Assessment of Potential Radiation Dose Rates to Marine Organisms Around the Korean Peninsula

Abstract

Background: It is very difficult to set a regulatory guidance or criteria for the protection of non-human species from the ionizing radiation, because there are no generally or internationally accepted methods for demonstrating the compliance with such criteria. It is needed that Korea develop the primary dose rate standards for the protection of both aquatic and terrestrial biota in the near future. Materials and Methods: The potential dose rates due to both external and internal radiation exposures to marine organisms such as plaice/flounder, gray mullet, and brown seaweed collected within territorial seas around the Korean Peninsula were estimated. Results and Discussion: The total dose rates to plaice/flounder, gray mullet and brown seaweed due to $^{40}K$, a primordial radionuclide in marine environment, were found to be 0.2%, 0.08% and 0.3% of approximately the values of the Derived Consideration Reference Levels (DCRLs, i.e. $1-10mGy{\cdot}d^{-1}$), respectively, as suggested by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publication 124. The total dose rates to marine fishes and brown seaweed due to anthropogenic radionuclides such as $^{90}Sr$, $^{137}Cs$ and $^{239+240}Pu$ were considered to be negligible compared to the total dose rate due to $^{40}K$. The external exposure to benthic fish due to all radionuclides was much higher than that of pelagic fish. Conclusion: From this study, it is recommended that the further study is required to develop a national regulatory guidance for the evaluation of doses to non-human species.

Keywords

• Derived consideration reference levels (DCRLs);
• Non-human biota;
• Marine organisms;
• Dose conversion factors (DCFs);
• Critical pathway

File

Download PDF

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Nuclear Safety and Security Commission

References

1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiations. UNSCEAR 1996 Report. Vienna, Austria. 1996;20-43.
2. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ottawa, Canada. 2007;37(2-4):16-38.
3. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Environmental protection: the concept and use of reference animals and plants. ICRP publication 108. Ottawa, Canada. 2008;38(4-6):1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2009.04.001
4. International Atomic Energy Agency. Protection of the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation. IAEA-TECDOC-1091. Vienna, Austria. 1999;5-6.
5. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 26. Ottawa, Canada. 1977;3.
6. U.S. Department of Energy. A graded approach to evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota. No. DOE-STD-1153. Washington DC. 2002;1-6.
7. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Protection of the environment under different exposure situations. ICRP Publication 124. Ottawa, Canada. 2014;43(1):35-41.
8. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety. Marine environmental radioactivity survey data. KINS/ER-092. Daejeon, Republic of Korea. 2014;3-9.
9. Alexander B. An analytic approach to calculating the dose to animals due to external exposure. Health Phys. 2012;102(6):687-695. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e31824abf0a
10. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety. A survey of artificial radionuclides in the East sea. KINS/GR-120. Daejeon, Republic of Korea. 1996;52-54.
11. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiations. UNSCEAR 2008 Report Vol II. New York, NY. 2011;253.

Cited by

1. Monte-Carlo modelling and verification of photoluminescence of Gd2O3:Eu scintillator by using the GEANT4 simulation code vol.70, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.70.201