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."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American