 The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data.  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable variation between models Pu-239

 The IAEA EMRAS programme has compared predictions of various models, to each other and to site data  Model-model intercomparison showed considerable variation between models  Missing value guidance approach often give comparatively high estimates (often for little studied organisms)  ‘National’ (site specific) data

 H-3, Cs-137, Co-60, Sr- 90 data for wide range of freshwater biota

 Hopefully have appreciation of how wholebody radionuclide concentrations are estimated in available tools  There are some short comings in approaches - not least data availability - but to cover wide range of organism-radionuclide combinations currently ‘best we can do’  Can be considerable variability between models (justify selection)  Lack of equilibrium  Probably – but if sufficient data should reflect ‘reality’ (e.g. Pu will never reach equilibrium)

 Some radionuclides are heterogeneously distributed throughout the body  Sr (bone), Am (bone & liver), I (thyroid), Ru (kidney)  Uncertainty this adds to dose organ should be assessed (... available effects data are for wholebody dose rates?)  If required dynamic models available or scope to adapt from human assessment models  If predictions are required spatially - relatively easy to use parameters from models such as ERICA in a GIS

 Technical report series  Final draft submitted to IAEA  On-line database for collation  Will be maintained and used to provide annual update tables  Database has also been used to collate data for ICRP framework (TG73 report in-press)