Problems in evaluating radiation dose via terrestrial and aquatic pathways.

This review is concerned with exposure risk and the environmental pathways models used for predictive assessment of radiation dose. Exposure factors, the adequacy of available data, and the model subcomponents are critically reviewed from the standpoint of absolute error propagation. Although the models are inherently capable of better absolute accuracy, a calculated dose is usually overestimated by from two to six orders of magnitude, in practice. The principal reason for so large an error lies in using "generic" concentration ratios in situations where site specific data are needed. Major opinion of the model makers suggests a number midway between these extremes, with only a small likelihood of ever underestimating the radiation dose. Detailed evaluations are made of source considerations influencing dose (i.e., physical and chemical status of released material); dispersal mechanisms (atmospheric, hydrologic and biotic vector transport); mobilization and uptake mechanisms (i.e., chemical and other factors affecting the biological availability of radioelements); and critical pathways. Examples are shown of confounding in food-chain pathways, due to uncritical application of concentration ratios. Current thoughts of replacing the critical pathways approach to calculating dose with comprehensive model calculations are also shown to be ill-advised, given present limitations in the comprehensive data base. The pathways models may also require improved parametrization, as they are not at present structured adequately to lend themselves to validation. The extremely wide errors associated with predicting exposure stand in striking contrast to the error range associated with the extrapolation of animal effects data to the human being.