Search

The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents have caused significant social and economic disruptions that have affected the local populations, with effects extending over years or decades, inevitably impacting their health and well-being. It appears that affected populations are very concerned about their living conditions, and these concerns encompass various aspects (health, environment, economy, etc.). However, they generally lack information, support and basic knowledge to cope with this kind of situation. Following the Chernobyl accident, several studies have highlighted the need for developing new and innovative approaches to respond to concerns of populations affected by long-lasting contamination of their environment and to improve their living conditions. And the recent feedback from the Japanese situation - 7 years after the Fukushima accident – confirms these conclusions. It also shows that, thanks to the progress of digital technologies, people living in contaminated territories have now the means to measure the radioactivity of their environment, share these results through various networks and so, regain progressively control of their daily life. In this context, this paper aims to examine how these innovative approaches can represent an occasion to engage people living in contaminated territories, answer to their concerns, and to inform and communicate on the situation at stake. This paper will also inquire the role of radiation protection experts in that kind of situation.

Plasma exchange (PE) is the first-line therapy of acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Several plasma preparations have been available; their equivalence in terms of outcome remains uncertain.We performed a retrospective analysis of the cases prospectively reported from 2005 to 2010 to the national registry established by the thrombotic microangiopathies French reference center. We analyzed 108 initial episodes of acquired idiopathic TTP in adults treated with PE, 81 with solvent/detergent (S/D) plasma, and 27 with quarantine fresh-frozen plasma (qFFP). The primary endpoint was the time to platelet (PLT) count recovery.Time to PLT count recovery was not significantly different with S/D plasma versus qFFP (median, 15 days vs. 19 days, respectively; p = 0.126). Complete remission rates, exacerbations, and survival were comparable. By multivariate competitive risk (Fine-Gray) analysis, the only significant association with a shorter time to PLT count recovery was the absence of additional treatment (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-3.05; p 0.001). There was a significant interaction between type of plasma and age, and for patients less than 40 years old, the use of S/D plasma was associated with a shorter time to PLT count recovery versus qFFP (median, 13 [95% CI, 9-16] days vs. 20 [95% CI, 16-64] days, respectively; p = 0.004).The outcomes of acquired TTP treated with S/D plasma or qFFP seem similar and therefore both preparations can be used safely for PE in this indication. The faster response of S/D plasma observed in younger patients warrants confirmation in prospective studies.