Chernobyl Source Term, Atmospheric Dispersion, and Dose Estimation

Ph, Gudiksen; Tf, Harvey; Länge, R.

doi:10.1097/00004032-198911000-00001

Cited by 92 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The altitude at which emissions were injected into the atmosphere was even more difficult to estimate due to the numerous parameters that have to be taken into consideration (mechanical factors characterizing the explosions, generated heat, local meteorological factors, local scavenging conditions, boundary layer diurnal cycles, etc.). Albergel et al (1988) and Gudiksen et al (1989) reported that the first release must have reached 2000 m or more. A similar profile of the Chernobyl emissions was proposed by Lange et al (1988) and Hass et al (1990).…”

Section: Earlier Estimates Of the Source Term And Purpose Of The Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3.4) despite the additional uncertainties contained in the modeled deposition values, primarily related to errors in precipitation information and the scavenging formulation (Gudiksen et al, 1989). However, if the measurements are sparse, all available data should be used, even if not all data can be modeled with the same accuracy.…”

Section: Inverse Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if the measurements are sparse, all available data should be used, even if not all data can be modeled with the same accuracy. The limitations on performing an inversion using deposited activity measurements were highlighted by Gudiksen et al (1989). These limitations are associated with the uncertainties of precipitation in the meteorological data sets and of the scavenging schemes used in models, as well as with the unknown mass of 137 Cs deposited over Europe as a result of nuclear weapon tests in the past.…”

Section: Inverse Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3.2), the experience gathered from Fukushima was used (Stohl et al, 2012). The use of deposition observations in the inversion involves additional uncertainty compared to surface concentrations due to the unknown mass of each long-lived radionuclide that was deposited previously in the area (e.g., from nuclear weapon tests) and due to the uncertainty of precipitation that differs from different meteorological data sets (Gudiksen et al, 1989). For these reasons, the relative measurement errors were chosen to be double (60 %) for deposition densities compared to the concentration values (30 %).…”

Section: Surface Activity Concentration and Deposition Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Inverse modeling of the Chernobyl source term using atmospheric concentration and deposition measurements

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper describes the results of an inverse modeling study for the determination of the source term of the radionuclides 134 Cs, 137 Cs and 131 I released after the Chernobyl accident. The accident occurred on 26 April 1986 in the Former Soviet Union and released about 10 19 Bq of radioactive materials that were transported as far away as the USA and Japan. Thereafter, several attempts to assess the magnitude of the emissions were made that were based on the knowledge of the core inventory and the levels of the spent fuel. More recently, when modeling tools were further developed, inverse modeling techniques were applied to the Chernobyl case for source term quantification. However, because radioactivity is a sensitive topic for the public and attracts a lot of attention, high-quality measurements, which are essential for inverse modeling, were not made available except for a few sparse activity concentration measurements far from the source and far from the main direction of the radioactive fallout.For the first time, we apply Bayesian inversion of the Chernobyl source term using not only activity concentrations but also deposition measurements from the most recent public data set. These observations refer to a data rescue attempt that started more than 10 years ago, with a final goal to provide available measurements to anyone interested. In regards to our inverse modeling results, emissions of 134 Cs were estimated to be 80 PBq or 30-50 % higher than what was previously published. From the released amount of 134 Cs, about 70 PBq were deposited all over Europe. Similar to 134 Cs, emissions of 137 Cs were estimated as 86 PBq, on the same order as previously reported results. Finally, 131 I emissions of 1365 PBq were found, which are about 10 % less than the prior total releases.The inversion pushes the injection heights of the three radionuclides to higher altitudes (up to about 3 km) than previously assumed (≈ 2.2 km) in order to better match both concentration and deposition observations over Europe. The results of the present inversion were confirmed using an independent Eulerian model, for which deposition patterns were also improved when using the estimated posterior releases. Although the independent model tends to underestimate deposition in countries that are not in the main direction of the plume, it reproduces country levels of deposition very efficiently. The results were also tested for robustness against different setups of the inversion through sensitivity runs. The source term data from this study are publicly available.

show abstract

Section: Earlier Estimates Of the Source Term And Purpose Of The Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inverse Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inverse Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surface Activity Concentration and Deposition Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inverse modeling of the Chernobyl source term using atmospheric concentration and deposition measurements

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Поступление 90 Sr в окружающую сре-ду в результате Чернобыльской аварии было в 80-200 раз меньше, чем вследствие испы-таний ядерного оружия в открытых средах, но превышало на 2-4 порядка высвобожде-ние этого радионуклида в результате других ядерных инцидентов (Polikarpov, 1966;Не-лепо, 1970;Joseph et al, 1971;Gudiksen et al, 1989;Gudiksen et al, 1991;Fukushima Daiichi accident, 2015). Радиоактивное загрязнение водных экосистем, расположенных как вбли-зи места взрыва, так и значительно удален-ных от него, связано с выбросом в атмосферу и ветровым переносом радиоактивных про-дуктов и аэрозольных частиц.…”

unclassified