Selecting passive dosimetry technologies for measuring the external dose of terrestrial wildlife

Fundamentals of wildlife dosimetry and lessons learned from a decade of measuring external dose rates in the field

Methods for determining the radiation dose received by exposed biota require major improvements to reduce uncertainties and increase precision. We share our experiences in attempting to quantify external dose rates to free-ranging wildlife using GPS-coupled dosimetry methods. The manuscript is a primer on fundamental concepts in wildlife dosimetry in which the complexities of quantifying dose rates are highlighted, and lessons learned are presented based on research with wild boar and snakes at Fukushima, wolves at Chornobyl, and reindeer in Norway. GPS-coupled dosimeters produced empirical data to which numerical simulations of external dose using computer software were compared. Our data did not support a standing paradigm in risk analyses: Using averaged soil contaminant levels to model external dose rates conservatively overestimate the dose to individuals within a population. Following this paradigm will likely lead to misguided recommendations for risk management. The GPS-dosimetry data also demonstrated the critical importance of how modeled external dose rates are impacted by the scale at which contaminants are mapped. When contaminant mapping scales are coarse even detailed knowledge about each animal's home range was inadequate to accurately predict external dose rates. Importantly, modeled external dose rates based on a single measurement at a trap site did not correlate to actual dose rates measured on free ranging animals. These findings provide empirical data to support published concerns about inadequate dosimetry in much of the published Chernobyl and Fukushima dose-effects research. Our data indicate that a huge portion of that literature should be challenged, and that improper dosimetry remains a significant source of controversy in radiation dose-effect research.

Integration of ecosystem science into radioecology: A consensus perspective

In the Fall of 2016 a workshop was held which brought together over 50 scientists from the ecological and radiological fields to discuss feasibility and challenges of reintegrating ecosystem science into radioecology. There is a growing desire to incorporate attributes of ecosystem science into radiological risk assessment and radioecological research more generally, fueled by recent advances in quantification of emergent ecosystem attributes and the desire to accurately reflect impacts of radiological stressors upon ecosystem function. This paper is a synthesis of the discussions and consensus of the workshop participant's responses to three primary questions, which were: 1) How can ecosystem science support radiological risk assessment? 2) What ecosystem level endpoints potentially could be used for radiological risk assessment? and 3) What inference strategies and associated methods would be most appropriate to assess the effects of radionuclides on ecosystem structure and function? The consensus of the participants was that ecosystem science can and should support radiological risk assessment through the incorporation of quantitative metrics that reflect ecosystem functions which are sensitive to radiological contaminants. The participants also agreed that many such endpoints exit or are thought to exit and while many are used in ecological risk assessment currently, additional data need to be collected that link the causal mechanisms of radiological exposure to these endpoints. Finally, the participants agreed that radiological risk assessments must be designed and informed by rigorous statistical frameworks capable of revealing the causal inference tying radiological exposure to the endpoints selected for measurement.

Estimating radiological exposure of wildlife in the field

The assessment of the ecological impact due to radionuclides at contaminated sites requires estimation of the exposure of wildlife, in order to correlate radiation dose with known radiological effects. The robust interpretation of field data requires consideration of possible confounding effects (e.g., from the tsunami at Fukushima) and an accurate and relevant quantification of radiation doses to biota. Generally, in field studies the exposure of fauna and flora has often been characterised as measurements of the ambient dose rate or activity concentrations in some components of the environment. The use of such data does not allow the establishment of a robust dose-effect relationship for wildlife exposed to ionising radiation in the field. Effects of exposure to radioactivity depend on the total amount of energy deposited into exposed organisms, which is estimated by adding doses (or dose rates) for all radionuclides and exposure pathways. Realistic dose estimation needs to reflect the entire story of the organisms of interest during their whole exposure period. The process of identifying and collecting all the related information should allow the "W" questions (Which organisms are exposed, Where, When and hoW) to be answered. Some parameters are well known to influence dose (rate): the organism life stage, its ecological characteristics (e.g. habitat, behaviour), the source term properties (e.g. discharging facility, nature of radiation), etc. The closer the collated data are to the ideal data set, the more accurate and realistic the dose (rate) assessment will be. This means characterising each exposure pathway (internal and external), the activity concentration in each exposure source, the time each organism spends in a given place, as well as the associated dose. In this paper the process of data collation in view of dose reconstruction is illustrated for Japanese birds exposed to radioactive deposition following the Fukushima accident. With respect to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone we will also consider variability under field conditions, availability of relevant datasets and options for better estimating internal and external doses received by wildlife.

Field effects studies in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: Lessons to be learnt

In the initial aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident there were detrimental effects recorded on wildlife, including, mass mortality of pine trees close to the reactor, reduced pine seed production, reductions in soil invertebrate abundance and diversity and likely death of small mammals. More than 30 years after the Chernobyl accident there is no consensus on the longer-term impact of the chronic exposure to radiation on wildlife in what is now referred to as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Reconciling this lack of consensus is one of the main challenges for radioecology. With the inclusion of environmental protection in, for instance, the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), we need to be able to incorporate knowledge of the potential effects of radiation on wildlife within the regulatory process (e.g. as a basis on which to define benchmark dose rates). In this paper, we use examples of reported effects on different wildlife groups inhabiting the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) as a framework to discuss potential reasons for the lack of consensus, consider important factors influencing dose rates organisms receive and make some recommendations on good practice.

Measuring the radiation exposure of Norwegian reindeer under field conditions

Models and approaches have been developed to predict radiation exposure of wildlife under field conditions. However, there have been few attempts to directly measure radiation exposure of wildlife in the field and confirm the doses predicted by models. This is a potential issue for stakeholder acceptance of modelling-based assessments. Here is presented a comprehensive study comparing the results of different dosimeters fitted to free-ranging reindeer inhabiting an area that received comparatively high radiocaesium deposition from the 1986 Chernobyl accident. The external dose of reindeer was measured using the four dosimeter types in aluminium box mounted on the GPS collar. The measurements were compared with two model predictions: (i) external dose to reindeer across the entire range area of the herd; and (ii) external doses of individual reindeer predicted using GPS tracking data to determine locations. It was found that although significant differences between the estimates of the various dosimeters were found these were small with no practical implication. Also, the mean predicted external doses using the GPS tracking data were not significantly different to estimates from two of the four passive dosimeter results. The average external dose predicted across the herd area was significantly lower than doses recorded by the dosimeters and also estimates using GPS data to determine reindeer location (and hence exposure). For ¹³⁷Cs the average external dose from the GPS tracking data was about twice that predicted across the herd area, because collared animals favoured the more contaminated area of the study site. This suggests that in some circumstances the assumption of averaging contamination over an assumed home range within assessments may be inadequate though this would need to be balanced against other uncertainties. Natural radiation was the greatest contribution to reindeer exposure and a function of the high altitude.