Science News

... from universities, journals, and other research organizations

Hiroshima Porcelain Pieces Provide Insight Into Exposure Levels

Mar. 27, 2002 — Scientists are still studying the after-effects of the nuclear disaster caused by an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The amount of neutron fluence, for example, has been calculated from the site to establish what might be a safe level of exposure for humans. (Neutron fluence is the number of neutrons from the blast found per square centimeter.) The advent of nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island and potential nuclear accidents in the future makes accurate information imperative. But scientists have recently realized that there are discrepancies in earlier estimates and have been looking for ways to resolve them. According to the latest research, the standards for a safe level of exposure to humans might be too conservative.


Share This:

Analyzing the neutron-induced fission tracks on certain objects found in Hiroshima enables scientists to calibrate the nuclear fluence. Geologist Robert L. Fleischer (Union College in New York), S. Fujita (Radiation Effects Research Institute in Japan), and M. Hoshi (Research Institute for Nuclear Medicine and Biology in Japan) have published their findings on a glass button found near ground zero in Hiroshima in the Health Physics Society Journal.

More recently, Union College geology student Jonathan MacDonald joined the team to determine the track density of fission tracks in porcelain fragments that were also found near ground zero. This study complements the previous work.

“At face value, these results are fluence values from a specific bomb event that will hopefully never be used again. These fission events occurred when thermal neutrons from the bomb caused fission in the normal trace amounts of uranium in the material,” MacDonald explained. “We determined the track density on the exterior glaze (glass), on the outside of one porcelain fragment and in a cross section of the glaze in another.”

While the value of the one sample nearly matches the previous estimates, the other one is 2 to 2.5 times higher. MacDonald will report the new values at the Geological Society of America’s North Eastern Section Meeting on March 25.

“If correct, the latter value may be important for regulation of human exposures in the U.S., because many of the current regulations are based on theoretical calculated values,” MacDonald said. “If this latter dose is correct—being higher than what is currently assumed—then the current standards should be less restrictive.”

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

|

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Geological Society Of America.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


APA

MLA

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 137,426

Find with keyword(s):
 
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily's archives for related news topics,
the latest news stories, reference articles, science videos, images, and books.

Recommend ScienceDaily on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing services:

|

 
  more breaking science news

Social Networks


Follow ScienceDaily on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google:

Recommend ScienceDaily on Facebook, Twitter, and Google +1:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

|

Breaking News

... from NewsDaily.com

In Other News ...

Science Video News


Flying and Radiation Risk

At the high altitudes and latitudes commercial airlines fly, crews are subjected to higher-than-normal radiation levels from the sun and cosmic rays.. ...  > full story

Strange Science News

 

Free Subscriptions

... from ScienceDaily

Get the latest science news with our free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Feedback

... we want to hear from you!

Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?

Post this page to your favorite social bookmarking site:
Include this item in your blog or web site:
Cite this article in your essay, paper, or report:
Email this page's link to a friend or colleague: