H + 2 hr; i.e., 1 and 2 hr after the detonation.
Note the "embryonic" hot spot enclosed by the 4000-r isodose contours. See Table 45 for
areas enclosed within the several labelled portions of the chart. Computations and data were
supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N . Mex.
90-• E l Ri to
80 -
70 -
60-
• C u b a
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
-
-
-
-
-
*Correo
• Sa n Felipe Puebl o • Cerrillos
• Madrid
• Ed g e wood
'? „——-, 100r{H+1) ~~*-" ~ ~ —————•——— >
• Lo s Vegas
Clines C or ne r s
i Tajique E t t a n c t a
Vaughn
40 30 20 20 30
Miles
40 60 70 80 90
63
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 64/88
FIGURE 15: INFINITY ISODOSE CO N T O UR S FOR A 20-MT SURFACE BURST PREDICTED
FOR THE WIND PATTERN OF MAY 12 , 1956
Infinity isodose contours for penetrating fallout radiation at "near" ranges for a 20-Mt
surface burst (1 0 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque were computed using the wind pattern ofMay 12 , 1956, and assuming no shielding or countermeasures to minimize radiation exposure.
Note the 8000-r hot spot near the northeast corner of the city. Computations and data were
supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
90
80
70
60
50-
40
30
20
10
20
3030 ~
Cuba
Cl ines Corne rs
L o s Lunas .
Bel en
* Eftancio
20 10 20 30 40 50
Miles
60 70 80 90 100 1 10
64
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 65/88
FIGURE 16: ISODOSE-RATE C O N T O U R S AT INDICATED TIMES FOR A 20-MT SURFACE
B U R S T PREDICTED FOR THE WIND PATTERN OF AU G. 1, 1956
Isodose-rate contours for penetrating fallout radiation (unshielded) were computed for a 20-
M t surface burst (10 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque for the wind pattern of Aug. 1, 1956 ,showing the 100-, 1000-, and 20,000-r/hr contours for H + V hr, and the 100- and 1000-r/hr
contours at H + 2 hr. Note the difference in shape of the Vi-hr compared with the 2-hr contours
and the similarity to the isodose contours in Fig. 17, where remarks relevant to the wind pat
tern are set forth. Computations and data were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque,
N . Mex.
• L o s A lam os
50
40
30
10
10-
20-
30 -
Correo 10 0 r/W (H + 1/4) \\,
l,000r/hr
11 1 eta
Santa Fe
> P«cos
• Clmei Corners
E s t anc ia
40 30 20 20 30
65
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 66/88
FIGURE 17: IS O DO S E C O N T O U R S FOR A 20-MT SURFACE B U R S T PREDICTED FOR THE
WIND PATTERN OF AU G. 1, 1956
Isodose contours were computed for penetrating fallout radiation without shielding for a
20-Mt surface burst (10 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque for the wind pattern of Aug. 1, 1956,showing the regions inside which the accumulated exposure dose would have been 100, 400 ,
1000 , and 5000 r or more at H + 1 and H + 2 hr. Note the drift of the higher dose contours toward the north and slightly east; whereas the lower dose contours are more symmetrical and
are generally centered to the northwest. Such behavior of fallout reflects the fact that the
lower altitude winds are blowing toward the north and east, and those at higher altitudes aremoving to the northwest, facts which are reflected by the computed ground path of the 100-jj,
particle shown in the hodograph for Aug. 1, 1956, in Fig. 12. Computations and data were sup
plied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N . Mex.
70
60
50
40
20
.Chaco Canyon
.Grants
.Cuba.Eiponola
. Los Alamos
100r{H
.Santa Fe
Las Vega*.
.Moriarty
Eitancla
•C lines Camera
Vaughn.
.Bemardo
.Mountafnair
. Scholle,,,..-— —
J O — — — — 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 X> 6U >U bUMiles
66
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 67/88
TABLE 44: AREAS (IN SQUARE MILES) ENCLOSED WITHIN SPECIFIED ISODOSE-RATE
CONTOURS COMPUTED FOR PENETRATING FALLOUT RADIATION AND UNSHIELDED
CONDITIONS FROM A 20-MT SURFACE BURST (10 MT FISSION YIELD) AT ALBUQUERQUE
USING WIND PATTERNS OF INDICATED DATES
Computed and assembled from data supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Areas for specified isodose-rate contours, square miles
b u r s t winds
15 min 8-1-555-12-56
8-1-56
5-12-54
2 hr 8-1-555-12-56
8-1-56
5-12-54
1 0 0 r/hr
400
640
390
9000
6300
200 r/hr
390
610
370
7800
51 00
400 r/hr
370
600
360
6300
4100
700 r/hr 1 000 r/hr 4000 r/hr
360
5 8 0
340
6400
4000
3400
35 0
570
330
Not computed
3 0 0 0
2800
3 1 0 0
Not computed
3 1 0
3 7 0
2 8 0
3 2 0
5 8 0
3 6 0
1 0 , 0 0 0 r/hr
2 9 0
2 8 0
260
110
20 0
23 0
20 ,000 r/hr
270
230
170
90
150
TABLE 45: AREAS (IN SQUARE MILES) INCLUDED WITHIN SPECIFIED ISODOSE CONTOURS
COMPUTED FOR PENETRATING FALLOUT RADIATION AND UNSHIELDED CONDITIONS
FROM A 20-MT SURFACE BURST (10 MT FISSION YIELD) AT ALBUQUERQUE USING WIND
PATTERNS OF INDICATED DATES
Computed and assembled from data supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Time Date
after of
burst winds
1 hr 8-1-555-12-56
8-1-56
5-12-54
2 hr 8-1-555-12-56
8-1-56
5-12-54
Infinite 8-1-555-12-56
8-1-56
5-12-54
Areas for specified isodose contours, square miles
100 r
3,300
2,900
3,400
4,800
5,800
4,600
36,000
52,000
44,000
39,000
200 r
1,200
1,100
730
3,400
1,500
4,100
28,000
36,000
26,000
24,000
400 r
450
510
410
2,400
600
2,500
21,000
22,000
16,000
16,000
700 r 1000 r
390 350
360 330
380 320
Not computed
880 470
430 410
730 420
Not computed
15,000 12,000
13,000 9,500
12,000 8,900
12,000 9,200
4000 r
250
300
240
290
330
260
1,500
580
3,500
2,700
10,000 r
200
170
220
210
170
230
330
230
355
450
20,000 r
66
12 0
160
170
i on
67
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 68/88
TABLE 46: COMPUTED AREAS FOR PENETRATING FALLOUT RADIATION INSIDE INDI
CATED ISODOSE CONTOURS AT SPECIFIED TIMES AFTER DETONATION FOR VARIOUS
EXPLOSIVE YIELDS
A 15-mph wind was assumed at all altitudes and 100 and 50 per cent fission yields were
assumed for kiloton and megaton yields, respectively. (Data are from
2 4 )
Time
after
burst
1 hr
2 hr
24 hr
1 week
1 month
Infinite
Total
explosive
yield
Ikt
20 kt
100 kt
1 Mt
10 Mt
20 Mt
Ikt
20 kt
100 kt
1 Mt
10 Mt
20 Mt
Ikt
20 kt
100 kt
1 Mt
10 Mt
20 Mt
Ikt20 kt
100 kt
1 Mt
10 Mt
20 Mt
1 kt
20 kt
100 kt
1 Mt
10 Mt
20 Mt
1 kt
20 kt100 kt
1 Mt
10 Mt
20 Mt
Areas
100 r
2.0
19
62
3 40
1,300
1,900
2.7
29
98
600
2,400
3,500
5.6
74
3 10
2,300
12,000
16,000
7.1110
460
3,700
23,000
32,000
7.8
120
520
4,400
29,000
44,000
8.4
13 0560
4,700
32,000
56,000
for specified isodose
3 00 r
0.72
9.3
34
23 0
1,000
1,500
1.0
13
52
370
1 ( 700
2,400
2.2
32
150
1,100
6,200
9,400
2.844
220
1,600
11,000
16,000
3.0
48
240
1,900
13,000
21,000
3.2
52260
2,000
14,000
25,000
contours,
1000 r
0.20
3.6
16
150
800
1,200
0.28
5.0
23
210
1,200
1,700
0.63
11
52
500
3,200
4,900
0.8215
72
700
5,000
8,000
0.88
16
8 0
800
5,900
10,000
0.93
188 7
840
6,500
12,000
square miles
3000 r
0.041
1.1
6.6
8 2
58 0
920
0.063
1.6
9.2
110
760
1,200
0.16
3.6
20
210
1,500
2,600
0.224.8
26
270
2,100
3,800
0.25
5.4
28
3 00
2,400
4,400
0.26
5.730
3 20
2,700
5,200
68
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 69/88
FIGURE 18: DIRECTION OF FALLOUT FROM A 20-MT SURFACE BURST AT ALBUQUER
QUE FOR SUMMER SEASONS COMPUTED USING W IN D DATA SAMPLED RANDOMLY (BI
MONTHLY OVER FIVE YEARS)
The computed ground pathways (weighted hodographs) of 100-ju . fallout particles from a20-Mt surface burst (10 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque are presented. Such hodographs gen
erally indicate the center of the fallout path. Although this is not always precisely true, the
accuracy is sufficient to illustrate the variable nature of the winds during the summer season.
Note that the lower altitude winds may move radioactive debris away from the city in one di
rection only to have those at higher altitudes sweep the fallout back over or near the point of
burst. On the average, particles from the lower altitudes fall at the nearer ranges and those
from the higher regions fall at the farther ranges from GZ. Data and computations were sup
plied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
69
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 70/88
FIGURE 19 : DIRECTION OF FALLOUT FROM A 20-MT SURFACE BURST AT ALBUQUER
QUE COMPUTED USING W I N D DATA SAMPLED RANDOMLY (BIMONTHLY OVER FIVE
YEARS)
The ground paths of 100-ja fallout particles were computed for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0
M t fission yield) at Albuquerque. Assuming the hodographs indicate the general direction of the
fallout, it is clear that though the prevailing winds in the Albuquerque area are toward the
east, there is no sector in and about the city and state which might not be contaminated; e.g.,
the winds aloft on any given da y would control the fallout pattern, and from da y to day are so
variable as to make it imprudent to assume any sector of the state would escape fallout. Too,
there is the problem of fallout from cities on the west coast and nearby states to consider.
Over-all the only sound conclusion useful in planning is that all portions of the city and nearby
environs are potential recipients of fallout. The corollary of this is that fallout protection is
indicated for all sectors about the target area an d that this is so even if warning of an immi
nent attack were followed by preburst evacuation. S ee subsequent figures for probability data.
Data and computations were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N . Mex.
—E
70
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 71/88
FIG URE 20: PROBABILITIES FOR FALLOU T GAM M A RADIATI ON FROM 1-MT BURST
(S UM M ER SE ASO N)
The probability contours inside which the infinity exposure dose from penetrating fallout
radiation wou ld be 100 r or more (unshielded) were computed for a 1-Mt surface burst (% fis
sion yield) at Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the summer seasons are pre
sented. Compare with Fig. 21 for the winter season, and note that almost all the area of the
city lies well inside the 0.5 probability line. Data and computations were supplied by Sandia
Corporation, Albuquerque, N. M ex.
Sp r i n ger
Wagon MoundRoy
Tucumca ri
Magdaleno • Soco rr o
71
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 72/88
FIGURE 21: PROBABILITIES FOR FALLOUT GAMMA RADIATION FROM 1-MT BURST
(WINTER SEASON)
The probability contours inside which the infinity exposure dose from penetrating falloutradiation wou ld be 100 r or more (unshielded) were computed for a 1-Mt surface burst ( 2/ fis
sion yield) at Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the winter seasons. Compare
with Fig. 20 for the summer season, and note the difference in direction of the long axis of the
several probability contours. Computations and data were supplied by Sandia Corporation,
Albuquerque, N . M ex .
r80
-60
-40
-2 0
CubaWf l 90n Mound .
L o s A l a m o s• Ro y
? 1 » Sa n ta Fe
_ Sa n Yi i d ro• L a s Vegai
T u c u m c ar i
-20
-40B e rn a rdo
C l ov i s ,
Po r ta l w
-60,MagdaIena
So c o r ro•Elida
L B O40
L 20 20 40I i I
60 80 1 00 1 2 0 14 0I i I i I
16 0I i
18 0_J
Corrizozo.
Miles
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 73/88
FIGURE PROBABILITIES FOR FALLOUT GAMMA RADIATION FROM 20-MT BURST
(SUMMER S EAS ON)
The probability contours inside which the infinity exposure dose from penetrating fallout
radiation would be 1 00 r or more (unshielded) were computed for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0 M t
fission yield) at Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the summer seasons. Com
pare with Fig. 20 showing similar summer-season data for a 1-Mt yield, and note the shift of
the long axis of the probability contours from northeast to northwest. This is so because thecloud and stem heights for the 20-Mt yield are higher than those for the 1-Mt burst and there
fore fission debris is subject to transport by the winds at the higher altitudes, which, for the
summer season, generally blow more to the northwest and west. Data and computations were
supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex .
"H O
Ch om o
Ra ton
Cimar ron
Spr inger
40 60 80 100 12 0
1 . I . I * IMiles
73
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 74/88
FIGURE 23: PROBABILITIES FOR FALLOUT GAMMA RADIATION FROM 20-MT BURST
(WINTER SEASON)
The probability contours inside which the infinity exposure dose from penetrating fallout radiation would be 100 r or more (unshielded) were computed for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the winter seasons. Compare
with Fig. 22 for the summer seasons, and note the fallout is transported generally toward the east in winter rather than toward the northwest an d west, as is the case in the summer. Dataand computations were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex .
• Chama Raton *
Ro swelJ
0 20 40 60 80 100 1201 I I . I ! I . | , I | j
Miles
74
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 75/88
FIGURE 24: PROBABILITIES FOR FALLOUT G A M MA RADIATION FROM 20-MT BURST
(SPRING SEASO N)
The probability contours inside which the infinity exposure dose from penetrating fallout
radiation would be 10 0 r or more were computed for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0 M t fission yield)
at Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the spring seasons. Note that in general the
contour patterns for spring are similar to those for winter (Fig. 23) and fall (Fig. 2 5) . Data andcomputations were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
—140
— 120
—100
-80
— 60
—40
— 20
—0 -
Shiprock
AztecCham
Raton
Gallup
'40 '20 '00 80 60 40 20
Roswell
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Miles
7 5
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 76/88
FIGURE 25: PROBABILITIES FOR FALLOUT GAMMA RADIATION FROM 20-MT BURST
(FALL SEASON)
The probability contours inside which the infinity exposure dose from penetrating fallout
radiation would be 100 r or more were computed for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0 M t fission yield)
at Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the fall seasons. Note that the contour pat
terns for fall are generally similar to those for winter (Fig. 23 ) and spring (Fig. 24 ). Data and
computations were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. M ex .
I—140
Chama
Raron
Cimarron
Spr inger
-°-— — — - ,
12 0 100 80 6 0 40 20 20 40 60 80 100 120 1401 I I I I I I I
Miles
76
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 77/88
FIGURE 26: COMPUTED "MAXIMIZED" ISODOSE-RATE CONTOURS FOR 20-MT BURST
"Maximized" isodose-rate contours from penetrating fallout radiation were computed for a
20-Mt surface burst (1 0 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque using wind data over five years,
showing contours for 100-, 300-, and I000-r/hr exposure-dose rates at H + 2 hr and 100-, 300-,
1000-, 3000-, and 10,000-r/hr exposure-dose rates at H + V hr. The contours define the maxi
mal ranges at which the indicated dose rates were predicted at least one day in five years, but
do not show conditions for any particular burst on any particular day, as illustrated in Figs. 12through 17 . The maximizing concept is useful for planning purposes in that it indicates from
real wind data that at least once in five years a given hazard from fallout radiation reached
those ranges and directions from the target set out by the several contours. Data and compu
tations were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
120 mi
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 mi
-|
N
-11
1
1
1
1
1
j1
COLORADO "*j— — — --— — — -- ———— -— — — _ , *" ir--
S I Shiprock Altec NEW MEXICO
) e •
•
Farmngton ,'
E
Gallup //?'' SonY,iaYo
/ /~ f j " " - ' it
% Bel en
\\
t \ Bernardo"
\ \«
\ \
\\
**"\\
.Mogollon s%^ ^
•*%^
Truth or Consequences ^ ^
————— —————— —————l.1
•m°' ""~ • Raton</'"
' Cimarron•
• Springer
""' Note: ~v^,-""' (H+2) Dose rate contour* "X
greater than 1,000 r/hr \are not shown. \
Los Alamos \ * Roye \
Sa nta Fe \
Pecos 9 im Vegas \
^^ (H-H/4) Pose Rates: »
f"\\*\ 300 /h
BemaiiMk\V- - - - - 1 , 000 r/hr
f— _VL-t. ----10,000 r/hr —— — — — — — ————
Mbuqu.ro.u-M I San fa Rosa
lt=/ ^ ^
— — — Vaughn. /
* / .Mountainair , ff>ft $umner
JCarrfzoza
*Roswell
- Alamogordo ~""*~-~ i
1 1 ! 1 1 J i
1 2 0 m i 1 0 0 8 0 6 0 40 2 0 2 0 4 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 n
7 7
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 78/88
FIGURE 27: COMPUTED "MAXIMIZED" ISODOSE C O N T O U R S FOR 20-MT BURST
"Maximized" isodose contours from penetrating fallout radiation were computed for a
20-Mt surface burst (10 Mt fission yield) at Albuquerque using wind data over five years show
ing contours for accumulated exposure doses of 100 , 1000 , and 10,000 r at H + 1 and H + 2 hr.
The contours show the maximal ranges over £ five-year period inside which the accumulated
dose was the stated amount or more. A s explained for Fig. 26 , the "maximized" contours arenot to be confused with contours computed for the wind pattern of a specified day . Computa
tions and data were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
UTAH I ~ r
OKLAHOMA
Clayton • TEXAS
Tucumcar i I
Clovis
200m!L
i . •Silver C
L 1 0 0•4——I .LoKbburg
L 200 ml
V
50, , 1 , ,
•Domng
t0 50 tOO 150
__.—— _ t , . , , I , , , , 1 , , , , 1 , .
•Carltbod
•La s Cruces
NEW MEXICO
I TEXAS
Hobos*
200 mi
i
•——-—— ..
I MEXICO\
78
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 79/88
FIGURE 28: COMPUTED "MAXIMIZED" INFINITY ISODOSE CONTOURS FOR 20-MT BURST
"Maximized" infinity isodose contours from penetrating fallout radiation were computed at
the nearer ranges for a 1-Mt ( 2/ fission yield) and a 20-Mt (V z fission yield) surface burst at
Albuquerque using wind data over five years for the spring seasons, showing contours for
exposure doses accumulated over infinite time of 5 000, 10,000, and 30,000 r for the 20-Mt
burst and of 1000, 3000, and 6000 r for the 1-Mt burst. The contours set forth the maximal
ranges over a five-year period inside which the accumulated infinity dose was the statedamount or more. The reader is again cautioned not to confuse the contours with those appli
cable to the wind pattern of a specified date. Computations and data were supplied by Sandia
Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Mil«s
79
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 80/88
FIGURE 29: COMPUTED "MAXIMIZED" INFINITY ISODOSE CONTOURS FOR 20-MT BURST
"Maximized" infinity isodose contours from penetrating fallout radiation were computed
at the near and farther ranges for a 20-Mt surface burst (1 0 M t fission yield) at Albuquerque
using wind data over five years (all seasons), showing contours for infinity exposure doses of
100, 300, 1000, 3000, 10,000, and 30,000 r. The contours set forth the maximal range and di
rection that might occur for the stated infinity dose over a five-year period. Thus, one cansay that at least once in five years (1825 days) the indicated infinity doses were predicted to
reach the ranges shown. The probability of the maximal ranges shown occurring are quite remote, being numerically V i 8 2 5 = 0.00055. Too, there is some uncertainty concerning the sta
bility, range, and duration of the high winds at the greater altitudes. Even so, the figure servesto emphasize, first, that some wind patterns are such as to carry fission debris over verygreat ranges, and, second, that planning protection and measures for minimizing exposure to
fallout radiation applicable to any one area cannot be realistically approached without thinking
of potential targets in nearby states. Data and computations were supplied by Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N . M ex.
80
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 81/88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Auxier, J. A ., Evaluation of Residential Structures for Shielding Against Fallout Radiation,
pp , 148-151, Hearings Before the
Special Committee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, June 22-26,
1959 , U. S . Government Printing Office, Washington 25 , D . C ., 1959 .
2 * Auxier, J. A ., J. O. Buchanan, C . Eisenhauer, and H. E. Menker, Experimental Evaluation
of the Radiation Protection Afforded by Residential Structures Against Distributed Sources,
Civil Effects Test Operations, U S A E C Report CEX-58.1, Jan. 19, 1959 .3 . Benzinger, T., Physiological Effects of Blast in Air and Water, Chap. XIV-B,
Vol. II, pp . 1225-1259, U * S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D. C ., 1950 .
4. Blizard, E. P. and J. M. Miller, Radiation Attenuation Characteristics of Structural C oncrete, Report ORNL-2193, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Aug. 29 , 1958 .
5. Bowen, I . G., A. F. Strehler, and M. B. Wetherbe, Distribution and Density of Missiles from
Nuclear Explosions, Operation Teapot Report, WT-1168, Dec. 14, 1956 .
6. Bowen, I. G., D . R . Richmond, M. B. Wetherbe, and C . S . White, Biological Effects of Blastfrom Bombs. Glass Fragments as Penetrating Missiles an d Some of the Biological Implica
tions of Glass Fragmented by Atomic Explosions, U S A E C Report AECU-3350, Lovelace
Foundation for Medical Education and Research, June 18 , 1956 .7. Brooks, J. W ., F. H. Schmidt, R . C . Williams, and W. T. Ham, Jr., Effect of Skin Pigmenta
tion on Flash Burns in Human Volunteers, 8 : 125-128, (1958) .
8 . Butterfield, W. J. H., E . R . Drake Seager, J. R . B. Dixey, an d E. E. E. Treadwell, FlashBurns from Atomic Weapons. 1. Observations on Flash-burning of Human Subjects in the
Laboratory Using Infrared an d Predominantly White Light Sources,
103: 655-665 (1956).
9 . Byrnes, V. A ., Flash Blindness and Chorioretinal Burns Produced by Atomic Flash, J.168: 778-779 (1958).
10 . Callan, E. J., Concrete for Radiation Shielding, J. 25(11): 17-44 (1953) .
11. Celander, Hjordis, Carl-Johan Clemendson, U lf A. Ericsson, an d Holter I:son Hultman, A
Study on the Relation Between the Duration of a Shock Wave and the Severity of the Blast
Injury Produced by It, 33: 14-18 (1955).12 . Clemedson, Carl-Johan, An Experimental Study on Air Blast Injuries,
18, 61: 1-200 (1949).
13 . Cowan, Maynard, Jr., A Slide Rule Fallout Calculator, Technical Memo S C T M 177-57(51),
Sandia Corporation, Sandia Base, Albuquerque, N . Mex., Oct. 1, 1956 .14 . D e Haven, Hugh, Mechanical Analysis of Survival in Falls from Heights of 50 to 150 Feet,
2: 586-596 (1942).15. D e Haven, Hugh, Mechanics of Injury Under Force Conditions, 66: 264-268
(1944).16. Desaga, Hans, Blast Injuries, Chap. XIV-D, //,
Vol. II , pp. 1274-1293, U . S . Government Printing Office, Washington 25 , D . C., 1950 .17. Draeger, R. H., J. S . Barr, J. Y. Dunbar, W . W . Sager, and M. C. Shelesnyak, A Study of
Personnel Injury by "Solid Blast" and the Design and Evaluation of Protective Devices,
Naval Medical Research Institute Report N o. 1 ? Project X-517, Bethesda, Md., Mar. 30,
1945.
81
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 82/88
18 . Eisenhauer, C . M ., Shielding from Fallout Radiation, pp . 151-163 of
Hearings Before the Special Committee on Radiation
of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, June 22-26, 1959, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington 25, D . C ., 1959 .
19. Evans, E. I., J. W. Brooks, F. H. Schmidt, R . C . Williams, an d W. T. Ham, Jr., Flash
Burn Studies on Human Volunteers, 37: 280-297 (1955).
20. Fisher, R . B., P. L. Krohn, and S. Zuckerman, The Relationship Between Body Size and
the Lethal Effects of Blast, Ministry of Home Security Report B.P.C. 146/W.S.ll, Nov. 23,
1941 .
21. Fisher, R . B., P. L. Krohn, and S. Zuckerman, The Relationship Between Body Size andthe Lethal Effects of Blast, Ministry of Home Security Report R.D. 284, Dec. 10 , 1941 .
22. Gerstner, H. B., Military and Civil Defense Aspects of the Acute Radiation Syndrome inMan, Report AF-SAM-58-6, Air Force School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph Air Force
Base, Texas, July 1957.
23 . Gerstner, H. B., Acute Clinical Effects of Penetrating Nuclear Radiation, < /.
168 : 381-388 (1958),24 . Glasstone, Samuel, Ed., U. S . Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D . C ., June 1957.
25. Gurdjian, E. S ., J. E. Webster, and H. L. Lissner, Studies on Skull Fracture with Particular
Reference to Engineering Factors, Am. 78 : 736-742 (1949).26 . Ham, W. T., Jr., H. Wiesinger, F. H. Schmidt, R . C . Williams, R . S . Ruffin, M. C . Shaffer,
and D . Guerry III , Flash Burns in the Rabbit Retina as a Means of Evaluating the Retinal
Hazard from Nuclear Weapons, Am. J. 46: 700-723 (1958) .
27. Journ£e, Relationship Between the Kinetic Energy of Bullets and the Seriousness of WoundsWhich They M ay Inflict, May 1907.
28 . Kinsman, Simon, Ed., Fredric D . Anderson, Richard S * Cleveland, Bennett L. Harless, and
Charles F. Henke, Public Health Service, U. S. Department
of Health, Education an d Welfare, Office of Technical Services, U. S. Department of C ommerce, Washington, D . C., January 1957.
29. Price, B. T., C . C . Horton, an d K. T. Spinney, Pergamon Press,London, 1957.
30. Richmond, D . R., R. V. Taborelli, I . G. Bowen, T. L. Chiffelle, F. G. Hirsch, B. B. Long-well, J. G. Riley, C . S . White, F. Sherping, V. C . Goldizen, J. D . Ward, M. B. Wetherbe,
V. R . Clare, M. L. Kuhn, an d R. T. Sanchez, Blast Biology A Study of the Primary and
Tertiary Effects of Blast in Open Underground Protective Shelters, Operation PlumbbobReport, WT-1467, June 30, 1959 .
31. Richmond, D . R., R . V. Taborelli, F. Sherping, M. B. Wetherbe, R . T. Sanchez, V. C.
Goldizen, an d C . S. White, Shock Tube Studies of the Effects of Sharp-rising, Long-duration
Overpressures on Biological Systems, U S A E C Report TID-6056, March 1959 .
32. Richmond, D . R., M. B. Wetherbe, R. V. Taborelli, T. L. Chiffelle, and C . S . White, The
Biologic Response to Overpressure. L Effects on Dogs of Five to Ten-second Duration
Overpressures Having Various Times of Pressure Rise, 28 : 447-460 (1957).33 . Ritchie, R, H. and G. S . Hurst, Penetration of Weapons Radiation: Application to the
Hiroshima-Nagasaki Studies, 390-404 (1959).34. Ruff, Siegfried, Brief Acceleration: Less than One Second, Chap. VI-C,
//, Vol. I , pp, 584-597, U . S . Government Printing Office, Washington
25, D. C ., 1950 .35. Schardin, H., The Physical Principles of the Effects of a Detonation, Chap. XTV-A,
Vol. II, pp. 1207-1244, U. S. Government Printing Office,Washington 25, D. C., 1950 .
36. Schwartz, M . S ., H. S . Soroff, E. Reiss, an d P. A. Curtis, A n Evaluation of the Mortalityand the Relative Severity of Second- an d Third-degree Injuries in Burns, Research Report
MEDEW-RS-12-56, U. S. Army Medical Research Unit, Brooke Army Medical Center, FortS am Houston, Texas, December 1956.
37. Smith, Byron and William F. Regan, Jr., Blow-out Fracture of the Orbit,44: 733-739 (1957).
82
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 83/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 84/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 85/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 86/88
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 87/88
CIVIL EF F ECT S T EST OPERATIONS R E P O R T S E R I E S (CEX)
Through its Division of Biology an d Medicine an d Civil Effects Test Opera
tions Office, the Atomic Energy Commission conducts certain technical tests,
exercises, surveys, and research directed primarily toward practical applica
tions of nuclear effects information an d toward encouraging better technical,
professional, and public understanding and utilization of the vast body of facts
useful in the design of countermeasures against weapons effects. The activities
carried out in these studies do not require nuclear detonations.A complete listing of all the studies no w underway is impossible in the
space available here,. However, the following is a list of all reports available
from studies that have been completed. A ll reports listed are available from
the Office of Technical Services, Department of Commerce, Washington 25,
D . C,, at the prices indicated.
CEX-57.1 The Radiological Assessment an d Recovery of Contaminated
($0.75) Areas, Carl F. Miller, September 1960.
CEX-58.1 Experimental Evaluation of the Radiation Protection Afforded by
($2.75) Residential Structures Against Distributed Sources, J. A . Auxier,
J. O. Buchanan, C . Eisenhauer, an d H. E. Menker, January 1959.
CEX-58.2 The Scattering of Thermal Radiation into Open Underground
($0.75) Shelters, T. P. Davis, N. D . Miller, T. S. Ely, J. A . Basso, an d
H. E. Pearse, October 1959 .
CEX-58.7 A E C Group Shelter, A E C Facilities Division, Holmes & Narver,
($0.50) Inc., June 1960 .
C EX-59.1 A n Experimental Evaluation of the Radiation Protection Afforded
($0.60) by a Large Modern Concrete Office Building, J. F. Batter, Jr.,
A . L. Kaplan, and E. T. Clarke, January I960.
C EX-59.13 Experimental Evaluation of the Radiation Protection Afforded by
($0.50) Typical Oak Ridge Homes Against Distributed Sources, T. D .
Strickler and J. A , Auxier, April 1960 .
8/22/2019 Comparitive Nuclear Effects of Bio Medical Interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparitive-nuclear-effects-of-bio-medical-interest 88/88