Estimation of radioactivity levels associated with a 90Sr dirty bomb event

Reshetin, V. P.

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.03.047

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section, several beta-emitting radionuclides are compared with the 131 I Reference scenario (at the fixed activity of 2.00 × 10 14 Bq): 3 H, 14 C, 18 F, 32 P, 40 K, 59 Fe, 75 Se, 89 Sr, 90 Sr, 90 Y, 113 Cd, 133 Xe, 153 Sm, 165 Dy, 166 Ho, 169 Er, 177 Lu, 186 Re and 198 Au. Most of them are under study because of their use (or potential application) in nuclear medicine [36][37][38][39], where full safety against intrusion and theft is difficult to achieve.…”

Section: Beta Emittersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of a dirty bomb attack in a large metropolitan area: simulate the dispersion of radioactive materials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential for a radiological or nuclear attack has been widely acknowledged in the last two decades. The use of a dirty bomb by terrorist organizations is considered to be a credible threat for which policymakers and relevant security agencies must prepare. Radioactive materials are stored in thousands of facilities around the world and may not be adequately protected against theft. This article analyzes a hypothetical dirty bomb attack in a large metropolitan area, evaluating the radiation dose to the involved population. The dispersion of radioactive materials is simulated using HOTSPOT code, considering a number of possible radionuclides (alpha, beta and gamma emitters) and scenarios. The findings of the present study corroborate and extend previous research demonstrating that it is unlikely that the atmospheric dispersion of radioactive material contained in a dirty bomb would produce deterministic effects in the exposed population. The radioactive material would be dispersed into the air resulting in relatively low doses. However, depending on the situation, the explosion of a dirty bomb is likely to contaminate properties (rendering them temporarily uninhabitable), thereby requiring potentially costly cleanup. Furthermore, due to the general fear of radiation, pervasive psychological effects are expected.

show abstract

Section: Beta Emittersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of a dirty bomb attack in a large metropolitan area: simulate the dispersion of radioactive materials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jeong et al also assessed the potential and actual effects on human health from an inhalation event due to a radiological terrorist attack in the same area by both Gaussian and CFD modelling [10]. Similarly, Reshetin used a Gaussian model to estimate the maximum inhalation doses, the spatial extent and radioactivity of contamination within an urban area after the initial dispersion of 90 Sr radiological dispersion device (dirty bomb) in a terrorist activity [11]. Andersson et al used a decision support system ARGOS, which is able to estimate the consequences of terror attacks involving chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological substance, to calculate the dose contributions from contaminants dispersed in the atmosphere after a 'dirty bomb' explosion [12].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Analysis of Urban Dirty Bomb Attacking Based on Bayesian Network

Tang

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban dirty bomb attacking is a type of unconventional terrorism threatening the urban security all through the world. In this paper, a Bayesian network of urban dirty bomb attacking is established to analyze the risk of urban dirty bomb attacking. The impacts of factors such as occurrence time, location, wind fields, the size of dirty bomb, emergency response and defense approaches on casualty from both direct blast and radiation-caused cancers are examined. Results show that sensitivity of casualty from cancers to wind fields are less significant; the impact of emergency response on the direct casualty from blast is not large; the size of the dirty bomb results in more casualties from cancers than that from bomb explosions; Whether an attack is detected by the police is not that related to normal or special time, but significantly depends on the attack location; Furthermore, casualty from cancers significantly depends on the location, while casualty from blast is not considerably influenced by the attacking location; patrol and surveillance are less important than security check in terms of controlling the risk of urban dirt bomb, and security check is the most effective approach to decreasing the risk of urban dirty bomb.

show abstract

“…Much of this attention has focused on emergency response guidance (Musolino and Harper 2006), identification of federal assets that would respond to an event (Remick et al 2005), establishment of cleanup criteria/guidelines for implementation in the aftermath of an RDD event (Elcock et al 2004;Conklin 2005;Steinhausler 2005;Till and McBaugh 2005), and estimates of health risk from such an event (NCRP 2001;Becker 2005;Reshetin 2005;Ring 2004;Dombroski and Fischbeck 2006). While it has been reported that the health risk to the public from an RDD event would be small (Becker 2005;Reshetin 2005;Ring 2004;Dombroski and Fischbeck 2006), it is thought that the psychological impact of a terrorist attack with an RDD weapon could be considerable (NCRP 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Sprayable Fixatives on a Sandy Soil for Potential Use in a Dirty Bomb Response

Fritz

Whitaker²

2008

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the events of 11 September 2001, the possibility of a dirty bomb being detonated within the United States seems more realistic. Development of tools for use in response to a dirty bomb detonation has become a topic of both discussion and research. While it has been reported that the health risk to the public from such an event would likely be small, it is thought that the psychological impact could be considerable. One response option that has been considered is adapting sprayable solutions for the purpose of fixing contamination in place, thereby limiting the spread of contamination by wind and rain and facilitating subsequent cleanup. This work evaluated two commercially available particle fixatives (IsoFIX-HT and IsoFIX-RC) for their effectiveness in preventing dispersal of simulated contamination. Nonradioactive cesium chloride and cobalt oxide particles were selected as the simulated contamination and applied to the surface of three outdoor test plots. Two test plots were treated with fixatives; the third plot provided a control. Samples were collected over 95 days to observe changes in tracer concentration on the surface of the test plots. One fixative (IsoFIX-RC) effectively held the tracer in place with no net loss of tracer, while the other fixative (IsoFIX-HT) had no impact on the loss of tracer relative to the control. Under the conditions tested, IsoFIX-RC appears capable of fixing surface contamination in place for at least several months.

show abstract

Estimation of radioactivity levels associated with a 90Sr dirty bomb event

Cited by 18 publications

References 3 publications

Analysis of a dirty bomb attack in a large metropolitan area: simulate the dispersion of radioactive materials

Analysis of a dirty bomb attack in a large metropolitan area: simulate the dispersion of radioactive materials

Risk Analysis of Urban Dirty Bomb Attacking Based on Bayesian Network

Evaluation of Sprayable Fixatives on a Sandy Soil for Potential Use in a Dirty Bomb Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About