Atomic Energy

, Volume 81, Issue 5, pp 816–821 | Cite as

Support system for making decisions in estimating the efficiency of shielding measures in the agrosphere during the long period of liquidation of consequences of a nuclear accident

  • B. I. Yatsalo
  • O. A. Mirzeabasov
  • I. V. Okhrimenko
  • I. A. Pichugina
  • B. P. Kulagin
Articles
  • 17 Downloads

Conclusions

The prototype PRANA computer system, developed using the modern geoinformation technology, is intended for analyzing protective measures in the agrosphere on territory subjected to radioactive contamination, making it possible to calculate and perform the required integration of all basic quantities and criteria. The PRANA decision support system is being developed as part of a project No. 150 of MNTTs. At present, algorithms are additionally being implemented for optimizing the structure of the system of countermeasures taking account of the aeroecological and financial limitations.

We thank M. N Savkin and V. A. Kut'kov for participating in the development of the dose models, V. F. Demin for developing risk assessment models, and R. M. Aleksakhin, A. N. Ratnikov, B. G. Lisyanskii, A. V. Vasil'ev, and A. A. Novikov for consultations and radioecology and agroecology.

Keywords

Risk Assessment Computer System Support System Decision Support Vasil 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. F. Kanevskii, I. E. Krayushkin, N. A. Koptelova, et al.,“Development of applied integrated systems in radioecology,”in: Problems of Safe Development of Atomic Energy [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1993), pp. 165–195.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Decision making support for off-site emergency management,”Rad. Prot. Dosim.50, No. 2–4 (1993).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Ehrhardt, V. Shershakov, M. Zheleznyak, and A. Mikhalevich,“RODOS: decision support system for off-site emergency management in Europe. The radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident,”in: Proceedings of the International Conference, Minsk, March 18–22 (1996). European Commission, EUR 16544 EN, pp. 1087–1096.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. V. Arutyunyan, L. A. Bolshov, V. V. Demianov, et al.,“Environmental decisions support system on base geoinformational technologies for the analysis of nuclear accident consequences,”ibid., pp. 539–542.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Morrey, S. Dovgiy, B. Yatsalo, et al.,“Decision support systems for the postemergency management of contaminated territories,”ibid., pp. 453–464.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Yatsalo, O. Mirxeabassov, I. Okhrimenko, et al.,“Computer DSS for assessment of countermeasure strategy in the long-term period of liquidation of the consequences of a nuclear accident (agrosphere),”in: Proceedings of the 1996 International Congress on Radiation Protection IRPA9, April 14–19 (1996), Vol. 2, p. 747.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. M. Aleksakhin (ed.), Recommendations for Managing Agriculture Under Conditions of Radioactive Contamination of a Territory as a Result of the Chernobyl Accident in 1991–1995 [in Russian], Gosagroprom SSSR, Moscow (1991).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Rauret and S. Firsakova (eds.),“The transfer of radionuclides through the terrestrial environment to agricultural products, including the evaluation of agrochemical practices,”in: International Science Collaboration on the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident (1991–95), ECP2 Final Rep. European Commission, EUR 16528 EN (1996).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Belli and F. Tikhomirov,“Behavior of radionuclides in natural and semi-natural environments,”ibid.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Strand, B. Howard, and V. Averin (eds.),“Transfer of radionuclides to animals, their comparative importance under different agricultural ecosystems and appropriate countermeasures,”in: International Science Collaboration on the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident (1991–1995), ECP9 Final Rep. European Commission, EUR 16539 EN (1996).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recommendations of the ICRP, Public No. 60. International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1990. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    “International criteria in a nuclear or radiation emergency,”IAEA, Safety Series No. 109, Vienna (1994).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. V. Fesenko, N. I. Zansharova, B. T. Wilkins, and A. F. Nisbet,“FORCON: local decision support system for the provision of advice in agriculture — methodology and experience of practical implementation,”Rad. Prot. Dosim.,64, Nos. 1–2, 157–164 (1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. F. Demin,“Risk analysis in application to post-accident management,”in: Proceedings of the 1996 International Congress on Radiation Protection IRPA9, April 14–19 (1996), Vol. 3, pp. 143–136.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. I. Yatsalo, A. N. Ratnikov, and O. A. Mirzeabasov,“Radiological-economic assessment of the effectiveness of agricultural measures on contaminated territories,”Doklady RASKN, No. 2, 6–8 (1996).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. I. Balonov (ed.), Handbook of Radiation Conditions and Irradiation Doses in 1991 for the Population of Regions of the Russian Federation Subjected to Radioactive Contamination as a Result of the Chernobyl Accident [in Russian], Scientific-Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. I. Yatsalo
  • O. A. Mirzeabasov
  • I. V. Okhrimenko
  • I. A. Pichugina
  • B. P. Kulagin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations