Search

Six and a half years after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, an area of existing exposure situation remains. One of the main concerns of people is the higher level of ionising radiation than before the accident, although this is not expected to have any discernible health effect. Since the accident, several 'abnormalities' in environmental organisms have been reported. It is still not clear if these abnormalities were induced by radiation. It appears that the impact of the released radioactivity has not been sufficient to threaten the maintenance of biological diversity, the conservation of species, or the health and status of natural habitats, which are the focus in environmental protection. This highlights a difference between the protection of humans and protection of the environment (individuals for humans and populations/species for the environment). The system for protection of the environment has been developed with a similar approach as the system for protection of humans. Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs) were introduced to connect exposure and doses in a way similar to that for Reference Male and Reference Female. RAPs can also be used as a tool to associate the level of radiation (dose rate) with the biological effects on an organism. A difference between the protection of humans and that of the environment was identified: an effect on humans is measured in terms of dose, and an effect on the environment is measured in terms of dose rate. In other words, protection criteria for humans are expressed in term of dose (as dose limits, dose constraints, and reference levels), whereas those for the environment are expressed in terms of dose rate (as derived consideration reference levels). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 11 March 2011 released radioactive material into the atmosphere, and contaminated land in Fukushima and several neighbouring prefectures. During rehabilitation, it is important to accurately understand and determine individual external doses to allow individuals to make informed decisions about whether or not to return to the affected areas. Personal dosimeters (D-Shuttle), used together with a global positioning system and geographic information system device, can provide realistic individual external doses and associated individual external doses, ambient doses, and activity patterns of individuals in the affected areas of Fukushima. This study involved more than 250 affected residents. The results help to determine realistic individual external doses, and corresponding time-activity patterns and airborne monitoring ambient dose rates, which can be used to predict future cumulative external doses after residents return to their homes in evacuation areas. In addition, insights gained by the study can help to explain the role of individual external dose measurements for affected residents in postaccident recovery, based mainly upon the experience gained in measuring, assessing, and communicating individual external doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant occurred following the huge tsunami and earthquake of 11 March 2011. After the accident, there was considerable uncertainty and concern about the health effects of radiation. In this difficult situation, emergency responses, including large-scale evacuation, were implemented. The Fukushima Health Management Survey (FHMS) was initiated 3 months after the accident. The primary purposes of FHMS were to monitor the long-term health of residents, promote their well-being, and monitor any health effects related to long-term, low-dose radiation exposure. Despite the severity of the Fukushima accident and the huge impact of the natural disaster, radiation exposure of the public was very low. However, there were other serious health problems, including deaths during evacuation, increased mortality among displaced elderly people, mental health and lifestyle-related health problems, and social issues after the accident. The Nuclear Emergency Situations - Improvement of Medical and Health Surveillance (SHAMISEN) project, funded by the Open Project For European Radiation Research Area, aimed to develop recommendations for medical and health surveillance of populations affected by previous and future radiation accidents. This paper briefly introduces the points that have been learned from the Fukushima accident from the perspective of SHAMISEN recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The residents of Suetsugi in Fukushima Prefecture measured ambient dose rates and radiocaesium concentrations in the soil after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in an attempt to maintain living conditions in the region. The measurements were colour plotted into maps to visualise the contamination. Through the receipt of external support, a number of radioactivity-related initiatives were implemented for the residents. Studies were also undertaken regarding the impact of radiocaesium contamination on rice farming in Suetsugi following the Great East Japan Earthquake and the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Iitate, a village in Fukushima Prefecture, suffered little damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake that struck on 11 March 2011. However, all village residents were belatedly ordered to evacuate 1 month after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. My family and I had to evacuate to the city of Fukushima, located 40 km from our home in Iitate. This came at a time when my husband and I were planning to start research on Natsuhaze (a type of blueberry grown in Japan) after his retirement. There were conflicting reports. On one hand, the media reported that it was not possible to live in Fukushima. The village of Iitate organised a lecture by an expert to assuage the fear of the residents. The evacuation order 1 month after the disaster contradicted what the expert was saying, and appeared to amplify distrust among the residents. I tried to arrive at my own judgement by measuring the ambient radiation dose in and around my house. Participating in the International Commission on Radiological Protection dialogue seminars provided accurate understanding of the situation. Measurement of radiation doses of wild plants that my husband's father had been cultivating for over 30 years has given me many insights, and I had no concerns about returning to Iitate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With confirmation of the cold shutdown conditions of the nuclear reactors after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the Japanese Government reclassified the areas under evacuation orders as follows: (1) difficult-to-return zones (>50 mSv y-1), (2) restricted residence zones (20-50 mSv y-1), and (3) zones in preparation for lifting of the evacuation order (<20 mSv y-1). The Government continued its initiatives towards reconstruction of Fukushima, and has lifted evacuation orders in Zones 2 and 3. In terms of radiological protection, the Government emphasised its policy of placing importance on individual dose, and promoted the assignment of consultants in each municipality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014, a team of high school students and teachers measured individual exposure doses using D-Shuttle dosimeters. In total, 216 students and teachers participated in the project, with the cooperation of 12 high schools in Japan (six from Fukushima Prefecture), four from France, eight from Poland, and two from Belarus. The participants wore the dosimeters for 2 weeks and recorded their locations in diary charts. The distribution of annual exposure doses for each school and region, estimated from the measured results, overlapped. It was concluded that the external exposure of high school students in Fukushima Prefecture was not markedly higher compared with that of students from other regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I have learned a great deal by participating in the ICRP dialogue seminars. I will summarise what I have observed and felt regarding the thoughts of the inhabitants of Fukushima over the last four and a half years, and what the ICRP dialogue seminars meant to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethos in Fukushima, a non-profit organisation, participated in 10 of the 12 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) dialogue seminars over the past 4 years. The slides and videos that were shown at the seminars are recorded on the Ethos in Fukushima website ( http://ethos-fukushima.blogspot.jp/p/icrp-dialogue.html ). I would like to introduce the activities of Ethos in Fukushima to date, and explain why the ICRP dialogue materials have come to be published on its website. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the wake of the Great East Japan Earthquake received considerable media coverage. However, a leaning towards sensationalism and a proclivity for denouncing those in power resulted in articles that were, in several instances, scientifically inaccurate, causing anxiety among disaster victims and delaying recovery efforts. Individuals working for the local media in Fukushima had the task of reporting the disaster while being victims of the disaster at the same time. Therefore, many individuals studied and deepened their knowledge about radiation and its effects, and were pained to see inaccurate media coverage of the disaster. Should they have been more forthright in opposing such false media coverage? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Yes I tried to explain, but residents couldn't understand …' This was the title of my presentation at the first International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) dialogue seminar in November 2011 held at the Fukushima Prefectural Government office. The accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was triggered by the tsunami caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011. Initially, it was thought that Date city, 50-60 km away from the accident, would be safe, but unfortunately this was not the case due to the direction of the wind at the time of the accident. I reported on decontamination in the aftermath of the accident at the ICRP dialogue seminar, following an invitation from Dr. Niwa of the University of Kyoto and a member of ICRP. There were many participants from overseas, and it was the first time that I had attended a meeting with simultaneous interpretation. I still remember that I was slightly bewildered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between September 2011 and August 2015, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) organised a series of 12 stakeholder dialogue workshops with residents of Fukushima Prefecture. Discussions focused on recovery, addressing topics such as protection of children, management of contaminated food, monitoring, and self-help measures. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) supported, and the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) Secretariat attended, all 12 meetings to listen directly to the concerns of affected individuals and draw lessons for CRPPH. To summarise the dialogue results, ICRP organised a final meeting in Date, Japan with the support of NEA and other organisations. The lessons from and utility of the dialogue meetings were praised by dialogue participants and sponsors, and ICRP agreed that some form of dialogue would continue, although with ICRP participation and support rather than leadership. This paper summarises the internationally relevant lessons learned by CRPPH from this important process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: radiation; cancer; risk assessment; LNT; hormesis; threshold EN radiation cancer risk assessment LNT hormesis threshold 1 2 2 12/28/21 20211001 NES 211001 The linear-no-threshold (LNT) model[1] is currently used in low-dose-radiation cancer risk assessment and this practice is supported by organizations that include the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Radiation, cancer, risk assessment, LNT, hormesis, threshold Some of the low dose is discarded (lagging of dose) with the remaining even smaller dose then treated as relevant for cancer induction.[2] This presumed-relevant smaller dose can be expressed mathematically as D-L where D is the assigned total absorbed dose and L (