A framework for protection of the environment is likely to require a methodology for assessing dose rates arising from naturally occurring radionuclides. This paper addresses this issue for European aquatic environments through a process of (a) data collation, mainly with respect to levels of radioactivity in water sediments and aquatic flora and fauna, (b) the use of suitable distribution coefficients, concentration factors and global data where data gaps are present and (c) the utilisation of a reference organism approach whereby a finite number of suitable geometries are selected to allow dose per unit concentration factors to be derived and subsequent absorbed dose calculations (weighted or unweighted) to be made. The majority of the calculated absorbed dose, for both marine and freshwater organisms, arises from internally incorporated alpha emitters, with 210Po and 226Ra being the major contributors. Calculated doses are somewhat higher for freshwater compared to marine organisms, and the range of doses is also much greater. This reflects both the much greater variability of radionuclide concentrations in freshwater as compared to seawater, and also variability or uncertainty in concentration factor values. This work has revealed a number of substantial gaps in published empirical data especially for European aquatic environments.

The excess of lung cancer mortality in the cohort can most plausibly be explained if arsenic is the principal occupational carcinogen (for which the excess relative risk diminishes with time since exposure and attained age) and if there is a contribution to excess mortality from an enhanced prevalence of smoking within the cohort. The implications of the dose-response for arsenic exposure for risk estimation merit further consideration.

No abstract

A number of models have recently been, or are currently being, developed to enable the assessment of radiation doses from ionising radiation to non-human species. A key component of these models is the ability to predict whole-organism activity concentrations in a wide range of wildlife. In this paper, we compare the whole-organism activity concentrations predicted by eight models participating within the IAEA Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety programme for a range of radionuclides to terrestrial and freshwater organisms. In many instances, there was considerable variation, ranging over orders of magnitude, between the predictions of the different models. Reasons for this variability (including methodology, data source and data availability) are identified and discussed. The active participation of groups responsible for the development of key models within this exercise is a useful step forward in providing the transparency in methodology and data provenance required for models which are either currently being used for regulatory purposes or which may be used in the future. The work reported in this paper, and supported by other findings, demonstrates that the largest contribution to variability between model predictions is the parameterisation of their transfer components. There is a clear need to focus efforts and provide authoritative compilations of those data which are available.

No abstract

A number of approaches have been proposed to estimate the exposure of non-human biota to ionizing radiation. This paper reports an inter-comparison of the unweighted absorbed dose rates for the whole organism (compared as dose conversion coefficients, or DCCs) for both internal and external exposure, estimated by 11 of these approaches for selected organisms from the Reference Animals and Plants geometries as proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Inter-comparison results indicate that DCCs for internal exposure compare well between the different approaches, whereas variation is greater for external exposure DCCs. Where variation among internal DCCs is greatest, it is generally due to different daughter products being included in the DCC of the parent. In the case of external exposures, particularly to low-energy beta-emitters, variations are most likely to be due to different media densities being assumed. On a radionuclide-by-radionuclide basis, the different approaches tend to compare least favourably for (3)H, (14)C and the alpha-emitters. This is consistent with models with different source/target geometry assumptions showing maximum variability in output for the types of radiation having the lowest range across matter. The intercomparison demonstrated that all participating approaches to biota dose calculation are reasonably comparable, despite a range of different assumptions being made.

No abstract

No abstract