New Technique Confirms Hiroshima Radiation Levels

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

It's been nearly 58 years since an atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima near the end of World War II. Now, on the eve of the blast's anniversary, the uncertainty surrounding radiation levels inflicted on survivors may finally be settled. A report published today in the journal Nature confirms earlier radiation results, thereby increasing confidence in estimates of cancer risk that are based on the data.

Survivors of the Hiroshima bomb gave scientists a rare opportunity to study what effect extremely high doses of radiation can have on people. The information is used to set safe levels of exposure and calculate cancer risks for radiation in other areas, from medicinal X-rays to nuclear power plants. Consequently, if the radiation levels from the bombs were underestimated--as some reports in the mid-1980s had suggested they were--the effects would be far-reaching.

The atomic bomb released two types of radiation, easily-detectable gamma rays and fast neutrons, which are harder to measure. Tore Straume of the University of Utah and Livermore National Laboratory and his colleagues used a new technique to measure miniscule amounts of a nickel isotope known as ⁶³Ni (formed when fast neutrons strike copper) around Hiroshima. The researchers analyzed a variety of surfaces, including rain gutters and roofs, located up to 1, 500 meters away from the blast site. The results confirm the earlier findings and provide "for the first time, clear measurement validation of the neutron doses to survivors in Hiroshima," according to the report. In an accompanying commentary Mark P. Little of Imperial College concludes that "the collective data from the survivors of the atomic bomb are likely to remain a valuable predictor of the risks of ionizing radiation."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American