4.4 Article

236U and 239,240Pu ratios from soils around an Australian nuclear weapons test site

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
Volume 151, Issue -, Pages 563-567

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.06.020

Keywords

Maralinga; U-236; Pu-239; Soils; Accelerator Mass Spectrometry; AMS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The isotopes U-236, Pu-239 and Pu-240 are present in surface soils as a result of global fallout from nuclear weapons tests carried out in the 1950's and 1960's. These isotopes potentially constitute artificial tracers of recent soil erosion and sediment movement. Only Accelerator Mass Spectrometry has the requisite sensitivity to measure all three isotopes at these environmental levels. Coupled with its relatively high throughput capabilities, this makes it feasible to conduct studies of erosion across the geographical extent of the Australian continent. In the Australian context, however, global fallout is not the only source of these isotopes. As part of its weapons development program the United Kingdom carried out a series of atmospheric and surface nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga, South Australia in 1956 and 1957. The tests have made a significant contribution to the Pu isotopic abundances present in the region around Maralinga and out to distances similar to 1000 km, and impact on the assessment techniques used in the soil and sediment tracer studies. Quantification of the relative fallout contribution derived from detonations at Maralinga is complicated owing to significant contamination around the test site from numerous nuclear weapons safety trials that were also carried out around the site. We show that U-236 can provide new information on the component of the fallout that is derived from the local nuclear weapons tests, and highlight the potential of U-236 as a new fallout tracer. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available