Search

Following a nuclear accident, a major dilemma for affected people is whether to stay or leave the affected area, or, for those who have been evacuated, whether or not to return to the decontaminated zones. Populations who have to make such decisions have to consider many parameters, one of which is the radiological situation. Feedback from Chernobyl and Fukushima has demonstrated that involvement and empowerment of the affected population is a way to provide them with the necessary elements to make informed decisions and, if they decide to return to decontaminated areas, to minimise exposure by contributing to the development of a prudent attitude and vigilance towards exposure. However, involving stakeholders in postaccident management raises the question of the role of experts and public authorities in supporting the inhabitants who have to make decisions about their future. Based on experiences in Chernobyl and Fukushima, this paper will discuss various principles that have to be taken into account by experts and public authorities about their role and position when dealing with stakeholders in a postaccident recovery process.

Since November 2011, Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN) experts have participated in the International Commission on Radiological Protection's (ICRP) dialogue initiative for the rehabilitation of living conditions after the Fukushima accident. In 2013, IRSN and Centre d'étude sur l'Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire (CEPN) launched a study to identify the main lessons that can be learned from these dialogues, and benefit French IRSN experts in the event of a postaccident situation. The main lesson is that in order to protect the inhabitants of contaminated areas efficiently, experts must work in cooperation with local actors to develop a co-expertise process. The availability of measurement devices for inhabitants is crucial to allow them to assess their own radiological situation. Measuring radioactivity makes it visible, and allows individuals to discuss the results in their communities and develop local projects to improve their daily life. Eventually, inhabitants create a practical radiological protection culture to manage their situation. However, helping people to protect themselves does not mean that authorities and experts have no responsibilities, and this calls for strong ethical principles such as not making decisions for people about their future. To be helpful, scientists need to understand that, as necessary as radiation protection is, it is not the only problem that inhabitants are facing and it cannot control people's lives. Radiation protection experts must commit themselves to be at the service of individuals and the community, and the issues they want to address.