Book contents
- Radioecology
- Cambridge Environmental Chemistry Series
- Radioecology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 The Emergence of Radioecology
- 2 Stable and Unstable Atoms
- 3 Radionuclides and Other Sources of Radiation in the Natural Environment
- 4 Radionuclide Distributions and Their Value as Environmental Clocks and Tracers
- 5 The Accumulation of Radionuclides by Plants and Animals
- 6 Radiation Dosimetry and Biological Effects
- 7 Managing Environmental Radiation Exposures: Experiences and Challenges
- Index of nuclides
- Index
- References
6 - Radiation Dosimetry and Biological Effects
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2021
Book contents
- Radioecology
- Cambridge Environmental Chemistry Series
- Radioecology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 The Emergence of Radioecology
- 2 Stable and Unstable Atoms
- 3 Radionuclides and Other Sources of Radiation in the Natural Environment
- 4 Radionuclide Distributions and Their Value as Environmental Clocks and Tracers
- 5 The Accumulation of Radionuclides by Plants and Animals
- 6 Radiation Dosimetry and Biological Effects
- 7 Managing Environmental Radiation Exposures: Experiences and Challenges
- Index of nuclides
- Index
- References
Summary
As we have seen, nuclear transformations result in both electromagnetic radiation and particles with a high kinetic energy that are then transformed into other forms of energy as a result of interactions with surrounding atoms. These facts alone raise two simple questions: what are the absorbed doses received by different types of animals and plants exposed externally and internally to different sources of radiation, including natural background; and what are the likely biological consequences of such exposures? As one might imagine, although these are easy questions to ask, they have not been easy ones to answer.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- RadioecologySources and Consequences of Ionising Radiation in the Environment, pp. 226 - 284Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
ICRP. 2002. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection. ICRP Publication 89. Ottawa,ONT:International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2009. Adult reference computational phantoms. ICRP Publication 110. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Google Scholar
ICRP. 1994. Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. ICRP Publication 66. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2006. Human alimentary tract model for radiological protection purposes. ICRP Publication 100. Ottawa,ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Locatelli, M., Miloudi, H., Autret, G., et al. 2017. RODES software for dose assessment of rats and mice contaminated with radionuclides. J. Radiol. Prot. 37: 214–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffrey, E. A., & Higley, K. A. 2013. Creation of a voxel phantom of the ICRP reference crab. J. Environ. Radioact 120: 14–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higley, K., Ruedig, E., Gomez-Fernandez, M., et al. 2015. Creation and application of voxelised dosimetric models, and a comparison with the current methodology as used for the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s Reference Animals and Plants. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the System of Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP 44(1S):313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhead, D. S. 1979. Methods of dosimetry for aquatic organisms. IAEA Tec. Rept. Series, 190, 43–96.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J., & Woodhead, D. S. 1988. Towards the development of criteria for the protection of marine fauna in relation to the disposal of radioactive wastes into the sea. In Radiation Protection in Nuclear Energy, IAEA-CN-51, Vol 2, 213–43. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2008. Environmental Protection: The Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP Publication 108. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2017. Dose Coefficients for Non-human Biota Environmentally Exposed to Radiation ICRP Publication 136. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Kozmin, G. V., Sarapultsev, I. A., & Khvostunov, I. K., 1992. Basic regularities of formation of absorbed doses in the irradiation of agricultural animals. In Alexakhin, R. M. & Korneyev, N. A., eds., Agricultural Radioecology, 128–56.Ecologi Publishers, Moscow,Google Scholar
ICRP. 1991. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Bergonié, J., & Tribondeau, L. 1906. De quelques résultats de la radiotherapie et essai de fixation d’une technique rationnelle. Compt. Rend. Séances lAcad. Sci. 143: 983–5.Google Scholar
Failla, G., & Henshaw, P. S. 1931. The relative biological effectiveness of x-rays and gamma rays. Radiology 17: 1–43.Google Scholar
Zirkle, R. E., Marchbank, D. F., & Kuck, K. D. 1952. Exponential and sigmoid survival curves resulting from alpha and X irradiation of aspergillus spores. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. 39(S1): 75–85.Google Scholar
ICRP. 1964. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 6. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Nishiwaki, Y., Kawai, H., Shono, N., et al. 2000. Uncertainties under emergency conditions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and Bikini accident in 1954. In 10th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, P-11–206, 1–4.Google Scholar
Preston, D. L., Shimizu, Y., Pierce, D. A., Suyama, A., & Mabuchi, K. 2003. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and non-cancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Tech. Rept. 24–02. Radiat. Res. 160: 381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J., Fell, T., Leggett, R., Lloyd, D., Puncher, M., & Youngman, M. 2017. The polonium-210 poisoning of Mr. Alexander Litvinenko. J. Radiol. Protect. 37: 266–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Ikehata, H., Higashi, S., Nakamura, S., et al. 2013. Action spectrum analysis of UVR genotoxicity for skin: the border wavelengths between UVA and UVB can bring serious mutation loads to skin. J. Invest. Dermatol. 133, 1850–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IAEA. 1979. Methodology for Assessing Impacts of Radioactivity on Aquatic Ecosystems. Tech. Rept. Series, 190. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Wood, M. D., Knowles, J. D., Whittacker, J. H., Copplestone, D., Malcolm, H. M., & Bielby, S. 2003. Developing Experimental protocols for chronic irradiation studies on wildlife. R&D Tech. Rept. P3-101/SP2. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
Egami, N., ed. 1980. Radiation Effects on Aquatic Organisms, Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press.Google Scholar
Woodhead, D. S. 1984. Contamination due to radioactive materials. In Kinne, O., ed., Marine Ecology, Volume 5, Part 3, 1111–1287. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
IAEA. 1992. Effects of Ionising Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. IAEA Tech. Rept. Series, 332. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
UNSCEAR. 1996. Report to the General Assembly United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Whicker, F. W., & Hinton, T. G. 1996. Effects of ionising radiation on terrestrial ecosystems. In Amiro, B., Avadhanula, R., Johansson, G., et al. (eds.), Protection of the Natural Environment, 109–23. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Radiation Protection Institute.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J. 1996. Effects of ionising radiation on aquatic organisms and ecosystems. In B. Amiro, R. Avadhanula, G. Johansson, et al. (eds), Protection of the Natural Environment, 124–35. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Radiation Protection Institute.Google Scholar
Copplestone, D., Bielby, S., Jones, S. R., Patton, D., Daniel, P., & Gize, I. 2000. Impact Assessment of Ionising Radiation on Wildlife. R&D Publication 128. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency,Google Scholar
Real, A., Sundell-Bergman, S., Knowles, J. F., Woodhead, D. S., & Gize, I. 2004. Effects of ionising radiation exposure on plants, fish and mammals: relevant data for environmental radiation protection. J. Radiol. Prot. 24, A123-A137.Google Scholar
Hingston, J. L., Knowles, J. F., Walker, M. D., Wood, M. D., & Copplestone, D. 2004. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Soil Fauna. R&D Tech. Rept., P3-101/SP7. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
UNSCEAR. 2008. Report to the General Assembly, Vol II. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2008. Environmental Protection: The Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants, ICRP Publication 108. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Thames, H., D, & Hendry, J. H. 1987. Fractionation in Radiotherapy. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Wetherbee, D. K. 1966. Gamma Radiation of Bird’s Eggs and the Radiosensitivity of Birds. Mass. Agricultural Experimental Station, Bull. No. 561. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Tester, J. R., McKinney, F., & Siniff, D. B. 1968. Mortality of three species of ducks – Anas discors, A. creca, and A. clypeata – exposed to ionizing radiation. Radiat. Res. 33: 364–70.Google Scholar
Willis, D. L. 1980. The effect of temperature on the radiation response of the rough-skinned newt, Taricha granulosa. In Egami, N., ed., Radiation Effects on Aquatic Organisms, 157–67. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press.Google Scholar
Panter, H. C. 1986. Variations in radiosensitivity during development of the frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis. J. Exp. Zool. 238: 193–9.Google Scholar
White, J. C., & Angelovic, J. W. 1966. Tolerance of several marine species to Co-60 irradiation. Chesapeake Sci. 7: 36–9.Google Scholar
Egami, N., Mitani, H., Shimada, Y., Suzuki, J., Akimoto, Y., & Onizuka, N. 1984. A note on the acute radiation death of sharks. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. 15(4): 363–5.Google Scholar
Angelovic, J. W., White, J. C., & Davis, E. M. 1969. Interactions of ionizing radiation, salinity, and temperature on the estuarine fish, Fundulus heteroclitus. In Nelson, D. J. & Evans, F. C., eds., Symposium on Radioecology, 131–41.USAEC, CONF-670503. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. R., & Foster, R. L. 1957. Effects of radiation on aquatic organisms. In The Effects of Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries. 96–102. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Woodhead, D. S. 1977. The effects of chronic irradiation on the reproductive performance of the guppy Poecilia reticulata (Osteicthyes: Teleostei). Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 32: 1–22.Google Scholar
Engel, D. W. 1973. The radiation sensitivities of three species of fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator, U. pugnax, and U. minax). Chesapeake Sci. 14: 289–92.Google Scholar
Engel, D. W. 1967. Effect of single and continuous exposures of gamma radiation on the survival and growth of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Radiat. Res. 32: 685–91.Google Scholar
Knowles, J. F. 1999. Long-term irradiation of a marine fish, the plaice Pleuronectes platessa: an assessment of the effects on size and composition of the testes and of possible genotoxic changes in peripheral erythrocytes. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 75: 773–82.Google Scholar
Hershberger, W. K., Banham, K., & Donaldson, L. R. 1978. Chronic exposure of chinook salmon eggs and alevins to gamma radiation: effects on their return to fresh water as adults. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 107: 622–31.Google Scholar
Hertel-Aas, T., Oughton, D. H., Jaworska, A., Bjerke, H., Salu, B., & Brunborg, G. 2007. Effects of chronic gamma irradiation on reproduction in the earthworm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta). Radiat. Res. 168: 515–26.Google Scholar
Moment, G. B. 1972. Recovery and abscopal effects after inhibitory x-irradiation in earthworm regeneration. J. Exp. Zool. 181: 133–40.Google Scholar
Pentreath, R. J. 1999. A system of radiological protection of the environment: some initial thoughts and ideas. J. Radiol. Prot. 19: 117–28.Google Scholar
ICRP. 2021. Biota Radiation Weighting for Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP Publication 148. Ottawa, ONT: International Commission on Radiological Protection.Google Scholar
Ijiri, K. 1980. Effects of UV on the development of fish and amphibian embryos, In Egami, N., ed., Radiation Effects on Aquatic Organisms, 223–36. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press.,Google Scholar
Caplin, N., & Wiley, N. 2018. Ionising radiation, higher plants and radioprotection: from acute high doses to chronic low doses. Front. Plant. Sci., 9, 26 June 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00847.Google Scholar
Karaban, R. T., Mishenkov, N. N., Spirin, D. A., et al. 1980. The effects of acute gamma-irradiation on forest trees at different seasons. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 252(3): 766–8.Google Scholar
Spirin, D. A., Mishenkov, N. N., Karaban, R. T., et al. 1981. The effects of acute gamma-irradiation on photo-synthetic functions of pine and birch trees. Lesovedenive 4: 75–82.Google Scholar
Amiro, B. D. 1986. Effect of gamma-radiation dose rate and total dose on stem growth of Pinus banskiana (Jack pine) seedlings. Environ. Exp. Bot. 26: 253–7.Google Scholar
Hadley, E. B., & Woodwell, G. M. 1966. Effects of ionising radiation on rates of CO2 exchange of pine seedlings. Radiat. Res. 24: 650–6.Google Scholar
Rudolph, T. D. 1979. Effects of gamma irradiation of Pinus bankskia Lamb. Seed as expressed by M1 trees over a 10-year period. Environ. Exp. Bot. 19: 83–91.Google Scholar
Heaslip, M. B. 1973. Factors affecting the radiosensitivity of Fraximus Americana L. seedling and seed. In Nelson, D. J. ed., Radionuclides in Ecosystems, 978–82. USAEC CONF-710501-P2, DC.Google Scholar
Tikhomirov, F. A., & Fedotov, I. S. 1982. Radiosensitivity of generative and vegetative organs of Pinus sylvestris in autumn and spring. Radiobiologiya 22: 502–6.Google Scholar
Spiridinov, S. I., Fesenko, S. V., Alexhakin, R. M., et al. 1989. A mathematical simulation of the consequences of acute irradiation on the trees of a forest biogeocenosis. Radiobiologiya 29: 544–9.Google Scholar
Dugle, J. R., & Mayoh, K. R. 1984. Responses of 56 naturally growing shrub taxa to chronic gamma irradiation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 24: 267–76.Google Scholar
Filipas, A. S., Ye, A., Morgunova, A., & Dikarev, V. G. 1992. Effects of radiation on agricultural crops. In Alexhakin, R. M., & Korneyev, N. A., eds., Agricultural Radioecology, 156–74. Moscow: Ecologia Publishers.Google Scholar
Sparrow, A. H., Schwemmer, S. S., & Bottino, P. J. 1971. The effects of external gamma radiation from radioactive fallout on plants with special reference to crop production. Radiat. Bot. 11: 85–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, B. R., & Bottino, P. J. 1972. Structure and yield of a chronically irradiated winter rye-weed community. Radiat. Bot. 12: 355–9.Google Scholar
Jenkins, G. I. 2017. Photomorphogenic responses to ultraviolet-B light. Plant Cell Environ. 40: 2544–57.Google Scholar
Sparrow, R. C., & Sparrow, A. H. 1965. Relative radiosensitivities of woody and herbaceous spermatophytes. Science 147: 1449–51.Google Scholar
Conger, A. D., & Clinton, J. H. 1973. Nuclear volumes, DNA contents, and radiosensitivity in whole-body irradiated amphibians. Radiat. Res. 54: 69–101.Google Scholar
Tomasetti, C., & Vogelstein, B. 2015. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science 347: 78–81.Google Scholar
Brunst, V. V. 1958. The effect of total-body X-irradiation on the adult axolotl (Siredon mexicanum). Radiat. Res. 8:32–45.Google Scholar
Woodhead, D. S. 2003. A model for exploring the effects of radiation on fish populations. In Protection of the Environment from Ionising Radiation: The Development and Application of a System of Radiation Protection for the Environment, 32–42. IAEA-CSP-17. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Amiro, B. D. 1994. Response of boreal forest tree canopy cover to chronic gamma irradiation. J. Environ. Radioact. 24: 181–97.Google Scholar