Determination of the actual term of relocation of representatives of the Ural cohort of accidentally irradiated population from radioactively contaminated territories

The main effective radiation protection measures, in addition to decontamination measures and limiting the consumption of food products of local origin, include the evacuation and resettlement of residents. Nevertheless, forced changes in usual habitat of residents can have a negative impact on the quality of their life. The study of the impact of radiation and non-radiation factors on the health of the exposed population requires classifying for the studied cohort by the criterion of forced relocation (relocation due to implementation of radiation protection measure). However, the quality of retrospective information and the specifics of the implementation of this action do not always unambiguously allow to determine the moment of time when displacement of residents from radioactively contaminated territories actually began. The purpose of this study is to determine the actual term of relocation of settlements whose residents are included in the Ural cohort of accidentally irradiated population. Materials and methods: The main source of in-formation in this study was the medical-dosimetric database on exposed residents of radioactively contaminated territories due to two situations: discharges of liquid radioactive waste from a chemical plant in the late 1940s and early 1950s into the Techa River and the 1957 radiation accident at the same plant. The study cohort numbered approximately 63,000 people. Establishing criteria for forced relocation has been carried out using methods of demographic analysis of the collected data, and time frames of relocation has been determined using historical materials. Results and Discussion: The migration activity of residents between 1950 and 1960 has been studied for the two radiation situations. The net migration rate per year has been determined as a basic criterion (minus 100 ‰ for relatively large- and medium-sized settlements, minus 150 ‰ for small ones). The year of the beginning of the forced resettlement of residents and the year of the end of the resettlement have been determined for each resettled settlement. Conclusion: The study of migration processes allowed to define the criterion for forced relocation and determine actual time frames for the implementation of the protective action in relation to members of the cohort.

1. Medical-biological and ecological impacts of radioactive contamination of the Techa River / Ed. Akleyev AV, Kiselev MF. Moscow: Medbioekstrem; 2001. 531 p. (In Russian).

2. Aleksakhin RM, Buldakov LA, Gubanov VA, Drozhko EG, Ilyin LA, Kryshev II, et al. Large-scale radiation accidents: consequences and protective measures. Moscow: IzdAT; 2001. 752 p. (In Russian).

3. Chelyabinsk region: Liquidation of consequences of radiation accidents / Ed. Akleyev AV. Chelyabinsk: South-Ural Book Publishing House; 2006. 344 p. (In Russian).

4. Consequences of radioactive contamination of the Techa River / Ed. Akleyev AV. Chelyabinsk: Kniga; 2016. 390 p. (in Russian).

5. East-Urals radioactive trace / Ed. Akleyev AV, Kiselev MF. Chelyabinsk: Fregat; 2012. 352 p. (In Russian).

6. Akleyev AV, Krestinina LYu, Degteva MO. Comparative analysis of medical and dosimetric consequences of the 1957 accident and contamination of the Techa river from the perspective of protective measures efficiency. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2020;13(1): 16-26. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2020-13-1-16-26.

7. Akleyev AV, Shvedov VL, Kosenko MM, Degtyareva MO, Startsev NV, Kostyuchenko VA, et al. Experience in studying the medical consequences of population exposure to radiation during major radiation accidents. Meditsina ekstremanykh situatsiy = Medicine of Extreme Situations. 1999;(2): 41–51. (In Russian).

8. Kostyuchenko VA, Krestinina LYu. Remote consequences of irradiation in the population evacuated from EURT. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 1995;(1): 14–18. (In Russian).

9. Kosenko MM, Ostroumova Y, Akleyev A, Startsev N, Degteva M, Granath F, et al. Mortality in the offspring of individuals living along the radioactively contaminated Techa River: a descriptive analysis. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2000:39(4): 219–225.

10. Kharyuzov YuE, Krestinina LYu, Tolstykh EI, Akleyev AV. Follow-up methodology and analysis of mortality and cancer incidence in the cohort of people in utero exposed to radiation as a result of radioactive contamination of environment and the Techa River. Radiatsiya i risk = Radiation and Risk. 2015; 24(3): 92-104. (In Russian).

11. Ecological and medical consequences of the 1957 radiation accident at Mayak PA / Ed. Akleyev AV, Kiselev MF. Moscow: Medbioekstrem; 2001. 294 p. (In Russian).

12. Silkin SS, Krestinina LYu, Startsev NV, Akleyev AV. Ural cohort of emergency-irradiated population. Meditsina ekstremanykh situatsiy = Medicine of Extreme Situations. 2019;21(3): 393-402. (In Russian).

13. Arkhangelsky VN, Ivanova AE, Rybakovsky LL, Ryazantsev SV. Practical demography. Moscow: CSP; 2005. 204 p. (In Russian).

14. Antonova LN. Demography. Ekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural University; 2014. 154 p. (In Russian).

15. Tolstikov VS, Kuznetsov VN. Nuclear Heritage in the Urals: Historical Assessments and Documents: Nuclear Cities of the Urals. Ekaterinburg: Bank of cultural information; 2017. 400 p. (In Russian).

16. Problems of Nuclear Heritage and Ways to Solve Them / Ed. Evstratov EV, Agapov AM, Laverov NP, Bolshov LA, Linge II. Moscow: Energopromanalitika; 2012. 356 p. (In Russian).

17. Consequences of technogenic radiation exposure and the problem of rehabilitation of the Ural region. Мoscow: Komtechprint; 2002. 204 p. (In Russian).

18. UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes A and B. UN; 2022.

19. Hori A, Murakami M, Tsubokura M. Against an insufficient intervention for patients with alcoholism or PTSD: An activity report on a psychiatric clinic after the 2011 complex disaster in Fukushima, Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2023;96: 103990.

20. Tsuboi M, Sawano T, Nonaka S, Hori A, Ozaki A, Nishikawa Yo, et al. Disaster-related deaths after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident – Definition of the term and lessons learned. Environmental Advances. 2022;8: 100248.

21. The Demography of Disasters: Impacts for Population and Place / Ed. Karácsonyi D, Taylor A, Bird D. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021.

22. Malenchenko AF, Sushko SN. Uncertainties of radiation risk assessment in the conditions of the combined ionizing radiation effect with the non-radiation nature factors. Problemy zdorovia i ekologii = Problems of health and ecology. 2006;3(9): 22–29. (In Russian).

23. Konstantinov YuO. Protection of the public in a large-scale radiation accident: mitigation of negative social consequences of protective actions. Part 1. Interpretation of dose characteristics of emergency. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2019;12(2, special issue): 20–30. (In Russian).