Evacuation Criteria after a Nuclear Accident: A Personal Perspective

Abstract

ᮀ In any decision involving radiation a risk-risk or risk-benefit comparison should be done. This can be either explicit or implicit. When the adverse effect of an alternate action is less than the planned action, such as medical use of X rays or nuclear power in ordinary operation, the comparison is simple. But in this paper I argue that with the situation faced by the Japanese in Fukushima, the assumption that the risk of an alternate action is small is false. The risks of unnecessary evacuation exceeded the risk of radiation cancers hypothetically produced by staying in place. This was not realized by those that had to make a decision within hours. This realization suggests important changes, worldwide, in the guidelines for radiation protection in accident situations.

Developing a Nuclear Global Health Workforce Amid the Increasing Threat of a Nuclear Crisis

“…This was not realized by those who had to make a decision within hours; arguing strongly for immediate international guidelines for both evacuation criteria and "important changes in radiation protection." 69 A high-yield nuclear war would bring evacuation numbers to incomprehensible levels. However, new evidence has altered previous dire predictions in low-yield nuclear blasts.…”

“…The evacuation process was severely plagued by misinformation, inadequate and confusing evacuation orders, delay in releasing information, stranded elderly and infirmed being left in areas near the plant, poor treatment and placement of hospitalized patients, and some evacuees being sent to higher dosed areas, all leading to loss of public trust in the government and poor compliance 66 68 Wilson 69 argues that the reaction was incorrect and detrimental to public health, citing that the risks of unnecessary evacuation exceeded the risk of radiation cancers hypothetically produced by staying in place. This was not realized by those who had to make a decision within hours; arguing strongly for immediate international guidelines for both evacuation criteria and “important changes in radiation protection.” 69 …”

“…- 68 Wilson 69 argues that the reaction was incorrect and detrimental to public health, citing that the risks of unnecessary evacuation exceeded the risk of radiation cancers hypothetically produced by staying in place. This was not realized by those who had to make a decision within hours; arguing strongly for immediate international guidelines for both evacuation criteria and “important changes in radiation protection.” 69 …”

A Simple Survey of the Preparation Situation for Resident's Evacuation in Japanese Prefectures After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident

“…About 2,000 people were identified as victims of disaster-related deaths caused by the evacuation's influences that worsened their underlying illnesses ( 1 ). Some residents who were afraid of radiation risks left their families and communities, resulting in lifestyle and mental health changes ( 1 , 5 – 7 ).…”

Special Issue Introduction

“…The author discusses what he considered more appropriate levels for evacuations. Wilson (2012) also addresses the Fukushima evacuation. The author makes the very important point that the risk of casualties associated with evacuation can be significantly larger than the expected number of radiogenic cancers when based on the LNT hypothesis.…”