Tools for placing the radiological health hazard in perspective following a severe emergency at a light water reactor (LWR) or its spent fuel pool

What's better for our health? Conducting protective actions during a nuclear emergency or accepting a certain radiation dose?

The threat caused by ionising radiation has resulted in the establishment of strict radiation protection guidelines. This is especially true for severe nuclear power plant (NPP) accident scenarios, which may involve the release of significant amounts of ionising radiation. However, we believe that the fine balance between the benefit of a certain protective action (e.g. evacuation) and its risks is not always accounted for properly. Deaths and mental health problems have been associated with protective actions (e.g. evacuation) implemented in the response to the Fukushima Daiichi (NPP) accident in 2011. The protective actions were implemented consistent with international recommendations, to reduce radiation-induced health effects, even though the off-site effective doses were too low to indicate that there would be any discernible radiation-induced health effects. In this paper, we will provide a first step for the development of tools to evaluate the risk of protective actions versus the radiation-induced health risk. Over 50 papers were selected as useful from more than 600 reviewed papers to characterise the health impact of protective actions taken during different emergencies (including, technical and natural emergencies). An analysis was performed comparing the radiation-induced health effects averted by protective actions with the health effects associated with the protective actions. We concentrated our analysis on deaths and mental health problems associated with protective actions compared with the inferred radiation-induced deaths averted by the protective actions. Our analysis is stated in terms of absolute risk (cases per 1000) of health effects to allow for a direct comparison. It indicates that taking protective actions consistent with dose criteria typically used in many countries could result in more excess deaths than the inferred radiation-induced deaths prevented, as well as resulting in mental health problems. We identified that residents of facilities for long stays and the elderly are particularly vulnerable and a significant number of the deaths among the general public are associated with a lack of emergency preparedness provisions.

Saving Lives and Preventing Injuries From Unjustified Protective Actions-Method for Developing a Comprehensive Public Protective Action Strategy for a Severe NPP Emergency

During the response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (FDNPP) emergency, about 50 patients died during or shortly after an evacuation when they were not provided with the needed medical support. In addition, it has been shown that during the FDNPP emergency there were increases in mortality rates among the elderly due to long-term dislocation as a result of evacuation and relocation orders and an inability to stay in areas where residents were advised to shelter for extended periods. These deaths occurred even though the possible radiation exposure to the public was too low to result in radiation-induced deaths, injuries, or a meaningful increase in the cancer rate, even if no protective actions had been taken. These problems are not unique to the FDNPP emergency and would be expected if the recommendations of many organizations were followed. Neither the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) nor the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adequately take into consideration in their recommendations and analysis the non-radiological health impacts, such as deaths and injuries, that could result from protective actions. Furthermore, ICRP, NRC, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) call for taking protective actions at doses lower than those resulting in meaningful adverse radiation-induced health effects and do not state the doses at which such effects would be seen. Consequently, it would be impossible for decision makers and the public to balance all the hazards both from radiation exposure and protective actions when deciding whether a protective action is justified. What is needed, as is presented in this paper, is a method for developing a comprehensive protective action strategy that allows the public, decision makers, and others who must work together to balance the radiological with the non-radiological health hazards posed by protective actions, and to counter the exaggerated fear of radiation exposure that could lead to taking unjustified protective actions and adverse psychological, sociological, and other effects.

Lessons Learned in Protection of the Public for the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

What insights can the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant provide in the reality of decision making on actions to protect the public during a severe reactor and spent fuel pool emergency? In order to answer this question, and with the goal of limiting the consequences of any future emergencies at a nuclear power plant due to severe conditions, this paper presents the main actions taken in response to the emergency in the form of a timeline. The focus of this paper is those insights concerning the progression of an accident due to severe conditions at a light water reactor nuclear power plant that must be understood in order to protect the public.