PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Assessing emergency situations and their aftermath in urban areas: The EMRAS II Urban Areas Working Group.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Thiessen, K. M.* ; Andersson, K.G.* ; Berkovskyy, V.* ; Charnock, T.W.* ; Chouhan, S.L.* ; de With, G.* ; Duran, J.* ; Fuka, V.* ; Helebrant, J.* ; Hulka, J.* ; Hwang, W.T.* ; Kuca, P.* ; Mancini, F.* ; Navarro, E.* ; Perianez, R.* ; Prouza, Z.* ; Sdouz, G.* ; Tomás, J.* ; Trifunovic, D.* ; Urso, L. ; Walter, H.*

Assessing emergency situations and their aftermath in urban areas: The EMRAS II Urban Areas Working Group.

Radioprotection 46, 601-607 (2011)

Verlagsversion Volltext

DOI

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

The Urban Areas Working Group is part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s EMRAS II (Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety) Programme. The goal of this Working Group is to test and improve the capabilities of models used in assessment of radioactive contamination in urban settings, including dispersion and deposition events, short- and long-term contaminant redistribution following deposition events, and potential countermeasures or remediation efforts for reducing human exposures and doses. The Working Group has developed three modeling exercises, which are designed to permit intercomparison of model predictions and, in one case, comparison of model predictions with measurements. This paper describes the scenarios and provides comparisons of initial modeling results. Reasons for similarities and discrepancies among model predictions are discussed in terms of the modeling approaches, models, and parameter values used by different assessors. Preliminary conclusions emphasize the value of explaining individual approaches and the importance of understanding the effects of different assumptions and parameter values on the modeling results.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

1.000

0.312