Saving Lives and Preventing Injuries From Unjustified Protective Actions—Method for Developing a Comprehensive Public Protective Action Strategy for a Severe NPP Emergency

Abstract

During the response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (FDNPP) emergency, about 50 patients died during or shortly after an evacuation when they were not provided with the needed medical support. In addition, it has been shown that during the FDNPP emergency there were increases in mortality rates among the elderly due to long-term dislocation as a result of evacuation and relocation orders and an inability to stay in areas where residents were advised to shelter for extended periods. These deaths occurred even though the possible radiation exposure to the public was too low to result in radiation-induced deaths, injuries, or a meaningful increase in the cancer rate, even if no protective actions had been taken. These problems are not unique to the FDNPP emergency and would be expected if the recommendations of many organizations were followed. Neither the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) nor the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adequately take into consideration in their recommendations and analysis the non-radiological health impacts, such as deaths and injuries, that could result from protective actions. Furthermore, ICRP, NRC, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) call for taking protective actions at doses lower than those resulting in meaningful adverse radiation-induced health effects and do not state the doses at which such effects would be seen. Consequently, it would be impossible for decision makers and the public to balance all the hazards both from radiation exposure and protective actions when deciding whether a protective action is justified. What is needed, as is presented in this paper, is a method for developing a comprehensive protective action strategy that allows the public, decision makers, and others who must work together to balance the radiological with the non-radiological health hazards posed by protective actions, and to counter the exaggerated fear of radiation exposure that could lead to taking unjustified protective actions and adverse psychological, sociological, and other effects.

How would citizens react to official advice in a nuclear emergency? Insights from research in three European countries

“…The Fukushima accident highlighted several challenges in the public response to a nuclear accident and the communication of protective actions during and after the accident (Callen & McKenna, 2018; Crépey et al, 2013; Hasegawa et al., 2016; Hobson, 2015; Kanda, Tsuji, & Yonehara, 2012; NAIIC, 2012; NAIIC, 2012; Yasumura, 2014). Examples include over‐protective behaviours (e.g., unnecessary evacuation or intake of iodine, boycott of products), non‐compliance with official advice (e.g., not to consume salt in order to get iodine) and elevated public concern about health effects due to the accident (e.g., concern about how the contamination from the accident will affect children's health, including thyroid abnormalities).…”

Assessment of Protective Action Decision Making during Nuclear Power Plant Biennial Exercises

“…The resounding conclusion of all these studies is that unnecessary evacuations may have led to more harm than good. A study by Callen and McKenna noted that evacuations and relocations following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi resulted in deaths and injuries but prevented only exposures that were too low to result in meaningful observable radiation-induced health effects (Callen and McKenna 2018). The paper calls for a new system of emergency radiation protection that justifies protective actions through a graded approach that balances the meaningful health effects of radiation exposure against those of the protective actions taken to avert the exposure.…”