{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020703933747412008, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020186335403726708, 'mean_word_length': 4.804804804804805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Environmental Impact of Radioactive Releases

A TEST OF RESUSPENSION FACTOR MODELS AGAINST CHERNOBYL DATA. After the accident at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP), stationary air samplers were operated at Chernobyl and Baryshevka, cities which are 16 km and 150 km, respectively, from the NPP. Other air samplers were operated simultaneously. but intermittently, at locations within the 30 km zone at distances of 4-25 km from the NPP. These data were used to check the validity of time dependent models of the resuspension factor K (m-I). Seven different models were examined, three of which are discussed in the paper. Data from the stationary air samplers were averaged over one day or one month; data from the intermittent air samplers were averaged over three days in 1986 and over four hours in 1991. The concentrations of eight radionuclides were measured at ten points during the same time period (14-17 September 1986). The calculated resuspension factors range from 6 x m-' to 3 x 10" m-'. Data for the spatial means of K are given for certain time periods in 1986 and 1991; also presented are the calculated values according to the models. The experimental data and the calculated values differ by up to more than one order of ma-gnitude. Also analysed was the temporal change in experimental values of K and these values were compared with model predictions. The annual means of the resuspension factor as determined experimentally and as calculated with the models are presented. The model derived from empirical data measured in Neuherberg after the Chernobyl accident agrees best with the data. The Garland model systematically gives results lower than the experimental values, and the calculated values of K from the Linsley model are consistently conservative. Also considered were the uncertainty of K due to fluctuations in air concentrations and possible biological effects of episodic exposures.