2004
DOI: 10.1126/science.1093187
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Avoiding Destructive Remediation at DOE Sites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
49
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, these areas have been demonstrated to have quite diverse and thriving ecosystems that are often in a better ecological state when compared to similar areas where routine human activity is present (see Fig. 2; Gray and Rickard 1989;Whicker et al 2004;Davis 2007;Richards et al 2008;Houk and Musburger 2013). Thus, sites devoted to nuclear arms production and testing can still be considered a positive feature in maintaining biodiversity despite the potential for chronic health impacts in resident organisms.…”
Section: Radiation Impactsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, these areas have been demonstrated to have quite diverse and thriving ecosystems that are often in a better ecological state when compared to similar areas where routine human activity is present (see Fig. 2; Gray and Rickard 1989;Whicker et al 2004;Davis 2007;Richards et al 2008;Houk and Musburger 2013). Thus, sites devoted to nuclear arms production and testing can still be considered a positive feature in maintaining biodiversity despite the potential for chronic health impacts in resident organisms.…”
Section: Radiation Impactsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, an industrialized area with low ecological habitat value and apparently high ecological risk (but low human health risk) might be of a lower priority for remediation than a more natural area with lower apparent ecological risk but high ecological habitat value. The argument that remediation might harm an ecological community more than toxicants in soils or waters (Whicker et al, 2004;Efroymson et al, 2004) may be supported or refuted with evidence concerning habitat value. Similarly, the recovery of ecological communities following remediation or natural attenuation of contaminants may be monitored through a habitat valuation process (Kapustka et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stimulation of metal reduction within the subsurface offers a relatively simple method to remove metal contaminants from groundwater, thereby limiting or greatly reducing further transport of contaminants downgradient (Lovley et al 1991;Lovley 1993;. Efforts to understand and control in situ metal reduction are currently active areas of research within the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. Department of Energy, O.o.B.a.E.R 2004) particularly in light of the recent focus on the potential ecological impacts of ex situ remediation practice (Whicker et al 2004).…”
Section: Metal Remediation Through Biodegradation Of Associated Organmentioning
confidence: 99%