4.4 Review

Thirty years after the Chernobyl accident: What lessons have we learnt?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 77-89

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.02.003

关键词

Chernobyl; Hot particles; Semi-natural ecosystems; Countermeasures; Effects on wildlife; Fixation in soil

资金

  1. TREE project - NERC, the Environment Agency and Radioactive Waste Management Ltd.
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/L000318/1, NE/L000393/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. NERC [NE/L000318/1, NE/L000393/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

April 2016 sees the 30th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. As a consequence of the accident populations were relocated in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and remedial measures were put in place to reduce the entry of contaminants (primarily 134+137CS) into the human food chain in a number of countries throughout Europe. Remedial measures are still today in place in a number of countries, and areas of the former Soviet Union remain abandoned. The Chernobyl accident led to a large resurgence in radioecological studies both to aid remediation and to be able to make future predictions on the post-accident situation, but, also in recognition that more knowledge was required to cope with future accidents. In this paper we discuss, what in the authors' opinions, were the advances made in radioecology as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident. The areas we identified as being significantly advanced following Chernobyl were: the importance of semi-natural ecosystems in human dose formation; the characterisation and environmental behaviour of 'hot particles'; the development and application of countermeasures; the fixation and long term bioavailability of radiocaesium and; the effects of radiation on plants and animals. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据