The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data....

13
How well do tools predict The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data. Model-model intercomparison showed considerable variation between models www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT Pu-239

Transcript of The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data....

Page 1: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

How well do tools predict

The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.

Model-model intercomparison showed considerable variation between models

Pu-239

Page 2: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

How well do tools predict

The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data

Model-model intercomparison showed considerable variation between models Missing value guidance approach often give

comparatively high estimates (often for little studied organisms)

‘National’ (site specific) data

Page 3: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

Perch Lake Canada

H-3, Cs-137, Co-60, Sr-90 data for wide range of freshwater biota

PerchLake

Ottawa River

Built-up Area

Chalk River Laboratories

Waste Management Area

Legend

Lake / River

Road

CRL Boundary

Stream0 1 2

kilometres

Sudbury

Ottawa

TorontoLake Ontario

Lake Erie

Lake Huron

CRL

Page 4: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

Cesium-137 in Aquatic MacrophytesFreshwater Primary Producers

Model

Mo

de

led

-to

-Me

as

ure

d 13

7 Cs

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Emergent MacrophytesFree-floating MacrophytesFloat-leafed MacrophytesSubmergent MacrophytesMinimum Measured (free-floating)Maximum Measured (free-floating)Minimum Measured (floating-leafed)Maximum Measured (free-floating)

Minimum Measured (submergent)Maximum Measured (submergent)

Page 5: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

Freshwater Fishes

Model

Mo

de

led

-to

-Me

as

ure

d 90 S

r C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

Brown BullheadCyprinidsPumpkinseedsMinimum Measured (bullhead)Maximum Measured (bullhead)Minimum Measured (cyprinids)Maximum Measured (cyprinids)

Minimum Measured (pumpkinseed)Maximum Measured (pumpkinseed)

Strontium-90 in Freshwater Fish

Page 6: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

Aquatic Mammals

Model

Mo

de

led

-to

-Me

as

ure

d

60 C

o C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Star-nosed MoleAmerican Water Shrew

Cobalt-60 in Freshwater Mammals

Page 7: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

Chernobyl Case Study

Page 8: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

Page 9: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

Page 10: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

Page 11: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

Overview Hopefully have appreciation of how wholebody

radionuclide concentrations are estimated in available tools

There are some short comings in approaches - not least data availability - but to cover wide range of organism-radionuclide combinations currently ‘best we can do’ Can be considerable variability between models (justify

selection) Lack of equilibrium

Probably – but if sufficient data should reflect ‘reality’ (e.g. Pu will never reach equilibrium)

Page 12: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

Overview Some radionuclides are heterogeneously

distributed throughout the body Sr (bone), Am (bone & liver), I (thyroid), Ru (kidney) Uncertainty this adds to dose organ should be

assessed (... available effects data are for wholebody dose rates?)

If required dynamic models available or scope to adapt from human assessment models

If predictions are required spatially - relatively easy to use parameters from models such as ERICA in a GIS

Page 13: The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable.

www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT

IAEA handbook on radionuclide transfer parameters for wildlife

Technical report series Final draft submitted to IAEA On-line database for collation Will be maintained and used

to provide annual update tables Database has also been used

to collate data for ICRP

framework (TG73 report in-press)