428 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15660610)
1. The role of risk and future land use in cleanup decisions at the Department Of Energy.
Burger J; Powers C; Greenberg M; Gochfeld M
Risk Anal; 2004 Dec; 24(6):1539-49. PubMed ID: 15660610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: protecting human and ecological health.
Burger J; Leschine TM; Greenberg M; Karr JR; Gochfeld M; Powers CW
Environ Manage; 2003 Feb; 31(2):157-67. PubMed ID: 12520373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Using integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to guide risk-based environmental clean-up decisions.
Mayer HJ; Greenberg MR; Burger J; Gochfield M; Powers C; Kosson D; Keren R; Danis C; Vyas V
Risk Anal; 2005 Apr; 25(2):429-46. PubMed ID: 15876215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Contaminated Department of Energy facilities and ecosystems: weighing the ecological risks.
Burger J
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2000 Sep; 61(2):141-54. PubMed ID: 11032427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the Department of Energy.
Burger J; Gochfeld M; Powers CW
J Environ Manage; 2007 Jan; 82(2):189-99. PubMed ID: 16554118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of ecological resources at operating facilities at contaminated sites: The Department of Energy's Hanford Site as a case study.
Burger J; Gochfeld M; Kosson DS; Brown KG; Salisbury JA; Jeitner C
Environ Res; 2019 Mar; 170():452-462. PubMed ID: 30640079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recreational rates and future land-use preferences for four Department of Energy sites: consistency despite demographic and geographical differences.
Burger J
Environ Res; 2004 Jun; 95(2):215-23. PubMed ID: 15147927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Risk valuation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy's Hanford site.
Burger J; Gochfeld M; Jeitner C
Environ Monit Assess; 2018 Jul; 190(8):478. PubMed ID: 30030638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Logic and motivation in risk research: a nuclear waste test case.
Brown RV
Risk Anal; 2005 Feb; 25(1):125-40. PubMed ID: 15787762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A paradigm for protecting ecological resources following remediation as a function of future land use designations: a case study for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.
Burger J; Gochfeld M; Kosson DS; Brown KG; Salisbury J; Jeitner C
Environ Monit Assess; 2020 Feb; 192(3):181. PubMed ID: 32065319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA's superfund community involvement program.
Charnley S; Engelbert B
J Environ Manage; 2005 Nov; 77(3):165-82. PubMed ID: 16112794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Restoration, stewardship, environmental health, and policy: understanding stakeholders' perceptions.
Burger J
Environ Manage; 2002 Nov; 30(5):631-40. PubMed ID: 12375084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Stewardship and future land use at a Department of Energy site: does self-interest determine ratings?
Burger J
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2001 Jul; 63(5):383-95. PubMed ID: 11471868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.
Burger J; Gochfeld M; Kosson DS; Brown KG; Salisbury JA; Jeitner C
Environ Res; 2020 Jul; 186():109536. PubMed ID: 32344209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Risk perception, future land use and stewardship: comparison of attitudes about Hanford Site and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
Burger J; Sanchez J; Roush D; Gochfeld M
J Environ Manage; 2001 Apr; 61(4):265-80. PubMed ID: 11383101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Perceptions of on-site hunters: environmental concerns, future land use, and cleanup options at the Savannah river site.
Burger J; Sanchez J
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 1999 Jun; 57(4):267-81. PubMed ID: 10406350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Environment. Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites.
Whicker FW; Hinton TG; MacDonell MM; Pinder JE; Habegger LJ
Science; 2004 Mar; 303(5664):1615-6. PubMed ID: 15016982
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Importance of buffer lands to determining risk to ecological resources at legacy contaminated sites: A case study for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site, Washington, USA.
Burger J; Gochfeld M; Jeitner C
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2019; 82(22):1151-1163. PubMed ID: 31852396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: the case of the Department of Energy's Amchitka Island nuclear test site.
Burger J; Mayer HJ; Greenberg M; Powers CW; Volz CD; Gochfeld M
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2006 Jul; 69(13):1217-38. PubMed ID: 16754537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Naturally occurring asbestos: a recurring public policy challenge.
Lee RJ; Strohmeier BR; Bunker KL; Van Orden DR
J Hazard Mater; 2008 May; 153(1-2):1-21. PubMed ID: 18180100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]