1994
DOI: 10.1080/10605851.1994.10640975
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Geography of Radioactive Contamination in the Former USSR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…During the Soviet period most information about nuclear explosion tests was classified as top secret and no evidence was revealed to the public. The Soviet Union has a long and active history (from 1965 to 1989) of using nuclear explosions for``peaceful'' purposes (Pryde and Bradley, 1994). These explosions were part of the Soviet Union Programme No.…”
Section: Nuclear Explosionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the Soviet period most information about nuclear explosion tests was classified as top secret and no evidence was revealed to the public. The Soviet Union has a long and active history (from 1965 to 1989) of using nuclear explosions for``peaceful'' purposes (Pryde and Bradley, 1994). These explosions were part of the Soviet Union Programme No.…”
Section: Nuclear Explosionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These waste materials included submarine reactors, fuel assemblies, and other radioactive wastes that were dumped into the Kara and Barents Seas between 1959 and 1992 [2]. Additionally, three major Russian nuclear weapons production facilities, Chelyabinsk, Tomsk, and Krasnoyarsk, located at the headwaters of the Ob and Yenisey Rivers, which°ow from the Urals into the Kara Sea, discharged over 10 18 Bq of radioactive materials into these two rivers since the early 1950s [2,3]. The announcement about direct dumping of waste into the Arctic Ocean and the potential for future contamination from materials in the Ob and Yenisey Rivers, raised questions regarding exposure of Alaskan native communities through their traditional food supplies, and potential e®ects on Alaskan¯sheries resources [4,5,6,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%