United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1

COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'SEARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIESUNSCEAR 2016 Report, Annex A,
Methodology for estimating public exposures due to radioactive discharges

Contents
The following tables in this attachment contain a comparison of various features of theCommittee’s earlier and current methodologies for estimating exposures from radioactive
discharges, and a comparison of estimates of collective doses using the current methodology
with those using the previous methodology for various pathways of exposure.

Notes
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Information on uniform resource locators and links to Internet sites contained in the present
publication are provided for the convenience of the reader and are correct at the time of issue.
The United Nations takes no responsibility for the continued accuracy of that information or
for the content of any external website.
©

United Nations, May 2018. All rights reserved, worldwide.

This publication has not been formally edited.

Factors

Earlier methodologies

Current methodology

REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Site location

Regional factors not considered, except in assessment of
impacts from coal-fired power stations in [U3]Regional variations in population density, consumption rates and fish catch reflected

Population distribution

Average population density for all sites used

Absolute number of people around each nuclear site (electronic attachment 3) and density
information for other types of facility

Consumption rates

Global average values used to represent total consumptionof foods

Regional consumption rates (a) for individual dose calculations from discharges toatmosphere and from aquatic discharges, and (b) as intermediates in calculation ofcollective dose from discharges to atmosphere. For collective doses from aquatic
discharges, some regional variations in fish catch and irrigation rates reflected

Occupancy

Global average values used

Comparison of indoor/outdoor occupancy demonstrates little variation and no climatic
trend; thus, similar global average values used

Irrigation

Methodology referenced to [C1]; further details notprovidedRegional/climatic factors influence both proportion of crops irrigated and irrigation rate.
Approach based on FAO data on proportion of water withdrawals for agricultural use andproportion of agricultural land irrigated for different regions

Water treatment

Drinking water treatment removal factors presented intable 27, annex A [U4]; no regional factors considered

Single set of (radionuclide-specific) water treatment factors appropriate for simple water
treatment methods applied for all regions

Inhalation and water ingestion rates

No regional factors considered

No regional factors considered
FEATURES OF THE SCENARIO

Discharges

Radon discharges from operational and remediated tailings
from uranium mining and milling assuming different
discharges for each phase

Radionuclides contributing most to collective dose are: noble gases, tritium, 14C and someparticulates. Naturally occurring radionuclides included for early stages of nuclear fuelcycle and non-nuclear facilities

Discharges from reactors to atmosphere of noble gases(specified separately for PWRs, BWRs and GCRs), tritium,
14
C, 131I and particulates (representative composition
assumed); aquatic discharges of tritium and particulates

Focus on calculating dose per unit discharge of specific radionuclides; radionuclidegrouping assumed depending on application

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

Table 1. Features of the earlier and current methodologies

Radionuclide-specific information for fuel reprocessing
sites (tritium, 14C, 85Kr, 131I and 129I and 137Cs fordischarges to atmosphere and tritium, 14C, 90Sr, 106Ru, 129I
and 137Cs in aquatic discharges)

3Factors

Characteristics of model sites specified in [U2] for mining
and milling, fuel fabrication, reactor operation andreprocessing. Stack height and population density based ondata for USA and western Europe

Current methodology
Location-specific factors, include population distribution and location relative to thecoast, determines whether freshwater or marine discharges appropriate

REGIONAL FACTORS RELATED TO LOCATION OF SITE
Population distribution

Population density information representative of early−2
1980s.a For power generation: densities of 400 km within−2−2
50 km and 20 km for 50–2,000 km. For mines: 3 km
−2within 100 km and 25 km for 100–2,000 km

UNEP analysed population numbers within set distances from each nuclear site.
Regional-average data used in deriving dose calculation factors

Stack height

30 m (power generation); 10 m for mine and mill tailings

30 m for all sites (influence of stack height discussed in electronic attachment 4)

Form of aquatic discharge

Application of marine and freshwater modelling unclear,although reference in [U2]Unless known, application of marine or freshwater models determined from site location
relative to coast. Coastal sites assumed to discharge to sea, inland sites assumed todischarge into a river (nuclear facilities assumed to discharge into a large river). Minesand mills and non-nuclear facilities assumed to discharge into a small river

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DOSE ASSESSMENT
Endpoints

Local, regional and global components of collective
effective dose. Some per caput and critical group doses

Collective dose information in form of matrix, including characteristic individual doses inlocal populations (e.g. at 5 km for terrestrial pathways) and local, regional and global
components of collective doses integrated to 100 years; characteristic individual doses
from terrestrial pathways calculated at 5 km from site; those from freshwater discharges
based on activity concentrations in water assuming instantaneous mixing at representative
river flow rates; those from marine discharges derived from activity concentrations within
local and regional compartments; collective doses from discharges into freshwater bodies
derived from (a) fraction of volume abstracted for drinking water, (b) freshwater fish
catch per unit length (related to volume) of river; collective doses from marine discharges
derived from (a) fish catch data per unit volume for local and regional compartments,(b) mollusc and crustacean catch data per unit length of coastline applied

Integration period(for collective dose)

Before 2008, integration period of 10,000 years used, and[U3] used to derive values for 100 yearsb

Local, regional and global components of collective doses integrated to 100 years. Global
component estimated for other integration periods—500, 10,000 years and infinity (taken
as 108 years)—from global dispersion (presented for information)[U2] indicates that future maximum dose rate only be
integrated to expected length of practice (500 years
assumed for nuclear power)

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

Site description

Earlier methodologies

4Factors

Earlier methodologies

Current methodology

Dispersion factors based on long-term sector-averaged
Gaussian-plume model; uncertainty and sensitivity of
approach reviewed in [U4]General approach still appropriate for generic assessment, and results within factor of 10
of those from more complex models. Approach modified to account for radioactive decayof short-lived radionuclides (notably of radon) and supplemented to derive matrix of dose
information, using various methods, including [I3, S1]. Approach retained and activity
concentration data compared with existing model results

Dispersion in aquatic environment

Factors based on total volume of freshwater bodies;dispersion model for discharges to marine environments
was simple single compartment model [U2], and assumed
that North Sea exchange rates representative frominformation in [C1]. Residence times based on data for137
Cs, 90Sr and 239Pu

Simple two-box model defined for dispersion in coastal seas and single box model fordeep-sea environments (for discharges from oil and gas platforms)

Dosimetric quantities

Internal dose coefficients [I6, I7]

Discharges into freshwater bodies assumed to be instantaneously diluted into a
representative river

No change required currently. Update will need to be considered when new ICRP dosecoefficients become available

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR OF RADIONUCLIDES
Terrestrial

Empirical transfer parameters, primarily based on fallout
data for 137Cs and 90Sr, supplemented by transfer factors forgrain for other radionuclides, except 131I, for which transfer
factor for milk used

Activity concentrations based on recent compilation of transfer parameters

Aquatic

Transfer parameters and Kd values derived from [I1, I2]

Transfer parameters from [I4, I5]

Irrigation

No details given, but referenced to [C1]

Simple approach applied that account for regional differences in abstraction of water for
irrigation and application. Transfer parameters applied consistent with approach fordeposition from atmosphere. FAO data on abstraction for irrigation applied and regionspecific cereal yields used in assessing collective dose
EXTERNAL IRRADIATIONRadionuclides in air: exposure fromradionuclides in air

Dose coefficients based on [E1] for semi-infinite cloudmodel and effective dose equivalent (rather than effectivedose). Factors modified to account for skin dose
contribution

Approach applied previously still appropriate

Radionuclides deposited on soil (andsediment)

Dose coefficients from [B1]

Dose coefficients for calculating doses from deposited material on soil based on [P1]
modified to account for migration of radionuclides down soil column

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIESDispersion in atmosphere

Exposure from occupancy on beaches and river banks included in assessment of
individual dose only (see above)5

Factors

Current methodology[U2] gave overview of occupancy and location factors fordifferent building types. Referred to as “transmission
factors”. Occupancy of 0.8 indoors assumed; transmission
factors range from 0.5 in office buildings, 0.2 in homes, 0.3
in brick and 0.4 in wooden buildings. A combinedtransmission and occupancy factor of 0.25 would beappropriate—combined value of 0.3 used in [U1] therefore
retained

Available data suggest limited variation in indoor/outdoor occupancy due to climate or
region. Indoor occupancies of 0.8–0.9 typical. Most time likely spent in homes or officebuildings. Some variation in nature of building materials by region likely
Without data to demonstrate significant variation in shielding factors between regions,assumptions in [U2] retained (unlikely to differ by more than factor of 2 or so)

INHALATION
Nuclear installations/general

Population and age-weighted inhalation rates and dosecoefficients applied. Dust-loading approach also applied toresuspension of radionuclides deposited on soils

Adult inhalation rate assumptions applied—similar to age-weighted values; addedcomplexity of age weighting not warranted

Mine and mill tailings/radon

Radon dose factors reviewed in detail in [U4]; radon dosecoefficient consistent with that recommended in annex E,2006 Report [U5]Approach revised to ensure consistency with other radionuclides and for discharges ofradon from non-nuclear facilities. Situation associated with tailings and discharges aredifferent and [U4] approach still appropriate. Dispersion, equilibrium factors, integration
periods and deposition of progeny for radionuclides consistent to allow comparison ofdifferent energy sources

INGESTION
Radionuclides discharged toterrestrial environment

Population-weighted average consumption rates derived
from [U3]. Aggregated to provide single consumption rate
value

Generic consumption rates applied directly for different regions using simple spreadsheet
toolRadionuclides discharged to aquatic
environment

Based on generic assumption of relationship between
volume of water and number of people receiving exposuresfrom it, validated by global aquatic food-catch data

Dose factors derived using region-specific fish-catch data for collective doses, whereavailable

Freshwater abstraction and fish-catch
data

Global values used

Representative abstraction rates based on FAO data on municipal abstraction. Regionspecific fish-catch data determined per unit length for two types of river from data for
specific rivers

Marine fish-catch data

Global values used

Region-specific fish-catch data per unit area and per unit coastline for shellfish for marine
compartments applied

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

Occupancy and location factors

Earlier methodologies

6Factors

Earlier methodologies

Current methodologyab

Tritium

Based on simplified model developed in [K1]. The
UNSCEAR 2000 Report [U4] found results within factor of
3 of more complex approaches

No change except for size of global population

Carbon-14

Based on 23-compartment model [T1]. Estimates using
different models within factor of 1.5 [U4]No change except for size of global population

Iodine-129

Based on model in [T1]

No change necessary except size of global population

Krypton-85

Based on simple two-compartment model, originallypresented in [C1]

No change other than to update dose factors and size of global population

Local and regional populations defined as 0–100 and 100–1,000 km, respectively [U3].
Inconsistent with approach for radon from mine and mill tailings where integration period of 10,000 years is retained.

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIESGLOBALLY CIRCULATING RADIONUCLIDES

7ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

Table 2. Comparison of estimates of collective effective doses from external irradiation due toradionuclides deposited following discharges to the atmosphereCollective effective dose (man Sv) from 1 year’s discharge at 1 Bq/sRadionuclide

60

a

UNSCEAR
2000 Report−5

Current methodologya
Asia & Pacific
3.6 × 10−4

Europe1.3 × 10−4

Latin America
5.1 × 10

North America−5

6.3 × 10World-average−5

1.1 × 10−4Co

9.6 × 10131I

1.4 × 10−7

3.5 × 10−7

1.2 × 10−7

5.3 × 10−8

6.1 × 10−8

1.1 × 10−7

134

Cs

2.5 × 10−5

1.1 × 10−4

3.9 × 10−5

1.6 × 10−5

1.9 × 10−5

3.4 × 10−5

137

Cs

1.3 × 10−4

2.8 × 10−4

9.9 × 10−5

3.9 × 10−5

4.9 × 10−5

8.5 × 10−5

241

Am

6.0 × 10−5

1.4 × 10−5

5.0 × 10−6

2.0 × 10−6

2.5 × 10−6

4.3 × 10−6

The values for the current methodology are not available directly in the workbooks, but were calculated separately.

Table 3. Comparison of estimated collective effective doses from inhalation following
discharges to the atmosphereCollective effective dose (man Sv) from 1 year’s discharge at 1 Bq/sRadionuclide

Current methodologya
Asia & Pacific

EuropeLatin America

North America

World-averageCo

2.1 × 10−6

7.4 × 10−6

2.6 × 10−6

1.0 × 10−6

1.3 × 10−6

2.2 × 10−690

S

7.9 × 10−6

2.7 × 10−5

9.4 × 10−6

3.7 × 10−6

4.6 × 10−6

8.1 × 10−6131I

1.5 × 10−6

4.6 × 10−6

1.6 × 10−6

6.9 × 10−7

8.0 × 10−7

1.4 × 10−6

134

Cs

1.4 × 10−6

4.9 × 10−6

1.7 × 10−6

6.8 × 10−7

8.5 × 10−7

1.5 × 10−6137

9.8 × 10−7

3.4 × 10−6

1.2 × 10−6

4.8 × 10−7

5.9 × 10−7

1.0 × 10−6239

1.0 × 10−2

3.7 × 10−2

1.3 × 10−2

5.2 × 10−3

6.4 × 10−3

1.1 × 10−2

240

Pu

1.0 × 10−2

3.7 × 10−2

1.3 × 10−2

5.2 × 10−3

6.4 × 10−3

1.1 × 10−2

241

Am

8.8 × 10−3

3.1 × 10−2

1.1 × 10−2

4.3 × 10−3

5.4 × 10−3

9.4 × 10−3

60

Cs
Pu

a

UNSCEAR
2000 Report

The values for the current methodology are not available directly from the workbooks, but were calculated separately.

8

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

9

Table 4. Comparison of estimated collective effective doses from ingestion of terrestrial foods
following discharges to the atmosphereCollective effective dose (man Sv) from 1 year’s discharge at 1 Bq/sRadionuclide

3H

6.6 × 10−8

Current methodologya
Asia & Pacific
3.4 × 10−7

Europe
1.5 × 10−7

Latin America
3.9 × 10

−8

North America
6.9 × 10World-average−8

1.1 × 10−714C

8.5 × 10−6

2.3 × 10−5

8.4 × 10−6

2.9 × 10−6

4.0 × 10−6

6.9 × 10−660

Co

1.8 × 10−5

3.7 × 10−4

2.9 × 10−4

1.0 × 10−4

2.0 × 10−4

1.6 × 10−4Sr

9.7 × 10−5

2.0 × 10−3

9.8 × 10−4

2.9 × 10−4

4.7 × 10−4

6.4 × 10−4131I

7.9 × 10−6

7.2 × 10−5

3.2 × 10−5

1.1 × 10−5

1.5 × 10−5

2.2 × 10−5

134

Cs

6.9 × 10−5

5.8 × 10−4

2.7 × 10−4

9.5 × 10−5

1.6 × 10−4

1.9 × 10−4

137

9.9 × 10−5

5.1 × 10−4

2.4 × 10−4

8.4 × 10−5

1.4 × 10−4

1.7 × 10−4239

3.2 × 10−4

1.4 × 10−3

5.8 × 10−4

1.7 × 10−4

2.6 × 10−4

4.2 × 10−4

240

Pu

3.2 × 10−4

1.4 × 10−3

5.8 × 10−4

1.7 × 10−4

2.6 × 10−4

4.2 × 10−4

241

Am

7.3 × 10−5

1.2 × 10−3

4.9 × 10−4

1.4 × 10−4

2.2 × 10−4

3.5 × 10−4

90

Cs
Pu

a

UNSCEAR
2000 Report

The values for the current methodology are not available directly from the workbooks, but were calculated separately.

Table 5. Comparison of estimated collective effective doses from freshwater pathways following
aquatic discharges
Collective effective dose (man Sv) from 1 year’s discharge at 1 Bq/s
Drinking water
Radionuclide

Current methodology

UNSCEAR
2000 Report

Small riverH

4.1 × 10−8

14

C

60

Co

Current methodologya

Large river

UNSCEAR
2000 Report

Small river

Large river

1.9 × 10−7

1.9 × 10−7

9.5 × 10−11

1.4 × 10−10

7.0 × 10−11

1.7 × 10−6

1.8 × 10−6

1.8 × 10−6

2.1 × 10−4

2.3 × 10−3

1.2 × 10−3

3.0 × 10−6

5.8 × 10−6

5.8 × 10−6

4.4 × 10−6

1.4 × 10−6

5.6 × 10−8

2.3 × 10−6

1.2 × 10−5

1.2 × 10−5

1.2 × 10−7

2.3 × 10−6

1.1 × 10−7129

I

2.6 × 10−4

2.8 × 10−4

2.8 × 10−4

3.2 × 10−5

3.0 × 10−5

5.2 × 10−6

137

Cs

4.1 × 10−6

3.3 × 10−5

3.3 × 10−5

1.1 × 10−4

2.1 × 10−4

1.0 × 10−5

241

Am

4.4 × 10−5

2.1 × 10−4

2.1 × 10−4

3.3 × 10−5

1.3 × 10−5

3.1 × 10−7

3

106

Ru

a

Fish
a

The values for the current methodology are not available directly from the workbooks, but were calculated separately.

Collective effective dose (man Sv from 1 year’s discharge at 1 Bq/s)Radionuclide

2000
ReportAfricaAsia/Pacific

EuropeLatin America

North America

West Asia

World-average

Local

Regional

Local

Regional

Local

Regional

Local

Regional

Local

Regional

Local

Regional

Local

Regional

3.8 × 10−11

2.5 × 10−13

4.7 × 10−14

2.8 × 10−13

5.2 × 10−14

2.5 × 10−13

4.7 × 10−14

1.3 × 10−13

2.5 × 10−14

8.6 × 10−14

1.6 × 10−14

2.9 × 10−13

5.6 × 10−14

1.4 × 10−13

2.7 × 10−14C

2.8 × 10−5

1.6 × 10−7

3.2 × 10−8

1.8 × 10−7

3.6 × 10−8

1.6 × 10−7

3.2 × 10−8

8.6 × 10−8

1.7 × 10−8

5.5 × 10−8

1.1 × 10−8

1.9 × 10−7

3.8 × 10−8

9.1 × 10−8

1.8 × 10−8Co

6.0 × 10−6

3.3 × 10−8

5.4 × 10−9

3.6 × 10−8

6.0 × 10−9

3.2 × 10−8

5.3 × 10−9

1.8 × 10−8

2.9 × 10−9

1.1 × 10−8

1.9 × 10−9

3.9 × 10−8

6.3 × 10−9

1.9 × 10−8

3.1 × 10−9

1.3 × 10−7

1.2 × 10−9

2.3 × 10−10

1.3 × 10−9

2.5 × 10−10

1.2 × 10−9

2.2 × 10−10

6.3 × 10−10

1.2 × 10−10

4.0 × 10−10

7.8 × 10−11

1.4 × 10−9

2.7 × 10−10

6.6 × 10−10

1.3 × 10−10

1.1 × 10−8

1.9 × 10−10

2.2 × 10−11

2.1 × 10−10

2.5 × 10−11

1.9 × 10−10

2.2 × 10−11

1.0 × 10−10

1.2 × 10−11

6.4 × 10−11

7.6 × 10−12

2.2 × 10−10

2.6 × 10−11

1.1 × 10−10

1.3 × 10−11I

2.7 × 10−6

1.4 × 10−8

2.8 × 10−9

1.5 × 10−8

3.0 × 10−9

1.4 × 10−8

2.7 × 10−9

7.4 × 10−9

1.5 × 10−9

4.7 × 10−9

9.4 × 10−10

1.6 × 10−8

3.2 × 10−9

7.8 × 10−9

1.6 × 10−9

137

Cs

3.0 × 10−6

1.8 × 10−8

3.5 × 10−9

2.0 × 10−8

3.9 × 10−9

1.8 × 10−8

3.5 × 10−9

9.7 × 10−9

1.9 × 10−9

6.2 × 10−9

1.2 × 10−9

2.1 × 10−8

4.1 × 10−9

1.0 × 10−8

2.0 × 10−9

239

Pu

2.8 × 10−5

3.5 × 10−7

6.9 × 10−8

3.8 × 10−7

7.6 × 10−8

3.4 × 10−7

6.8 × 10−8

1.9 × 10−7

3.7 × 10−8

1.2 × 10−7

2.4 × 10−8

4.1 × 10−7

8.1 × 10−8

2.0 × 10−7

3.9 × 10−8

3

H

14
60

90

Sr

106

Ru

129

a

Current methodologya

UNSCEARThe values for the current methodology are not available directly from the workbooks, but were calculated separately.

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

Table 6. Comparison of estimated collective effective doses from marine fish following aquatic discharges

10

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENT 1: COMPARISON OF THE COMMITTEE'S EARLIER AND CURRENT METHODOLOGIES

11

References
B1
C1

E1
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5

I6

I7

K1

P1
S1

T1
U1

U2

U3

U4

U5

Beck, H.L. Exposure rate conversion factors for radionuclides deposited on the ground. EML-378.
Environmental Measurements Laboratory, Department of Energy, New York, 1980.
CEC. Methodology for evaluating the radiological consequences of radioactive effluents released innormal operations. National Radiological Protection Board and Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique.
Document no. V/3865/79. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1979.
Eckerman, K.F. and J.C. Ryman. External exposure to radionuclides in air, water, and soil. EPA-402-R-93081. Federal Guidance Report No. 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1993.
IAEA. Sediment Kds and concentration factors for radionuclides in the marine environment. Technical
Reports Series No. 247. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1985.
IAEA. Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in temperateenvironments. Technical Reports Series No. 364. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1994.
IAEA. Generic models for use in assessing the impact of discharges of radioactive substances to theenvironment. Safety Reports Series No.19. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2001.
IAEA. Sediment distribution coefficients and concentration factors for biota in the marine environment.
Technical Reports Series No. 422. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2004.
IAEA. Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in terrestrial andfreshwater environments. Technical Reports Series No. 472. International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, 2010.
ICRP. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 5. Compilationof ingestion and inhalation dose coefficients. ICRP Publication 72. Annals of the ICRP 26(1).
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1995.
ICRP. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 4. Inhalationdose coefficients. ICRP Publication 71. Annals of the ICRP 25(3-4). International Commission on
Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1995.
Kelly, G.N., J.A. Jones and P.M. Bryant. The predicted radiation exposure of the population of theEuropean Community resulting from discharges of krypton-85, tritium, carbon-14 and iodine-129 fromthe nuclear power industry to the year 2000. Document V/2676/75. Commission of the European
Communities, Luxembourg, 1975.
Petoussi-Henss, N., H. Schlattl, M. Zankl et al. Organ doses from environmental exposures calculatedusing voxel phantoms of adults and children. Phys Med Biol 57(18): 5679-5713 (2012).
Smith, J.G. and J.R. Simmonds. The methodology for assessing the radiological consequences of routine
releases of radionuclides to the environment used in PC-CREAM 08. HPA-RPD-058. Health Protection
Agency, Chilton, Didcot, 2009.
Titley, J.G., T. Cabianca and G. Lawson. Improved global dispersion models for iodine-129 andcarbon-14. EUR 15880 EN. European Commission, Luxembourg, 1995.
UNSCEAR. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 1977 Report. United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1977 Report to the General Assembly, withannexes. United Nations sales publication E.77.IX.1. United Nations, New York, 1977.
UNSCEAR. Ionizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects. UNSCEAR 1982 Report. United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1982 Report to the General Assembly,
with annexes. United Nations sales publication E.82.IX.8. United Nations, New York, 1982.
UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 1988 Report. United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1988 Report to the General Assembly, withannexes. United Nations sales publication E.88.IX.7. United Nations, New York, 1988.
UNSCEAR. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Volume I: Sources. UNSCEAR 2000 Report.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2000 Report to the General
Assembly, with scientific annexes. United Nations sales publication E.00.IX.3. United Nations, New
York, 2000.
UNSCEAR. Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Volume II: Scientific Annexes C, D and E. UNSCEAR 2006
Report. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations sales
publication E.09.IX.5. United Nations, New York, 2009.