Establishing relationships between environmental exposures to radionuclides and the consequences for wildlife: inferences and weight of evidence.

Abstract

Ecological risk assessments for radioactive substances are based on a number of inference rules to compensate for knowledge gaps, and generally require the implementation of a weight-of-evidence approach. Until recently, dose (rate)-response relationships used to derive radioprotection criteria for wildlife have mainly relied on laboratory studies from a limited number of species as representatives of biodiversity. There is no doubt that additional knowledge, combined with advanced conceptual and mathematical approaches, is needed to develop general rules and increase confidence when extrapolating from test species to complex biological/ecological systems. Moreover, field data sets based on robust sampling strategies are still needed to validate benchmark values derived from controlled laboratory tests, and to indicate potential indirect ecological effects, if any. This paper illustrates, through several examples, the need for implementing a combined laboratory-field-model approach to obtain science-based benchmark doses (or dose rates) (e.g. screening benchmarks for ecological risk assessments or derived consideration reference levels), based on robust meta-analysis of dose-effect relationships covering ecologically relevant exposure time scales, species, and endpoints.