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

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Autoren

  • J. Callen-Kovtunova
  • T. McKenna
  • G. Steinhauser

Externe Organisationen

  • Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEA)
Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Aufsatznummer021516
FachzeitschriftJournal of radiological protection
Jahrgang42
Ausgabenummer2
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - Juni 2022

Abstract

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.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zitieren

What's better for our health? Conducting protective actions during a nuclear emergency or accepting a certain radiation dose? / Callen-Kovtunova, J.; McKenna, T.; Steinhauser, G.
in: Journal of radiological protection, Jahrgang 42, Nr. 2, 021516, 06.2022.

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Download
@article{f443245c41b942958ca2ccef2e512f10,
title = "What's better for our health? Conducting protective actions during a nuclear emergency or accepting a certain radiation dose?",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "justification, nuclear emergencies, protective action risk, radiation risk, radiation-induced health effects, radiological protection",
author = "J. Callen-Kovtunova and T. McKenna and G. Steinhauser",
note = "We would like to thank Toshimitsu Homma and Helmuth B{\"o}ck for their expert comments in the development of this paper.",
year = "2022",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1088/1361-6498/ac5bde",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
journal = "Journal of radiological protection",
issn = "0952-4746",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - What's better for our health? Conducting protective actions during a nuclear emergency or accepting a certain radiation dose?

AU - Callen-Kovtunova, J.

AU - McKenna, T.

AU - Steinhauser, G.

N1 - We would like to thank Toshimitsu Homma and Helmuth Böck for their expert comments in the development of this paper.

PY - 2022/6

Y1 - 2022/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - justification

KW - nuclear emergencies

KW - protective action risk

KW - radiation risk

KW - radiation-induced health effects

KW - radiological protection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128001772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/1361-6498/ac5bde

DO - 10.1088/1361-6498/ac5bde

M3 - Article

C2 - 35263727

AN - SCOPUS:85128001772

VL - 42

JO - Journal of radiological protection

JF - Journal of radiological protection

SN - 0952-4746

IS - 2

M1 - 021516

ER -