A Review of Two Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDR) Dosimetry Reports Columbia River Pathway and Atmospheric Pathway (1995) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC COMMENTS
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Pages 32-41
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 32... ...
Page viii, sixth bullet: It would be better to indicate the dose received by the typical representative individual at Richland than at Pasco, to compare with the maximum representative individual. Also, the total estimated dose for 1944-1992 should be given (instead of 1956-1965)
|
From page 33... ...
Page 1.2, Section 1.2: "ingestion of Willapa Bay shellfish and salmon and steelhead"-the main source of radionuclides noted later in the document is from resident, not anadromous fish and shellfish. This statement is therefore misleading (as is a similar statement on page v.
|
From page 34... ...
Page 3.6, paragraph 4: "The amount of radionuclides released does not correlate to radiation dose." This is an important fact and should, to some degree, be highlighted because later the model description states that the dose was related to what was in the fish, which was related to what was modeled in the water, which was related to the nature of the model. Page 3.7, Figures 3.2 and 3.3: A logarithmic scale would be more appropriate than a linear scale.
|
From page 35... ...
Page 3.18, Section 3.3.3: The report uses two methods of estimating doses from anadromous fish. One uses actual measurements, and the other treats salmon and steelhead as "resident" fish that spend their entire lives in the river, which supposedly yields an "upper limit for doses." Salmon feed little (steelhead do feed in freshwater)
|
From page 36... ...
Also, it would be interesting to derive dose estimates from the large number of body-burden measurements of Hanford workers from the l950s and 1960s. The complete dose history does not mention that the American Indians have decidedly different eating habits from the so-called typical or maximum individual.
|
From page 37... ...
The second paragraph in this section states, in line 1: "Concentration of radionuclides in water depends on both the source term and transport calculations." Line 1 of the following paragraph states that the concentration of radionuclides in fish depends on the source term and transport estimates and the bioconcentration modeled in the CRD. There appears to be no control.
|
From page 38... ...
Reference to measured radionuclide concentrations in fish would have helped to clarify this issue. Page 5.16, Section 5.2.2: It seems more logical to measure body burdens to validate the dose estimates obtained for the typical representative individual than to compare them with the doses calculated for an individual who would not consume any fish.
|
From page 39... ...
. ." The dose from iodine-131 is largely to the thyroid, whereas doses from some other radionuclides irradiate bone marrow, total soft tissue, etc.
|
From page 40... ...
Page 10, Figures S.1 and S.2: The title indicates that the plotted values are doses (rems) whereas the ordinate label indicates that they are dose rates (rems per year)
|
From page 41... ...
Page B.7, Section B.2.4., paragraph 2: Was a dynamic model used to calculate the partitioning of the iodine species, or was the fraction fixed for all distances for all realizations? Page D.5 f£ The name of the special unit of activity (curie)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.