ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
The impacts of contaminants on wildlife are dose dependent, and thus being able to track or predict exposure following contamination events is important for monitoring ecosystem health. However, the ability to track exposure in free-ranging wildlife is often severely limited. Consequently, researchers have predominantly relied on simple methods for estimating contaminant exposures in wildlife with little regard for spatial contaminant heterogeneity or an animal's use of diverse habitats. We evaluated the influence sampling scale (i.e., how finely contaminant distribution and organism's spatial use of the landscape is mapped) has on (1) realism and (2) conservativeness of exposure estimates. To do this, we monitored the actual exposure of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Fukushima, Japan to radioactive contamination using GPS-coupled contaminant monitors placed on individual animals. We compared empirical exposures to estimates generated by combining varying amounts of information about an individual boar's location and/or movement, with the distribution of contamination on the landscape. We found that the most realistic exposure estimates were produced when finer-scale contaminant distribution surveys (e.g., airborne surveys) were combined with more accurate estimates of an individual's space use (e.g., home ranges or core areas). Importantly, estimates of exposure based on single point surveys at a trap site (a simple method commonly used in the literature), did not correlate with actual exposure rates, suggesting dose-effects studies using this method may result in spurious conclusions. These results suggest that researchers seeking realistic estimates of exposure, such as in dose-effect studies, should ensure they have adequately accounted for fine-scale contaminant distribution patterns and areas of higher use by study organisms. However, conservative estimates of exposure (i.e., intentionally over-predicting exposure as is done in initial tiers of ecological risk analyses) were not as scale sensitive and could be achieved with a single known location and coarse contaminant distribution maps.
