Intercomparison study on 152Eu gamma ray and 36Cl AMS measurements for development of the new Hiroshima–Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Dosimetry System 2002 (DS02)

Abstract

In the process of developing a new dosimetry system for atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (DS02), an intercomparison study between (152)Eu and (36)Cl measurements was proposed, to reconcile the discrepancy previously observed in the Hiroshima data between measurements and calculations of thermal neutron activation products. Nine granite samples, exposed to the atomic-bomb radiation in Hiroshima within 1,200 m of the hypocenter, as well as mixed standard solutions containing known amounts of europium and chlorine that were neutron-activated by a (252)Cf source, were used for the intercomparison. Gamma-ray spectrometry for (152)Eu was carried out with ultra low-background Ge detectors at the Ogoya Underground Laboratory, Kanazawa University, while three laboratories participated in the (36)Cl measurement using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS): The Technical University of Munich, Germany, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA and the University of Tsukuba, Japan. Measured values for the mixed standard solutions showed good agreement among the participant laboratories. They also agreed well with activation calculations, using the neutron fluences monitored during the (252)Cf irradiation, and the corresponding activation cross-sections taken from the JENDL-3.3 library. The measured-to-calculated ratios obtained were 1.02 for (152)Eu and 0.91-1.02 for (36)Cl, respectively. Similarly, the results of the granite intercomparison indicated good agreement with the DS02 calculation for these samples. An average measured-to-calculated ratio of 0.98 was obtained for all granite intercomparison measurements. The so-called neutron discrepancy that was previously observed and that which included increasing measured-to-calculated ratios for thermal neutron activation products for increasing distances beyond 1,000 m from the hypocenter was not seen in the results of the intercomparison study. The previously claimed discrepancy could be explained by insufficient understanding of the measured data.