4.3 Article

Long-term predictions of ambient dose equivalent rates after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 12, Pages 1345-1354

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00223131.2017.1365659

Keywords

Ambient dose equivalent rate; ecological half-life; prediction model; long-term contaminated area; existing exposure situation; radiological protection; Fukushima

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To analyze radiation protection strategies and rehabilitation programs in Fukushima, prediction models have been developed for ambient dose equivalent rate distributions within the 80 km-radius around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The prediction models characterized by ecological half-lives of radioactive caesium for land-use, enable Fukushima residents to obtain distribution maps of ambient dose equivalent rates after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Model parameters such as the ecological half-lives for the short-term component and the fractional distribution of short-term component were evaluated using ambient dose equivalent rates through car/vehicle-borne surveys. It was found that the ecological half-lives among land-use differ only slightly, whereas the fractional distributions of the short-term component are clearly dependent on land-use. In addition, uncertainties concerning predictions of ambient dose equivalent rates arising from variability in model parameters were assessed using Monte Carlo simulations. Long-term changes of ambient dose equivalent rates were predicted for different land-use areas. Distribution maps of ambient dose equivalent rates for the next 30years after the accident, created by the prediction models are expected to be useful for follow-up of the radiological situation since they provide information on the space variation of the ambient dose equivalent rates in inhabited areas.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available