Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T01:47:09.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Managing Environmental Radiation Exposures: Experiences and Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2021

R. J. Pentreath
R. J. Pentreath
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access

Summary

A feature often overlooked in ecological studies is that ionising radiation has always existed on Earth, and now it additionally exists as a result of human activities. Much, but not all, of this radiation arises from the presence of radionuclides in the environment and we now have a reasonable understanding of their presence and behaviour in this context, including their accumulation by humans and by quite a variety of other animals and plants as well. We have also learned that exposures to ionising radiation, from various sources and at sufficient doses, can cause harm, or increase the risk of harm, to all living things.

Type
Chapter
Information
Radioecology
Sources and Consequences of Ionising Radiation in the Environment
 , pp. 285 - 337
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNSCEAR. 2008. Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Oatway, W. B., Jones, A. L., Holmes, S., Watson, S., & Cabianca, T. 2016. Ionising Radiation Exposure of the UK Population: 2010 Review, Public Health England, PHE-CRCE-026.Google Scholar
Hosseini, A., Beresford, N. A., Brown, J. E., Jones, D. G., Phaneuf, M., Thørring, H., & Yankovich, T. 2010. Background dose-rates to reference animals and plants arising from exposure to naturally occurring radionuclides in aquatic environments. J. Radiol. Prot. 30: 235–64.Google Scholar
Gόmez-Ros, J. M., Pröhl, G., & Taranenko, V. 2004. Estimation of internal and external exposures of terrestrial reference organisms to natural radionuclides in the environment. J. Radiol. Prot. 24: A79–A88.Google Scholar
Beresford, N. A., Barnett, C. L., Jones, D. G., Wood, M. D., Appleton, J. D., Breward, N., & Copplestone, D. 2008. Background exposure rates of terrestrial wildlife in England and Wales. J. Environ. Radiat. 99: 1430–9.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, G. P., You, Y. H., & Besaratinia, Y. 2005. Mutations induced by ultraviolet light. Mutat. Res. 571: 19–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, M. P., Wakeford, R., & Kendall, G. M. 2009. Updated estimates of the proportion of childhood leukaemia incidence in Great Britain that may be caused by natural background ionizing radiation. J. Radiol. Prot. 29: 467–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, R. D., & Heyraud, M. 1982. Evidence of high natural radiation doses in certain mid-water oceanic organisms. Science (N.Y.) 218: 54–6.Google Scholar
Rangarajan, A., & Weinberg, R. A. 2003. Comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice. Nature Rev. 3: 952–9.Google Scholar
Cherry, M. I., Cherry, R. D., & Heyraud, M. 1987. Polonium-210 and lead-210 in Antarctic biota and sea water. Mar. Biol. 96: 441–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, D., Lemberger, K., Dallaire, A., Labelle, P., Lipscomb, T. P., Michel, P., & Mikaelian, I. 2002. Cancer in wildlife, a case study: Beluga from the St. Lawrence Estuary, Québec, Canada. Environ. Health Perspect. 110: 285–92.Google Scholar
Newman, S. J., & Smith, S. A. 2006. Marine mammal neoplasia: a review. Vet. Pathol. 43: 865–80.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Shore, R. E., Beck, H. L., Boice, J. D., et al. 2018. Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection. J. Radiol. Prot. 38: 1217–33.Google Scholar
Woodhead, D. S., & Pentreath, R. J. 1983. A provisional assessment of radiation regimes in deep ocean environments. In Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 3, 133–52. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J., & Woodhead, D. S. 1988. Towards the development of criteria for the protection of marine fauna in relation to the disposal of radioactive wastes into the sea. In Radiation Protection in Nuclear Energy. Proc Conf, Sydney, IAEA-CN-51, Vol. 2, 213–43. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
Amiro, B., Avadhanula, R., Johansson, G., Larsson, C-M., & Lüning, M. 1996. Protection of the Natural Environment, International Symposium on Ionising Radiation, Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, Vols. I & II.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J. 1998. Radiological protection criteria for the natural environment. In Radionuclides in the Oceans, International Conference, UK 1997. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 75: 175–9.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J. 1999. A system for radiological protection of the environment: some initial thoughts and ideas. J. Radiol. Prot. 19: 117–28.Google Scholar
IAEA. 1999. Protection of the environment from the effects of ionising radiation, IAEA-TECDOC-1091. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2003. A framework for assessing the impact of ionizing radiation on non-human species. ICRP Publication 91. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
IAEA. 2002. Ethical considerations in protecting of the environment from the effects of ionising radiation, IAEA-TECDOC-1270. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2008. Environmental protection: the concept and use of reference animals and plants. ICRP Publication 108. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Larsson, C-M, 2004. The FASSET framework for assessment of environmental impact of ionizing radiation in European ecosystems – an overview. J. Radiol. Prot. 24: A1–2.Google Scholar
Larsson, C-M, 2008. An overview of the ERICA Integrated Approach to the assessment and management of environmental risks from ionizing contaminants. J. Environ. Radioact. 99: 1364–70.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2009. Environmental protection: transfer parameters for reference animals and plants. ICRP Publication114. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2017. Dose coefficients for non-human biota environmentally exposed to radiation. ICRP Publication136. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Li, J., Wang, H., & Wang, A. 2017. A new method of estimation of dose conversion coefficients for aquatic biota. J. Radiol. Prot. 37: 31–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRP. 2014. Protection of the environment under different exposure situations. ICRP Publication 124. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2021. Biota radiation weighting for Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP Publication 148. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection. (In press).Google Scholar
ICRP. 2014. Radiological protection against radon exposure. ICRP Publication126. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2013. Assessment of radiation exposure of astronauts in space. ICRP Publication123. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Lucas, R., McMichael, T., Smith, W. & Armstrong, B. 2006. Solar ultraviolet radiation: global burden of disease from solar ultraviolet radiation. Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 13. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
IAEA. 1998. The radiological situation at the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. Main Report. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
CRESP. 1995. Co-ordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme related to sea disposal of radioactive waste, Final Report, 1981–1995. Paris: NEA/OECD.Google Scholar
IAEA. 1999. Radioactivity in the Arctic Seas, TEC-DOC 1075. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Kershaw, P. J., & Baxter, A. 1995. The transfer of reprocessing waste from north-west Europe to the Arctic. Deep-Sea Res. II, 42: 1413–48.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J., Lovett, M. B., Jefferies, D.F., Woodhead, D. S., Talbot, J. W. & Mitchell, N. T. 1984. The impact on public radiation exposure of transuranium nuclides discharged in liquid wastes from fuel element reprocessing at Sellafield, UK. In: Radioactive Waste Management, IAEA-CN-43, 315–329. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. J. 1995. Radiation doses to critical groups since the early 1950s due to discharges of liquid radioactive waste from Sellafield. In Environmental Impact of Radioactive Releases, IAEA-SM-339/16, 191–210. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J., & Allington, D. J. 1988. Dose to man from the consumption of marine seafoods: a comparison of the naturally-occurring 210Po with artificially-produced radionuclides. In Radiation Protection Practice, III. Proc 7th Int Congr. IRPA, Sydney, 1582–5. Sydney: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J., Camplin, W. C.. & Allington, D. J. 1989. Individual and collective dose rates from naturally-occurring radionuclides in seafoods. In Radiation Protection -Theory and Practice, Proc 4th Int Symp Soc Radial Prot, Malvern, 297–300. Bristol: Institute of PhysicsGoogle Scholar
Camplin, W. C., Baxter, A. J., & Round, G. D. 1996. The radiological impact of discharges of natural radionuclides from a phosphate plant in the United Kingdom. Environ. Int. 22: 259–70.Google Scholar
RIFE. 2018. Radioactivity in Food and the Environment Report, 2017, RIFE-23, Environment Agency and others. Lowestoft, Suffolk: Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research.Google Scholar
COMARE. 2016. Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, 17th Report, Public Health England.Google Scholar
Woodhead, D. S. 1973. The radiation dose received by plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) from the waste discharge into the northeast Irish Sea from the fuel reprocessing plant at Windscale. Health Phys. 25: 115–21.Google Scholar
Woodhead, D. S., 1986. The radiation exposure of black-headed gulls (Larus ridibundus) in the Ravenglass estuary, Cumbria, UK: a preliminary assessment. Sci. Tot. Environ., 58: 273–81.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J. 2020 Nuclear powered vessels. In de Mora, S., Fileman, T., & Vance, T. (eds.), Environmental Impact of Ships, 282–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akleyev, A. V., Krestinina, L. Y., Degteva, M. O., & Tolstykh, E. I. 2017. Consequences of the radiation accident at the Myak production association in 1957 (the ‘Kyshtym Accident’). J. Radiol. Prot. 37, R19–R42.Google Scholar
Fesenko, S. 2019. Review of radiation effects in non-human species in areas affected by the Kyshtym accident. J. Radiol. Prot. 39, R1–R17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNally, R. J. Q., Wakeford, R., James, P. W., Basta, N. O., Alston, R. D., Pearce, M. S., & Elliott, A. T. 2016. A geographical study of thyroid cancer incidence in north-west England following the Windscale nuclear reactor fire of 1957. J. Radiol. Prot. 36: 934–52.Google Scholar
UNSCEAR. 2008. Report to the General Assembly, Volume II. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
UNSCEAR. 2018. Evaluations of Data on Thyroid Cancer in Regions Affected by the Chernobyl Accident. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Fesenko, S. V., Alexakhin, R. M., Balanov, M. I., et al. 2006. Twenty years’ application of agricultural countermeasures following the Chernobyl accident: lessons learned. J. Radiol. Prot. 26: 351–9.Google Scholar
Howard, B. J., & Beresford, N. A. 1989. Chernobyl radiocaesium in an upland sheep farm ecosystem. Br. Vet. J. 145: 212–19.Google Scholar
Hinton, T.G., Alexakhin, R., Balanov, M., et al. 2007. Radiation-induced effects on plants and animals: findings of the United Nations Chernobyl forum. Health Phys. 93(5): 427–40.Google Scholar
Beresford, N. A., Barnett, C. L., Brown, J. E., et al. 2010. Predicting the radiation exposure of terrestrial wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone: an international comparison of approaches. J. Radiol. Prot. 30: 341–73.Google Scholar
Beresford, N. A., & Copplestone, D. 2011. Effects of ionizing radiation on wildlife; what knowledge have we gained between the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents? Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 7: 371–3.Google Scholar
IAEA. 2015. The Fukushima Daiichi Accident Technical Volume 4/5: Radiological Consequences. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J., 2012. Clarifying and simplifying the management of environmental exposures under different exposure situations. Proc. of the 1st Symp. of ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Warner, F., & Harrison, R. M., eds. 1993. Radioecology after Chernobyl. SCOPE 50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Harwell, M. A., & Hutchinson, T. C. 1985. Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War. SCOPE 28, Vol. II, Ecological and Agricultural Effects. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mills, J. M., Toon, O.B., Lee-Taylor, J. & Robock, A., 2014. Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict. Earth’s Future 2: 161–76.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2005. Protecting people against radiation exposure in the event of a radiological attack. ICRP Publication 96. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×