National Academies Press: OpenBook

Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86) (2001)

Chapter: Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE

« Previous: Appendix C: Cosmic-ray Neutron Contribution to Sample Activation
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE." National Research Council. 2001. Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10103.
×

Appendix D
Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

COMMISSION ON LIFE SCIENCES

2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418

BOARD ON RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH

NAS Room 342 TEL: (202) 334–2232 FAX: (202) 334–1639

August 26, 1996

Frank C.Hawkins, P.E.

Director,

Office of International Health Programs (EH-63)

U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) is a small committee of approximately 6 members which was formed in 1988 to oversee the dosimetry activities associated with the RERF in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Initially the committee was charged to oversee the ongoing uncertainty analysis and its documentation, to review the plans for the assessment of doses to factory workers and terrain-shielded survivors at Nagasaki, and to oversee the resolution of the difference between measured and calculated doses at Hiroshima. During the past 8 years, that committee has been studying the dosimetry research activities, dose classifications, and dose measurements relevant to the RERF sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Energy and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE." National Research Council. 2001. Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10103.
×

Defense. At the same time, Japan has had a dosimetry oversight committee which has been acting as an official U.S. counterpart. On occasion the U.S. and Japanese committees have met together to exchange information and assessments and to discuss future goals and experiments.

A joint meeting was held of the Committee on Dosimetry for the RERF and a Japanese Dosimetry Working Group on May 22–23, 1996 at the National Academy of Sciences’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The NRC committee members included Rufard Alsmiller, Robert Christy, Alvin Weinberg, Wayne Lowder, Keran O’Brien, and me. Five representatives of the Japanese dosimetry working group (Soichiro Fujita, Masaharu Hoshi, Toshiso Kosako, Takashi Maruyama, and Kiyoshi Shizuma) made presentations and participated in the discussions. Also present were some members of the former U.S. working group on the DS86 dosimetry system who are still active in dosimetry work, including Dean Kaul, William Woolson, and Tore Straume. Additionally, representatives of U.S. DOE (Libby White), U.S. DOD-DNA (David Auton, John Bliss, and Robert Young), RERF (Dale Preston), and the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (Hiroshi Maruyama) were present.

The meeting participants reviewed recent progress in A-bomb dosimetry work in the U.S. and in Japan and summarized the current status of the dosimetry. At the meeting, the joint working groups agreed upon a set of recommendations. The U.S. DOE representative present, Libby White, asked the NRC committee to write a brief letter report to the Office of International Health Programs summarizing the recommendations which were endorsed by the NRC committee.

As a preamble to the recommendations, I should emphasize that modern radiation protection is based on the risk coefficients for cancer derived from the A-bomb survivor study at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dosimetry of the survivors, which is used in the denominator in the risk coefficient, is as important as the assessment of radiation-induced cancers in the survivors. Consequently, the dosimetry must be studied until uncertainties in it can be reduced to a reasonable level. The uncertainty in the fast-neutron components at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are in doubt by perhaps a factor of 2 to 5 at Hiroshima, especially require urgent investigation. The urgency of the investigation is mandated by the fact that risk estimates are ongoing and epidemiology studies are constantly under revision. In addition, key scientists who have been studying RERF dosimetry are retiring, research teams are disbanding and facilities are losing their capability to conduct the needed studies due to a lack of funding, and copper wire from defined locations in the two cities needs to be located or it will be lost forever. To that end, the NRC committee makes the following recommendations:

  1. That investigators vigorously pursue experiments that will lead to improved confidence in a revised DS86.

  2. That investigations to resolve the neutron uncertainty be pursued, including

    • Evaluation (quality assurance) and intercomparison of U.S. and Japanese measurements of thermal neutrons in order to assess the handling of back-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE." National Research Council. 2001. Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10103.
×

ground problems (including the use of samples from long distances) and to assess total uncertainty in each measurement.

  • Application of the 63Cu (np) 63Ni reaction for fast-neutron measurements by both the U.S. and Japan (this requires an intensive search for copper samples, particularly up to 500m and beyond, if possible, in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

  • Calculations of weapon leakage and nitrogen cross-section experiments.

  1. That a revised DS86 include a re-evaluation of gamma rays at Hiroshima, yield, height of burst, the U.S. Army map (survivor locations), and shielding.

  2. That a strong effort be initiated to quantify uncertainties in all phases of DS86 and any later revision with a view to upgrading all estimates of uncertainty that are an integral part of the dosimetry system.

The specific recommendations include additional scientific work that needs to be done. While some of the recommendations are perhaps more appropriate to be made to DOD-DNA, two of the projects are specifically directed to DOE. The first of these, identified as recommendation 2, first bullet, involves the setting up of a small team composed of 2 knowledgeable investigators, 1 U.S. and 1 Japanese, to make a thorough examination of all measurements of neutron activation in the U.S. and Japan (cobalt, chlorine, and europium). Examination of these measurements by the U.S. and Japanese groups should pay special attention to the handling of background and the assessment of uncertainties (additional background measurements involving distant samples may be necessary). The aim is to put all of the measurements on a common basis, thereby permitting consistent appraisal and facilitating judgments about their relative significance (a quality assurance evaluation). The second recommendation (second bullet) concerns the development of the 63Cu (np) 63Ni reaction for fast-neutron measurement. Similar work will be done in Japan by Dr. Shibata but using a different assay system. The committee members believe that the conduct of these two projects is vital to our future knowledge of risk-estimation and the basis of radiation protection standards world-wide.

Yours sincerely,

Warren K.Sinclair, Ph.D.

Chairman

Committee on Dosimetry for RERF

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE." National Research Council. 2001. Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10103.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE." National Research Council. 2001. Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10103.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Letter from Committee on Dosimetry to DOE." National Research Council. 2001. Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10103.
×
Page 176
Next: Glossary »
Status of the Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (DS86) Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $61.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Committee on Dosimetry for the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) was set up more than a decade ago at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy. It was charged with monitoring work and experimental results related to the Dosimetry System 1986 (DS86) used by RERF to reconstruct the radiation doses to the survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time it was established, DS86 was believed to be the best available dosimetric system for RERF, but questions have persisted about some features, especially the estimates of neutrons resulting from the Hiroshima bomb.

This book describes the current situation, the gamma-ray dosimetry, and such dosimetry issues as thermal-neutron discrepancies between measurement and calculation at various distances in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It recommends approaches to bring those issues to closure and sets the stage for the recently convened U.S. and Japan Working Groups that will develop a new dosimetry for RERF.

The book outlines the changes relating to DS86 in the past 15 years, such as improved numbers that go into, and are part of, more sophisticated calculations for determining the radiations from bombs that reach certain distances in air, and encourages incorporation of the changes into a revised dosimetry system.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!