"Vad får man för pengarna investerade i miljöförbättringar - exempel från radioekologi och eutrofiering"

• Optimering - kostnad och nytta

• Expertsystem inom radioekologi banar vägen för………

• En ny generation prediktiva modeller inom radioekologin banar vägen för…..…

• Ja, kanske för en ny Östersjöforskning?!

Lars HåkansonUppsala UniversityDept. of Earth SciencesLars.Hakanson@geo.uu.se

Measures to reduce radiation dose to man, flora and fauna.

Many different measures have been tested for aquatic systems, e.g.,• Lake liming (Ca; from helicopter, boast, dosers)• Wetland area liming (generally by helicopters)• Full scale drainage area liming• Potash treatment (K)• Fertilization (P)• Extensive fishing and foodweb manipulations

To conclude: Little can be done, but today we can have more realistic expectations, which is good!

Smith, J.T., Voitsekhovitch, O.V., Håkanson, L. and Hilton, J., 2001. A critical review of measures to reduce radioactive doses from drinking water and consumption of freshwater foodstuffs. J. Env. Radioactivity, 56:11-32.

Decision support systems.

RODOS and MOIRA

Many different models:Many different models:

• • Hydrological Dispersion Hydrological Dispersion Module of the RODOS system, Module of the RODOS system, RIVTOX, RETRACE, LAKECO RIVTOX, RETRACE, LAKECO

modelsmodels

(see http://www.rodos.fzk.de/)

Authors: Gennadiy Donchyts (IMMSP)Dmitry Treebushny (IMMSP)Mikhail Kolomiev (TYPHOON)Wolfgang Raskob (FZK)Mark Zheleznyak (IMMSP)

RODOS DSS is mainly designed to handle short-term (hours to days) spatial variations. The predictions are driven by online meteorological data (winds, temperature and precipitation).

MOIRA includes

• Validated predictive models for rivers, lakes and coastal areas• GIS-maps from Europe on fallout (Chernobyl), soil types, land use, population, vegetation, etc.• A menu of remedial measures• An ecosystem index approach to asses positive and negative aspects of remedial measures• An MAA, MultiAttribute Analysis, module to assess environmental, economical and social attributes related to the remedial measures

Gallego, E., Brittain, J.E., Håkanson, L., Heling, R., Hofman, D. And Monte, L., 2004. MOIRA: A Computerised Decision Support System for the Management of Radionuclide Contaminated Freshwater Ecosystems, Radioprotection, 98: 83-102 (ISSN-0874-7016).

Multi-attribute analysis = MAA

Overall utilities and ranking obtained for the analysed intervention strategies simulated for Lake Svyatoye.

Optimal modellstorlek

“Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler”, according to Albert Einstein

r2 = predictive powerCV = accumulated uncertainty i x-variables

Optimalskala för

modellering

Time Time

units (T)

CV

(X) n=(CV·2/0.2)2 T·n OMS=100·(1/T·n)·(0.62-CV)

Daily 365 0.18 3.2 1168 0.037 Weekly 52 0.29 8.4 437 0.075 Monthly 12 0.30 9.0 108 0.30 Yearly 1 0.56 31.4 31 0.19

CV = 0.18/2CV = 0.18

Using data on N and P from Ringkobing Fjord

OMS = f(CV, T·n)

CV = osäkerhet i modellvariablerT·n = tillgänglighet av modellvariabler

“Revolution” in predictive power

For example for fish, the peak appears some time after the fallout - the “peak and tail” problem

Water

Fish

Benthos

Catchment load

River input OutflowDirect lake load

Sedimen-tation Bioturba-tion

Diffusion

Diffusion

DiffusionSedimentation

Resuspension

Fishing

Arrows indicate Hg fluxes

Water

Sediments

Top predator Zooplankton,

Algae

Phytoplankton

DyTraditional dynamic approach

Small fish 1

Small fish 2A.

B.Water

Top predator Small fishModerator expressing impact from environ- mental factors:• pH • T • DR

New approach, "mixed" model

B.

Arrows indicate fluxes

Old approach

New approach

Outflow

Burial

Diffusion

Wave base

Inflow

Sedimentation

Resuspension

Precipitation

Surface water =epilimnion

Deep water =hypolimnion

Mixing

Bioturbation

Compaction

General, fundamental transport processes

All these transport processes can be quantified very well today! - Chernobyl

Coastal zone

Transition zone

Deep water area

N

Section area

How will the Baltic respond

to remedial measures??

This is determined by internal transport processes, e.g.,

sedimentation, resuspension, diffusion,

mixing and outflow

E = Erosion areas for fine materialsT = Transportation areas for fine materialsA = Accumulation areas for fine materials

Amounts of total-P (TP) and TP-fluxes to the Baltic Sea (from Wulff, 2006).

“Flippen”

1995

30-40 kt of P

Data from HELCOM in the Baltic Proper.

1995

HELCOMs (Helsinki commission) strategy for the Baltic is

• each country should reduce their own emissions and

• the best available technique should be used.

The opposite strategy should be implemented. That is:

• each country shout NOT reduce their own emissions; the Baltic is one system and the measures should focus on reducing the major P-fluxes, not N and not the small ones!

• the best available techniques should NOT be used, but the most cost-effective measures to reduce the biggest fluxes!

The three problems• Eutrofication; nutrients (N and P) and cyanobakteria = bluegreen algae

= toxic algae

• High levels of organic toxins in fish

• Extensive fishing; the cod threatened; uncertain and erroneous fish quota decided at negotiations; blackfishing; industrial fishing

These three basic problems should NOT be regarded seperately, but together!!

Organic toxins - some decrease, some increase!!Women in fertile ages should not eat fat fish from the Baltic without restrictions

“The clearest waters have the most contaminated fish!!”

The higher the nutrient concentrations in water, the lower the concentrations of toxins in fish (if all else is constant). This is “biological dilution”.

Conc. in fish = g toxin/biomass fish in kg

Eutrofication and toxins in fish must not be regarded as two separate problems!!

The cod - at the verge of extinctionThe blackfishing in the Baltic is probably extensive, maybe 30-70% higher than the quota (70 kt)

Modelling using a foodweb model (BaltWeb) which calculates

the production potential of the ecosystem

Extinction

Consequences

Measure: Catch more prey fish!!!

Ringkobing Fjord(assuming a salinity of 22‰)

BPBACLAMS (67% of 263 kt ww)JEMAPHPDPYZBZHZP

A. Biomasses

A possible measure to reduce eutrophication??According to Swedish EPA

Cultivate and harvest clams

Fallout (3.5 t TP/yr)Inflow from sea (212 t TP/yr)Uptake by clams (0.39% or 1.3 t TP/yr)River inflow (120 t TP/yr)

Ringkobing Fjord(assuming a salinity of 22‰)

BPBACLAMS (67% of 263 kt ww)JEMAPHPDPYZBZHZP

A. Biomasses

B. TP-fluxes

C. TP-amounts

ADWETSWBLBSClams (0.5% of 1020 t TP)

Total-N Total-P tons % tons %

Sweden 44,300 6 1780 5 Baltic states 72,600 10 1890 5 Poland 109,900 5 19,100 52 Germany 20,000 3 2750 7 Denmark 51,000 7 7860 22 Precipitation 289,900 41 3420 9 Nitrogen fixation 130,000 18 - -

Large and small fluxes

To reduce small fluxes is neither meaningful nor cost efficient

900 of 220,000 = 0.4% may be reduced

plus≈14,000 t P from Kattegatplus≈ 160,000 t P from land upliftPlus≈ 14,000 t P from the Bothnian Sea

Total inflow: ≈ 220,000 t P/yr

=1780/36,800)

Positive effects

• Less phytoplankton. • The water clarity and Secchi depth would increase. • The risks for excessive blooms of toxic bluegreen algae would decrease. • The extension of ”dead” laminated bottom areas would decrease. • The production and biomass of big (predatory) cod would increase.

Negative effects

• Increased production and cover of macrophytes, i.e., a reduced access to the shoreline (recreation).• Higher levels of toxins in fish. Also dioxins in fish would increase .- if the load of dioxins is not reduced.• A somewhat lower total fish production but • A higher cod production.

Final comments

• Radioecology today is much better equipped today to handle an accident, but, but, but

• Who will finance future radioecological research?

EU - are reducing such funding!IAEA - very little after VAMPIndividual countries - Which?

In Sweden, we have largely dismantled radioecology at our universities!

So, how shall we maintain and expand the knowledge we have today?!