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

The protective actions which were carried out with the purpose to reduce public exposure to radiation derived from the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima-1 nuclear power plants have caused negative consequences of social – psychological both social-economic character and medical nonradiological consequences. The corresponding damage put to the population of involved territories and to the entire society has considerably exceeded hypothetical benefit of aversion of radiation exposure. In the present study some possible ways of aprioristic maintenance of mitigation of the social damage accompanying realization of anti-radiation protective actions at large-scale radiation accident are considered. For the characteristic of total amount of the damage caused by protective actions, the scale of radiation and social protection in terms of a population of officially involved territories is accepted. The analysis of decisions on protection of the population in the Russian Federation against consequences of Chernobyl accident shows that at concrete radiation situation scales of protective actions differ more than on the order of magnitude, depending on criteria of decision-making and their administrative realization. Another factor that determines the scale of the accident is the degree of conservatism in the assessment of the radiation situation. The analysis of results of individual dosimetric examination of inhabitants of the western districts of the Bryansk region has shown steady values of statistical characteristics of distribution of the individual doses of an external and internal radiation caused by Chernobyl accident, according to which the value of 95% quantile of distribution in 2–3 times exceeds the average value at an examined sample of the population. Thus, application of the concept of “representative person» leads to overestimation of projected doses concerning to those corresponding to stochastic radiation effects. The results of such overestimation are expansion of scales of protective actions, prolongation of emergency, increase in accompanying social damage. As one of the ways to maintain aprioristic mitigation of social damage accompanying protective actions, the following position is offered. At a stage of an emergency, when there is enough information to consider, that the maximal public exposure to radiation will not achieve thresholds of deterministic effects, the decisions on protective actions violating normal human beings and socioeconomic functioning of territory is justified to accept on the basis of doses for the average person, instead of those for the most exposed people.

1. 20 years since the Chernobyl catastrophe: Results and perspectives of the mitigation of the consequences in Russia: 1986-2006. Russian National report. Ed. By S.K. Shoigu and L.A. Bolshov. Moscow, 2006, 92 p. (In Russian)

2. IAEA Safety Standards. Criteria for Use in Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. № GSG2. IAEA, Vienna, 2012, 137 p. (In Russian)

3. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103: translation from English; edited by M.F. Kiselev, N.K. Shandala. Мoscow, 2009, «Alana», 312 p. (In Russian)

4. ICRP, 2009. Application of the Commission’s recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. ICRP Publication 109. Ann. ICRP 39 (1).

5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. GSR Part 3. Vienna: IAEA, 2015, 518 p. (In Russian)

6. IAEA Safety Standards. Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. GSR Part 7. IAEA, Vienna, 2018, 160 p.

7. The Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Report by the Director General. IAEA, Vienna, 2015, 264 p.

8. Callen, J., Homma, Toshimitsu. Lessons learned in protection of the public for the accident at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant. Health Physics, 2017, v.112, pp. 550-559.

9. Leppard, C., Tanimoto, T, Tsubokura, M. Public health after a nuclear disaster: beyond radiation risks. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2016, vol. 94, pp. 859-860.

10. Kislov M.V., Karlin N.E., Liberman A.N. [et al.] Various aspects of relocation of the residents from the Bryansk region areas affected by the Chernobyl NPP accident. Issues of mitigation of the consequences of the Chernobyl NPP accident. Proceedings of the international seminar. Bryansk, 1993, pt. 1, pp. 48-50. (In Russian)

11. Ramzaev P.V., Ivanov E.V., Liberman A.N., Komarov E.I. Comparative assessment of public health detriment from the Chernobyl accident and countermeasures. One decade after Chernobyl: Summing up the consequences of the accident. Int. Conf., Vienna, 8-12 April 1996. Poster presentations – Volume 2. IAEA-TECDOC-964, Vienna, IAEA, 1997, pр. 621-623.

12. 25 years since the Chernobyl NPP accident. Results and perspectives of the mitigation of the consequences 1986-2011. Russian national report. Ed. By S.K. Shoigu, L.A. Bolshov, Moscow, 2011, 160 p. (In Russian)

13. Tsyb A.F., Shakhtarin V.V., Stepanenko V.F., Proshin A.D., Doroshenko V.N. Final results of the assessment and potential ways to reduce the medical consequences of the Chernobyl NPP accident. Health of the children and radiation: actual issues and solutions. Vol. 2, Moscow, 2005, pp. 23-30. (In Russian)

14. Konstantinov Yu.O., Parkhomenko V.I., Repin V.S., Travnikova I.G. Assessment of the doses of the internal exposure of the public by the cesium radionuclides for the radiation protection decision-making. Nearest and remote consequences of the radiation accident on the Chernobyl NPP. MZ USSR-IBF, Moscow, 1987, pp. 219-225. (In Russian)

15. Konstantinov Yu.O. Chernobyl accident: rationale and realization of decisions on protection of the population. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2011;4(2):59-67. (In Russian)

16. Avetisov G.M., Buldakov L.A., Gordeev K.I., Ilyin L.A. NCRP strategy on the justification of the temporary dose limits of the annual exposure of the public after the Chernobyl NPP accident. The concept of the lifetime dose. Medical radiology, 1989, vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 3-11. (In Russian)

17. Ilyin L.A., Balonov M.I., Buldakov L.A. [et al.] Ecological features and medico-biological consequences of the Chernobyl NPP accident. Medical radiology, 1989, vol. 34, No.11, pp. 59-81. (In Russian)

18. Methodical principles and recommendations for the calculation of the doses from internal and external exposure of the public residing on the territory contaminated after the Chernobyl NPP accident. Compendium of methodical materials. Ed. By K.I. Gordeev. Institute of biophysics of the Ministry of Healthcare of USSR, Moscow, 1991. (In Russian)

19. IAEA. The international Chernobyl project technical report. Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures. Report by an International Advisory Committee. Vienna, IAEA, 1992. (In Russian)

20. Konstantinov Yu.O. Distribution of the individual levels of radioactive cesium for the residents of the Western areas of Bryansk region in the first year after the Chernobyl NPP accident. Radiatsiya i risk = Radiation and risk, 2007, Vol.16, № 2-4, pp.72-83. (In Russian)

21. Bruk G.Ya., Golikov V.Yu., Zvonova I.A. [et al.] Doses to the public of the Russian Federation due to the Chernobyl NPP accident. Radiation hygiene proceedings. St-Petersburg, 2003, pp. 44-74. (In Russian) 22. Assessment of the doses to the public of the Russian Federation due to the Chernobyl NPP accident:

22. compendium of regulatory documents. 3d ed. St-Petersburg, 2011, 456 p. (In Russian)

23. ICRP, 2006. Assessing Dose of the Representative Person for the Purpose of the Radiation Protection of the Public. ICRP Publication 101a. Ann. ICRP 36 (3).

24. The concept of the radiation, medical, social protection and rehabilitation of the public of the Russian Federation exposed in emergency situations. Russian scientific commission on the radiation protection. Moscow, 1995, 13 p. (In Russian)

25. Sanitary rules and norms. SanPiN 2.6.1.2523-09. Norms of the radiation safety (NRB 99/2009). Registered in the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation 14.08.2009 N 14534. M, Federal Centre of Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, 2009, 100 p. (In Russian)

26. ICRP 1992, Publication 63. Principles for Intervention for Protection of the Public in a Radiological Emergency. ICRP Publication 63 – Annals of the ICRP, v.22, N 4, Vienna.

27. Zykova I.A., Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zvonova I.A. Chernobyl and society: risk assessments. St- Petersburg, Esphigmen, 2001, 128 p. (In Russian)

28. Byrom, J., Robinson, C., Simmonds, J.R., Walters, B., Taylor, R.R, 1995. Food consumption rates for use in generalized radiological dose assessments, J. Radiol. Prot., 15, 335-341.

29. Golikov V.Yu. Analysis of the long-term dynamics of external doses of the population after the Chernobyl accident. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2018;11(4):39-50. (In Russian)

30. Aleksakhin R.M. [et al.] Major radiation accidents: consequences and protective measures. Ed. By L.A. Ilyin and V.A. Gubanov. Moscow, IzdAT, 2001, 752 p. (In Russian)