ArticleJournal of radiation research2017
Rediscovery of an old article reporting that the area around the epicenter in Hiroshima was heavily contaminated with residual radiation, indicating that exposure doses of A-bomb survivors were largely underestimated.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of non-initial radiation exposure on solid cancer mortality risk among Hiroshima A-bomb survivors.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Nature Immersion in an Extreme Environment: Hiroshima Survivors' Personal Emergence Following Their Atomic Bomb Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Solid cancer mortality risk among a cohort of Hiroshima early entrants after the atomic bombing, 1970-2010: implications regarding health effects of residual radiation.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- Effects of internal exposure to neutron-activated 56MnO2 powder on locomotor activity in rats.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- Knowledge survey regarding blast wound education of student doctors at a local academic medical university in Japan.Turkish journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Development of an Optimal Model of Combined Radiation and Biological Lesions.Veterinary medicine international · 2022Article
- Black rain in Hiroshima: a critique to the Life Span Study of A-bomb survivors, basis of the linear no-threshold model.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2020Article
- Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence of Radiation Hormesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Autoradiographic analysis of internal plutonium radiation exposure in Nagasaki atomic bomb victims.Heliyon · 2018Article
- Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2018Article
- Collaborative study of thresholds for mutagens: proposal of a typical protocol for detection of hormetic responses in cytotoxicity tests.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2018Article
- The Linear No-Threshold Model of Low-Dose Radiogenic Cancer: A Failed Fiction.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Radiophobia Harm, Its Main Cause, and a Proposed Solution.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Replacing LNT: The Integrated LNT-Hormesis Model.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- NCRP Claims Six Studies Support LNT But They Show No-Effect to At Least 100 mGy.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Questioning the Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT): Lessons From Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Fukushima.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyReview
- A Critique of Recent Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer Mortality Among Nuclear Workers.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The A-bomb blast released a huge amount of energy: thermal radiation (35%), blast energy (50%), and nuclear radiation (15%). Of the 15%, 5% was initial radiation released within 30 s and 10% was residual radiation, the majority of which was fallout. Exposure doses of hibakusha (A-bomb survivors) were estimated solely on the basis of the initial radiation. The effects of the residual radiation on hibakusha have been considered controversial; some groups assert that the residual radiation was negligible, but others refute that assertion. I recently discovered a six-decade-old article written in Japanese by a medical doctor, Gensaku Obo, from Hiroshima City. This article clearly indicates that the area around the epicenter in Hiroshima was heavily contaminated with residual radiation. It reports that non-hibakusha who entered Hiroshima soon after the blast suffered from severe acute radiation sickness, including burns, external injuries, fever, diarrhea, skin bleeding, sore throat and loss of hair-as if they were real hibakusha. This means that (i) some of those who entered Hiroshima in the early days after the blast could be regarded as indirect hibakusha; (ii) 'in-the-city-control' people in the Life Span Study (LSS) must have been irradiated more or less from residual radiation and could not function properly as the negative control; (iii) exposure doses of hibakusha were largely underestimated; and (iv) cancer risk in the LSS was largely overestimated. Obo's article is very important to understand the health effects of A-bombs so that the essence of it is translated from Japanese to English with the permission of the publisher.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.