Post on 01-Jan-2022
transcript
Biota Modelling Biota Modelling Working Group Working Group
(WG4)(WG4)
‘‘Exercise 3Exercise 3’’Purpose:Compare unweighted internal and external absorbed dose rates assuming 1 Bq kg-1 in organism & 1 Bqunit-1 media respectivelyRadionuclides considered – those from ICRP ‘RAP’report (+55Fe)
Did not include noble gases (Ar, Kr Rn) which had been requested by some group members
Exercise 3Exercise 3Organism geometries taken from information supplied for ICRP RAPs to BWG Exercise 1:
Hmmmm –
Flatfish egg 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.19x10-6 kg
Exercise 3Exercise 3Exposure scenarios results requested for:
Susumu Ryufuku (VIC)VIC
Laura Newsome (EA, UK)EA R&D128 [analogue approach]Laura Newsome (EA, UK)EA R&D128 [available spreadsheets]
Mat Johansen (ANSTO, Australia)ERICA [create organism]
Laura Newsome (EA, UK)/HildegardeVandenhove (SCK·CEN, Belgium)
ERICA [default]
Geert Olyslaegers (SCK·CEN, Belgium)
DosDimEco
Jan Horyna (SUJB)SUJBDong-Kwon Keum (KAERI, Korea)K-BiotaNick Beresford (CEH, UK)ICRP RAP reportAli Hosseini (NRPA, Norway)EPIC DOSES3D
Karine Beaugelin-Seiller (IRSN, France)
EDEN
Jordi Vives i Battle (WSC, UK)EA R&D128 [‘basics’]Mike Wood (Liverpool, UK)RESRAD-BIOTA [available software]Sunita Kamboj (ANL, USA)RESRAD-BIOTA [‘basics’]
ParticipantModel
Duck
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
32P
33P
35S
36C
l
40K
45C
a
51C
r
54M
n
55Fe
57C
o
58C
o
59N
i
63N
i
65Zn
75S
e
79S
e
89S
r
95Zr
94N
b
95N
b
99Tc
103R
u
106R
u
110m
Ag
109C
d
124S
b
125S
b
129m
Te
132T
e
125I
129I
131I
134C
s
135C
s
136C
s
140B
a
140L
a
141C
e
144C
e
152E
u
154E
u
155E
u
192I
r
210P
b
210P
o
226R
a
228R
a
227T
h
228T
h
229T
h
DC
C (m
icro
Gy/
h pe
r Bq/
kg)
With some exceptions – approaches are giving similar estimates of dose. Some checks to be made of inputs.
More variation external exposure & small geometry (Flatfish egg)
Plan towards submitting a paper (Radiation Env. Biophysics) circa April
BeaverlodgeBeaverlodge uranium mine (CNSC)uranium mine (CNSC)
BeaverlodgeBeaverlodge• Sediment, water & fish data
available over a number of years [enables model-data comparison]
• Reduced invertebrate populations/effects in fish/multi-contaminants –interaction with WG6
• Provide informed opinion on real issue
• Phase 1: – Model-data comparison for fish (Po, Ra)– Model:model benthic invertebrates & fish
Measured {Po-210}fish (Bq/Kg)0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Pred
icte
d {P
o-21
0}fis
h (B
q/Kg
)
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1:1
PoPo--210 fish210 fish
BeaverlodgeBeaverlodge -- futurefuture• Confirm fish predictions• Estimate Canadian CR values
– use these in future model runs (from database being collated for WP5)
• Concentrate on sites with data/of interest– Estimate dose– Put into context against various dose rate
benchmarks (summer workshop)– Interaction WP6
Little Forest Burial Ground Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO)(ANSTO)
• Waste trenches (1960’s)
• Radionuclides include: U, 3H, Pu Am, Cs, Sr, Co
Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO)Little Forest Burial Ground (ANSTO)
• Different range of speciespresent than considered in assessment
• Radionuclides include: U, 3H, Pu Am, Cs, Sr, Co
• Scenario presented here – available c. 1 month– review results summer workshop
• Focused participation
Wetland (Stockholm Univ.)Wetland (Stockholm Univ.)• Potential approach to scenario presented
• Will be worked up and presented to group in summer 2010
Screening tiersScreening tiers• Example - England & Wales ‘Habitats’ [Natura2000] assessments
•Assessed 715 radioactive discharge authorisations
• 600 authorisations did not require assessment more detailed than initial conservative level
•Screening level to enable sites of negligible concern to be identified and removed from need for further assessment – with a high degree of confidence But considerable variation
(2-5 orders of magnitude) inscreening tier predictions