Search

International audience; BackgroundTERRITORIES, part of the H2020 Program CONCERT, is a 3-year-project (2017-2019), involving 11 partners, from 8 European countries. The scope of this project includes existing exposure situations due to NORM, and due to nuclear accident (long-term).MethodsAll deliverables are published on the TERRITORIES website, https://territories.eu/. Among them, 7 were due end of June 2019:•D9.63: Guidance about exposure scenario (not developed here, cf. a case-study presented by Bertho et al., RICOMET session 10),•D9.64: Social and ethical aspects linked to monitoring and modelling: a Socio-Technical Integration Research approach (cf. part of the work also presented by Lopez-Asensio et al., RICOMET session 3),•D9.66: Results of a stakeholders panel about an hypothetical post-accidental situation,•D9.67 and D9.68: Results of 2 stakeholders panels about NORM situations (cf. part of the work also presented by Sala et al., RICOMET session 7, and a related review by Popic et al., same session),•D9.69: Results of a Pathway Evaluation Process (PEP) session organized with stakeholders about an hypothetical post-accidental situation,•D9.70: Framework for socio-economic analysis, i.e. Cost-benefit Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA)ResultsHolism (from Greek ὅλος "all, whole, entire") is the idea that a system and its properties should be viewed as a whole, not just as a collection of parts. In the context of the TERRITORIES project, this is for example understood as:•a multi-disciplinary approach, e.g. having social scientists and scientists involved in monitoring and modelling working together, for their mutual benefit, cf. D9.64,•assessing as a whole all of the decision criteria (or costs and benefits, including non-monetary ones) for decision-making about remediation, cf. D9.70,•engagement of all stakeholders, through various tools to structure dialogue, cf. D9.66 to D9.70,•considering all aspects of life in contaminated territories, including quality of life (cf D9.66), dignity of life (cf. D9.69), or recovery of sustainable socio-economic activity (cf. D9.66).

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.

Recommendations and requirements for the management of foodstuffs including drinking water and feedstuffs (but not other commodities) contaminated after a nuclear accident or a radiological event have been developed by international bodies such as Codex Alimentarius Commission or European Union as well as by individual countries. However, the experience from severe nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima) and less serious radiological events, shows that the implementation of such systems (based on criteria expressed in activity concentration) seems to be not fully suitable to prevent several difficulties such as, for instance, stigmatization and even rejection attitudes from consumers or retailers (anticipating the fears of consumers). To further investigate the possible strategies and stakeholder expectations to deal with this sensitive issue, a study has been launched within the European research project PREPARE-WP3. The overall objective of this work, coordinated is to contribute to the development of strategies, guidance and tools for the management of the contaminated products, taking into account the views of producers, processing and retail industries and consumers. For this purpose, 10 stakeholder panels from different European countries have been set up. In addition, feedback experience from the management of contaminated goods following the Fukushima accident has been provided by Japanese stakeholders. This paper highlights the key topics tackled by the different European stakeholders' panels. © EDP Sciences 2016.

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.