Comparison of the UNSCEAR isodose maps for annual external exposure in Fukushima with those obtained based on the airborne monitoring surveys

TL;DR

This study compares UNSCEAR's predicted isodose maps for Fukushima with airborne monitoring data, finding good agreement but emphasizing the need for continuous measurements to improve long-term dose estimations.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of UNSCEAR's isodose maps and airborne monitoring data, highlighting the importance of ongoing measurements for accuracy.

Findings

Relatively good agreement between UNSCEAR and airborne data.

Airborne monitoring can enhance long-term dose map accuracy.

Feedback from continuous measurements is crucial for improvements.

Abstract

In 2016, UNSCEAR published an attachment to its Fukushima 2015 White Paper, entitled "Development of isodose maps representing annual external exposure in Japan as a function of time," in which the committee presented annual additional 1 mSv effective dose ab extra isodose lines for 1, 3, 5, 10, 30, 50 years after the accident, based on the soil deposition data of radionuclides within 100 km from FDNPP. Meanwhile, the median of the ratio, c, between the external effective dose rates and the ambient dose equivalent rates at 1 m above the ground obtained by the airborne monitoring has been established to be c~0.15. We here compare the UNSCEAR predictions with respect to estimates based on the airborne monitoring. Although both methods and data used in the two approaches are di erent, the resultant contours show relatively good agreement. However, to improve the accuracy of long-term annual effective isodose lines, feedback from continuous measurements such as airborne monitoring is important.