The effect on ecological systems of remediation to protect human health

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 97, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1572-1578

  Burger, Joanna ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RADIOISOTOPE;

ATOMIC BOMB; CHEMICAL WARFARE; CONTAMINATION; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RADIOACTIVITY; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SPILLAGE; TERRORISM; ARTICLE; DANGEROUS GOODS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STRESS; UNITED STATES;

ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; STRESS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES;

EID: 34548499650     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.098814     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Sharples FE, Dunford RW, Bascietto JJ, Sutter GW II. Integrating natural resource damage assessment and environmental restoration at federal facilities. Fed Fac Environ J. 1993;4:295-318.
2. Leslie M, Meffe GK, Hardesty JL, Adams DL. Conserving Biodiversity on Military Lands: A Handbook for Natural Resources Managers. Arlington, Va: Nature Conservancy; 1996.
3. Hawke MA, Karr JR. Ecological response and compensatory mechanisms: using ecological knowledge to improve remediation efforts. In: Swindoll M, Stahl Jr RG, Ells SJ, eds. Natural Remediation of Environmental Contaminants: Its Role in Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Pensacola, Fla: SETAC Press; 2000:31-56.
4. Lubbert RF, Chu TJ. Challenges to cleaning up formerly used defense sites in the twenty-first century. Remediation. 2001;l l:19-31.
5. Crowley KD, Ahearne JF. Managing the environmental legacy of US nuclear-weapons production. Am Scient. 2002;90:514-523.
6. Oughton D, Forsburg EM, Bay I, Kaiser M, Howard B. An ethical dimension to sustainable restoration and long-term management of contaminated areas. J Environ Radioact. 2004;74:171-183.
7. Midden CJJ, Verplanken B. The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. J Environ Psychol. 1990;10:111-119.
8. Carle B, Charron S, Milochevitch A, Hardeman F. An inquiry of the opinions of the French and Belgian populations as regards risk. J Hazardous Mat. 2004;111:21-27.
9. Burger J, Powers CW, Greenberg M, Gochfeld M. The role of risk and future land use in cleanup decisions at the Department of Energy. Risk Anal. 2004;24:1539-1549.
10. Salazar MK, Takaro TK, Gochfeld M, Barnhart S. Occupational health services at ten U.S. Department of Energy weapons sites. Am J Ind Med. 2003;4:418-428.
11. Nelson RH. From Waste to Wilderness: Maintaining Biodiversity On Nuclear-Bomb-Building Sites. Washington, DC: Competitive Enterprise Institute; 2001.
12. Burger J, Leschine TM, Greenberg M, Karr JR, Gochfeld M, Powers CW. Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: protecting human and ecological health. Environ Manage. 2003;31:157-167.
13. Luoto M, Rekolainen S, Salt CA, Hansen HS. Managing radioactivity contaminated land: implications for habitat diversity. Environ Manage. 2001;27:595-608.
14. TEMAS: techniques and management strategies for environmental restoration and their ecological consequences. Available at: http://cordis.europa.eu?fp4- euratom/src/temas.htm. Accessed July 2, 2007.
15. Whicker FW, Hinton TG, MacDonell MM, Pinder JE, Habegger LJ. Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites. Science. 2004;303:1615-1616.
16. EURANOS: European approach to nuclear and radiological emergency management and rehabilitation strategies. Available at: http://www.euranos.fzk. de/index.php?action=euranos&title=objectives. Accessed July 2, 2007.
17. Howard BJ, Liland A, Beresford NA, et al. A critical evaluation of the strategy project. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2004;109:63-67.
18. US Department of Energy. Stewards of National Resources. Washington, DC: Department of Energy; 1994. Document DOE/FM-0002.
19. National Environmental Research Parks. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research; 1994.
20. Dale VH, Parr PD. Preserving DOE's research parks. Issues Sci Technol. 1997;14:73-77.
21. Brown KS. The great DOE land rush? Science. 1998;282:616-617.
22. US Department of Energy. Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management; 1995. Document DOE/EM-0232.
23. US Department of Energy. Long-Term Stewardship Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Department of Energy; 2001.
24. Frisch M, Solitare L, Greenberg M, Lowrie K. Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy's major nuclear weapons sites. J Environ Manage. 1998;54:23-37.
25. Malone CR. Implications of resources management at the Nevada Test Site. Fed Facilit Environ J. 1998;9:51-62.
26. Geiser DA. A Cleanup Program Driven by Risk-Based End States Project. Washington, DC: Department of Energy; 2003.
27. Burger J, Tsipoura N, Gochfeld M, Greenberg M. Ecological considerations for evaluating current risk and designing long-term stewardship on Department of Energy Lands. Risk Anal. In press.
28. Burger J, Gochfeld M, McGrath LF, et al. Science, policy, stakeholders, and fish consumption advisories: developing a fish fact sheet for the Savannah River. Environ Manage. 2000;27:501-514.
29. Burger J, Gaines KF, Gochfeld M. Ethnic differences in risk from mercury among Savannah River fishermen. Risk Anal. 200l;21:533-544.
30. Burger J, Gaines KF, Stephens WL Jr, et al. Radiocesium in fish from the Savannah River and Steel Creek: potential food chain exposure to the public. Risk Anal. 2001;21:545-559.
31. Burger J, Gaines KF, Boring S, Stephens WL Jr, Snodgrass J, Gochfeld M. Mercury and selenium in fish from the Savannah River: species, trophic level, and locational differences. Environ Res. 2001;87:108-118.
32. Burger J, Gochfeld M. The Peconic River: concerns associated with different risk evaluations for fish consumption. J Environ Plan Manage. 2005;48:789-808.