• M Kai.
• Department of Health Sciences, Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Megusuno 2944-9 Oita, Japan. kai@oita-nhs.ac.jp
• J Radiol Prot. 2012 Mar 1;32(1):N101-5.

AbstractThe accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant released a large quantity of radioactive iodine and caesium into the environment. In terms of radiological protection, the evacuation and food restrictions that were adopted in a timely manner by the authorities effectively reduced the dose received by people living in the affected area. Since late March, the transition from an emergency to an existing exposure situation has been in progress. In selecting the reference exposure levels in some areas under an existing exposure situation, the authorities tried to follow the situation-based approach recommended by the ICRP. However, a mixture of emergency and post-emergency approaches confused the people living in the contaminated areas because the reactor conditions continued to be not completely stable. In deriving the criteria in an existing exposure situation, the regulatory authority selected 20 mSv y(-1). The mothers in the affected area believed that a dose of 20 mSv y(-1) was unacceptably high for children since 1 mSv y(-1) is the dose limit for the public under normal conditions. Internet information accelerated concern about the internal exposure to children and the related health effects. From some experiences after the accident the following lessons could be learned. The selection of reference doses in existing exposure situations after an accident must be openly communicated with the public using a risk-informed approach. The detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficient was misused for calculating the hypothetical number of cancer deaths by some non-radiation experts. It would not be possible to resolve this problem unless the ICRP addressed an alternative risk assessment to convey the meaning and associated uncertainty of the risk to an exposed population. A situation-based approach in addition to a risk-informed approach needs to be disseminated properly in order to select the level of protection that would be the best possible under the prevailing circumstances. A dialogue between radiation and other risk experts such as those dealing with chemical exposures is now needed.

23 keywords...

hide…