Literature DB >> 15876215

Using integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to guide risk-based environmental clean-up decisions.

Henry J Mayer1, Michael R Greenberg, Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfield, Charles Powers, David Kosson, Roger Keren, Christine Danis, Vikram Vyas.   

Abstract

Government and private sector organizations are increasingly turning to the use of maps and other visual models to provide a depiction of environmental hazards and the potential risks they represent to humans and ecosystems. Frequently, the graphic presentation is tailored to address a specific contaminant, its location and possible exposure pathways, and potential receptors. Its format is usually driven by the data available, choice of graphics technology, and the audience being served. A format that is effective for displaying one contaminant at one scale at one site, however, may be ineffective in accurately portraying the circumstances surrounding a different contaminant at the same site, or the same contaminant at a different site, because of limitations in available data or the graphics technology being used. This is the daunting challenge facing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is responsible for the nation's legacy wastes from nuclear weapons research, testing, and production at over 100 sites in the United States. In this article, we discuss the development and use of integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to identify hazards and evaluate alternative long-term environmental clean-up strategies at DOE sites located across the United States. While the DOE probably has the greatest need for such information, the Department of Defense and other public and private responsible parties for many large and controversial National Priority List or Superfund sites would benefit from a similar approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15876215     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00600.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  2 in total

1.  Costs and Benefits of Delaying Remediation on Ecological Resources at Contaminated Sites.

Authors:  Joanna Burger
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2019-08-03       Impact factor: 3.184

2.  Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate and transport, and human health.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; James Clarke; Michael Gochfeld
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2010-02-06       Impact factor: 2.513

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.