1970
DOI: 10.1021/ba-1970-0093.ch021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison between Cloud Samples and Close-In Ground Fallout Samples from Nuclear Ground Bursts

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is consistent with either in-situ melting of soil and/or molten material being swept into the fireball and raining back down onto the soil below (Hermes and Strickfaden, 2005). In contrast, aerodynamic glassy fallout (also known as fallout beads or spherules) usually appears glassy throughout and exhibits spheroidal, near-spheroidal, or dumbbell shapes, consistent with fusing while still aloft (Miller, 1960;Crocker et al, 1965;Tompkins et al, 1970;Fig. 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is consistent with either in-situ melting of soil and/or molten material being swept into the fireball and raining back down onto the soil below (Hermes and Strickfaden, 2005). In contrast, aerodynamic glassy fallout (also known as fallout beads or spherules) usually appears glassy throughout and exhibits spheroidal, near-spheroidal, or dumbbell shapes, consistent with fusing while still aloft (Miller, 1960;Crocker et al, 1965;Tompkins et al, 1970;Fig. 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%