L-Band Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Tooth Dosimetry Applied to Affected Cattle Teeth in Fukushima
, Kazuhiko Inoue 2, Masahiro Natsuhori 3, Chryzel Angelica B. Gonzales 4, Hiroshi Yasuda 4, Yasuhiro Nakai 5, Minoru Miyake 5 and Harold M. Swartz 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, many compliments for this topic.
The introduction provides a good, generalized background of the topic that quickly gives the reader an appreciation of the wide range of applications for this technology. However, the introduction should be more substantial.
I would suggest implementing the introduction by citing other research groups as well.
the authors may wish to provide another sentence giving examples of some of the applications of this technology, along with appropriate references.
The experimental apparatus is quite standard, also this section would be useful to implement it better for the reader.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper by Yamaguchi et al despite unusual subject matter is very interesting, presenting application of EPR dosimetry. The text however is extremely short and contains some not explained assumptions. This makes the text difficult to understand, as some important information is missing. Please write the paper for the reader that knows nothing about the subject.
Major issues:
Why the estimated dose based on EPR measurement is higher than the dose estimated from assumed exposure? You have listed the reasons for uncertainties, but not for the higher EPR results.
Is there a correlation between Cs-137 and Sr-90 activities and EPR results?
Minor comments:
Abstract: The estimated doses from observed airborne radiations were found to be consistent with the dose trends estimated for individual cows. While, considerable uncertainties were seen in the doses of some tooth samples. – this should be a single sentence
Line 54 : in the town of Namie town - repeat
Line 56: For comparison, 10 incisors were removed from…
Fig 2: legend is completely unclear. What are the numbers shown? What is a1 – a5? “The upper whisker and the lower beard” ?
Is Table 2 data from the same animals as the other data?
Discussion, line 129: “Possible reasons for this were the uncertainty of the measurements, the cattle's actual stay in the area after the accident, and the radiation status of the cattle's teeth from radioactive materials in the environment” – please discuss this further. I have no idea what the Authors mean by “the cattle actual stay in the are after the accident – the time of the stay? Time of the exposure? Were they exposed during the accident, or only afterwards? Was the exposure from air or from eating exposed grass? Similarly, what do you mean by “radiation status of the cattle's teeth from radioactive materials in the environment” – there is control from Okuma which should represent the control level of exposure?
Line 132 – why is the age of the cattle important?
How far is Okuma from Namie? Why this particular town was chosen as a control ground? Where is Futuba County? Maybe attaching a map would be helpful
Line 155 – “L Even” ?
Line 159 “In addition, these cattle may have moved to different pastures …” presumably the Authors mean that they do not know the full history of exposure, and probably the calculations are based on some assumed history – please explain
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors reviewed according to the reviewers' recommendations
