Why should we do environmental dose reconstructions?

Health Physics

Volumn 71, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 420-424

  Miller, Charles W ^b   Smith, James M ^a  

^a CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

dose assessment; environmental assessment; exposure, radiation; weapons

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC BOMB; DOSIMETRY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029785324     PISSN: 00179078     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004032-199610000-00001     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Davis, S.; Kopecky, K. J.; Hamilton, T. E.; Amundson, B. Study protocol: Hanford thyroid disease study. Seattle, WA: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; 1993.
2. Graham, J. D.; Walker, K. D. How clean is clean? Health & Environment Digest 8:17-19; 1994.
3. Hoffman, F. O.; Miller, C. W. Uncertainties in environmental radiological assessment models and their implications. In: Environmental radioactivity, proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; 1983: 110-138.
4. Hoffman, F. O.; Blaylock, B. G.; Frank, M. L.; Thiessen, K. M. A risk-based screening approach for prioritizing contaminants and exposure pathways at Superfund sites. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 28:221-237; 1993.
5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Generic models and parameters for assessing the environmental transfer of radionuclides from routine releases. Vienna, Austria: IAEA; in press.
6. Kathren, R. L.; Denham, D. H.; Salmon, K. Environmental health physics, proceedings of the twenty-sixth midyear topical meeting of the Health Phys. Society. Richland, WA: Research Enterprises, Publishing Segment; 1993.
7. Kerber, R. A.; Till, J. E.; Simon, S. L.; Lyon, J. L.; Thomas, D. C.; Preston-Martin, S.; Rallison, M. L.; Lloyd, R. D.; Stevens, W. A cohort study of thyroid disease in relation to fallout from nuclear weapons testing. JAMA 270:2076-2082; 1993.
8. Little, C. A. Development of computer codes for radiological assessments. In: Till, J. E.; Meyer, H. R., eds. Radiological assessments, a textbook on environmental dose analysis. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-3332 (ORNL-5968); 13-1-13-43; 1983.
9. Lubin, J. H.; Gail, M. H. On power and sample size for studying features of the relative odds of disease. Am. J. Epidemiol. 131:552-566; 1990.
10. McKeown-Eyssen, G. E.; Thomas, D. C. Sample size determination in case-control studies: the influence of the distribution of exposure. J. Chron. Disease 38:559-568; 1985.
11. Means, B.; Cooper, D. EPA looks at Superfund reform. Health & Environment Digest 8:19-20; 1994.
12. Miller, C. W.; Denham, L. S. An approach to dose reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Environmental Transport and Dosimetry. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society; 1993: 24-27.
13. Miller, C. W.; Smith, J. M.; Denham, L. S. Dose reconstruction studies at selected nuclear weapons facilities in the U.S.A. In: Assessing the radiological impact Xf past nuclear activities and events. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; IAEA-TECDOC-755; 1994: 79-85.
14. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Screening techniques for determining compliance with environmental standards, releases of radionuclides to the atmosphere. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; NCRP Commentary 3; 1989.
15. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Risk estimates for radiation protection. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; NCRP Report No. 115; 1993.
16. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Environmental dose reconstruction and risk implications. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; Thirty-first annual meeting; 1995.
17. National Research Council. Radiation dose reconstruction for epidemiologic uses. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995.
18. Office of Technology Assessment. Complex cleanup, the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; OTA-O-484; 1991.
19. Radiological Assessments Corporation. The Fernald dosimetry reconstruction project: Tasks 2 and 3, radionuclide source terms and uncertainties. Neeses, SC; RAC; CDC-6; 1995.
20. Shipler, D. B.; Napier, B. A. HEDR modeling approach. Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; PNWD-1983 HEDR Rev. 1; 1994.
21. Shleien, B.; Ruttenber, J. A.; Sage, M. Epidemiologic studies of cancer in populations near nuclear facilities. Health Phys. 61:699-713; 1991.
22. Till, J. E. Implications of the dose reconstruction studies on the future of environmental health physics. In: Kathren, R. L.; Denham, D. H.; Salmon, K., eds. Environmental health physics, proceedings of the twenty-sixth midyear topical meeting of the Health Phys. Society. Richland, WA: Research Enterprises, Publishing Segment; 1993: 1-12.
23. Till, J. E.; Meyer, H. R. Radiological assessments, a textbook on environmental dose analysis. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service; U.S. NRC Report NUREG/ CR-3332 (ORNL-5968); 1983.
24. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Calculation of annual doses to man from routine releases of reactor effluents for the purpose of evaluating compliance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Regulatory Guide 1.109; 1977.
25. Widner, T. E.; Mongan, T. R.; Ripple, S. R.; Morin, N. C. Reconstruction of past Rocky Flats releases. In: Kathren, R. L.; Denham, D. H.; Salmon, K., eds. Environmental health physics, proceedings of the twenty-sixth midyear topical meeting of the Health Phys. Society. Richland, WA: Research Enterprises, Publishing Segment; 1993: 183-192.