archive-org.com » ORG » G » GEPR.ORG

Total: 971

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • What Radiation Exposure Standards Mean : Global Energy Policy Research
    duty or no more than 100 mSv over 5 years for the latter emergencies such as the recent Fukushima incident are a separate matter The ICRP has also recommended 20 to 100 mSv annually in an emergency when radiation exposure cannot be controlled a target to be established between 1 to 20 mSv annually thereafter under some recovery of control and a return to ordinary conditions 1 mSv annually in the end All of these figures are merely protective policy established under the risk assessment the scientific basis not risk management that has not recognized any scientific impact below 100 mSv So the risk assessment remains unchanged but the behavior toward the risk risk management necessarily changes according to the circumstances There are additional concerns being voiced such as Why is the worker permitted an exposure level several ten times more than the general public and Isn t it odd that greater exposure is allowed in an emergency than under ordinary conditions for the same person Actually the recommended levels change because they inherently represent protection guidance risk management rather than scientific data risk assessment Scientific risk assessment of radiation and guidance risk management for protection based on such assessment should not be confused Certainly the annual limit of radiation exposure at 1 mSv under ICRP recommendation has been adopted by Japan s Laws Concerning the Prevention from Radiation Hazards due to Radioisotopes and Others in a similar fashion as many other countries But let us remember that the statutory annual limit of 1 mSv has no scientific basis it is simply a protective guideline with a sufficient perimeter of safety Otherwise if we become obsessed with applying a guideline under ordinary conditions to an emergency we will instead face additional health hazards such hazards that were quite prominent in Chernobyl The Linear No Threshold LNT model widely circulated throughout the general populace since the accident at Fukushima Dai Ichi Nuclear Power Plant relates to the protection policy that the ICRP has issued on the basis of its philosophy on safety and is not pointing at scientific data Yet the model has taken a combined form of risk assessment and risk management For instance the resulting graph shows risk increasing positively from the origin for a dose carcinogenesis correlation and is creating a lot of misunderstanding UNSCEAR reports scientific data and the ICRP recommends guidelines for risk management based on this data This relationship should be understood better We see experts debating over just the LNT model without recognizing this relationship A typical misapplication in the debate would be the remark An extra 2 millisieverts in dosage means an additional 200 people succumbing to cancer among the 2 million residents of Fukushima Prefecture In fact the ICRP itself clearly states that the LNT model should not be used in such calculations as follows The effective dose should be used neither to retroactively assess the risk of probabilistic impact for the radiation exposure of a specific individual nor to epidemiologically assess

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120109-01/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Facing the Facts About Nuclear Radiation ― Is it really so harmful? : Global Energy Policy Research
    or more Initially the public thought such traffic unacceptable and liable to frighten the horses but progressively the technology improved and accident rates fell Mankind learnt to accept the risks and reap the benefits even though traffic still gives rise to extreme danger just a few metres away in the path of an oncoming vehicle but people avoid these The caution that prevailed in the 19th century seems unthinkable today and nobody would suggest special measures for children such as preventing them travelling by road for example There is no reason to handle the safety of radiation and nuclear technology any differently It should be a matter of balancing risks against benefits in the light of experience but unfortunately that is not what has happened In 1951 the safety level was set at 3 millisievert per week 12 millisievert per month 3 Although the civil nuclear radiation safety record has been exceptionally good since 1951 the maximum level recommended for the general public has been reduced by a factor 150 in the name of ALARA Was this sensible In fact experience with radiation doses used for the benefit of personal health in clinical medicine suggests that the safety level might have been increased by a factor of 8 4 Quite coincidentally such a factor would be not dissimilar to the relaxation of traffic speeds Interestingly of the Nobel laureate husband and wife team who elucidated the science of radioactivity Pierre Curie died in a horse drawn traffic accident in Paris in 1906 whereas Marie Curie despite receiving an untold radiation dose throughout her working life lived on to 1934 but it is not scientific to draw conclusions from individual cases even of the most famous scientists Radiation used for diagnostic medical imaging incurs a dose of 5 10 millisievert to the patient whether provided by an internal or an external radiation source To receive the same dose from eating meat contaminated by radioactive Caesium at the level recently flagged by the Japanese Government 5 a patient would have to eat a tonne in a period of about four months This regulation is unreasonable Like the level used to guide the evacuation policy at Fukushima it derives from ALARA That policy is based on the equivalent of two whole body CT scans per year This is harmless as may be judged from the fact that a radiotherapy patient who while receiving a dose fatal to the target tumour also receives a dose equivalent to a thousand or more CT scans to tissue and organs within 10 20 cms 4 6 Such tissue and organs usually survive and indeed most people have a friend or relative who has been thankful for such treatment At Chernobyl such food and evacuation policies contributed to severe stress social and psychological with health consequences more widespread than any effect of the radiation itself 1 4 This unfortunate mistake has been repeated at Fukushima Although hard statistics are not yet available it was described to me personally

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120101-01/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • This Week's Update ― Is radiation so harmful for human health? : Global Energy Policy Research
    There are no biological studies that prove low dose radiation risks to be significant Japan faces a problem how to decontaminate the land from radiations and how to pay its costs We hope these articles would be useful for the debate and discussion on these issues News The New York Times reported the burden of Fukushima after the accident 7th December 2011 Japan s Huge Nuclear Cleanup Makes Returning Home a Goal BBC reported to handle the accident TEPCO will be raising the electricity price 22th December 2011 TEPCO to raise electricity prices for corporate clients Japanese Government announced an interim report of its Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations on 26th December 2011 This report tells us that the accident was caused by the tsunami after the earthquake At the same time politicians in former Prime Minister Kan s Cabinet TEPCO and Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency have exacerbated the situation by accumulation of errors Video Is Fukushima Dangerous Distorted images of Japan Morley Robertson Nobuo Ikeda What s happen What was the cause in Fukushima Morley Robertson writer and DJ talk about distorted images of Japan after Fukushima nuclear plant accident with Nobuo Ikeda 21st Century Energy Challenges At the ARPA E 2012 summit Bill Gates and U S Energy Secretary Steven Chu discussed the largest energy challenges of the 21st century in the U S and around the world A Web TV Program Is radiation really so harmful Considering risks of nuclear power generation Japanese only Agora Institute who operates GEPR broadcasted a Web TV program Is radiation really so harmful Considering risks of nuclear power generation on internet video streaming channel Niconico Live on January 19th in Japanese only Nobuo Ikeda President of Agora Incorporated and three experts on radiation risk

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120101-07/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Power Generation Costs and Economic Efficiency of Nuclear Power Generation : Global Energy Policy Research
    statements Private electric utility companies issue annual financial statements Japanese electric companies release their annual costs by major accounts such as operation maintenance administration and depreciation Some cost estimating studies have been done using these statements prior to the Fukushima accident one such being the research by Oshima 2 3 The following is a list of cost estimates A direct cost of power generation average of 41 years from 1970 to 2010 according to 3 and cost estimates including Policy Cost such as government grants during same period B Nuclear A 8 53 yen kWh B 10 25 yen kWh Thermal A 9 87 yen kWh B 9 91 yen kWh Hydro A 7 09 yen kWh B 7 19 yen kWh However further discussion will be needed to take these results as a basis of nuclear fade out policy International research on economic efficiency of nuclear power Academic studies on economic efficiency of nuclear power generation prior to the Fukushima accident had not been active perhaps due to limited access to an accurate public data In the United States new nuclear construction had not been done for over twenty years after the Three Mile Island accident However since the Energy Policy Act was enforced in 2005 electric utilities have had a chance to get the Federal government s loan guarantee programs and in some States initial construction costs are able to be recovered by consumer electricity bill Stanford University professor Geoffrey Rothwell who wrote what is considered a textbook of electricity economics 4 recently wrote The Role of Nuclear Power in Climate Change Mitigation in 5 He also wrote 6 with Professor Masahiko Aoki and made a recommendation of Japanese electric industry unbundling Mark Cooper who is a senior fellow of Vermont Law School wrote US new nuclear construction costs will be much higher than estimated in the beginning of Nuclear Renaissance so the government subsidy to nuclear plant construction forces unfair burden to tax and electricity bill payers 7 After the Fukushima accident he is criticizing the Price Anderson Law which allows utilities limited liabilities Stephen Thomas a professor of University of Greenwich in the UK wrote New nuclear construction will be impossible without government s large amount of guarantee or subsidies 9 After the Fukushima accident he was a co author of a report 10 Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago issued two reports in December 2011 11 12 One is an update of its 2004 report of nuclear power economics 11 and another is about business feasibility of small modular reactors SMRs in the US 12 References 1 Nuclear Energy Agency Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition OECD Publications 2010 2 大島堅一 有価証券報告書総覧に基づく発電単価の推計 高崎経済大学論集 第43巻第1号 2000年 Kenichi Oshima Power Generation Unit Price Cost Estimate based on Securities Report Overview Takasaki City University of Economics Treatises Vol 43 No 1 2000 3 大島堅一 原発のコスト 岩波新書 2011年 Kenichi Oshima Cost of Nuclear Power Iwanami Shinsho 2011 4 Geoffrey Rothwell and Tomas Gomez ed Electricity Economics

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120109-02/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Risks of Nuclear Power Generation and Reassessment of Its Economic Efficiency : Global Energy Policy Research
    by ionizing radiation p 6 BEIR VII 2006 This argument is questionable as Tubiana and others point out 1 The major foundation of its assertion is detailed data provided by follow up research into atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki However there is no statistical evidence suggesting a significant increase in the carcinogenic rate caused by exposure to radiation less than 200 mSv Sohei Kondo who has conducted surveys of atomic bomb survivors over half a century criticizes the fact that the LNT model which the ICRP adopted over 50 years ago against scientists opposition has still not been reviewed or remediated saying this is the biggest scientific scandal in the 20th century pp 77 78 Kondo 1998 Of course it would be impossible to determine that there is no risk of radiation exposure at levels of 100 mSv or less because there is no evidence of a significant increase in carcinogenic rates The National Cancer Center considers that the risk of radiation exposure at the level of 100 200 mSv would be a 1 08 times higher it is equivalent to those such as vegetable deficiency 1 06 times higher or passive smoking 1 02 1 03 times higher p 79 Hakozaki et al 2011 From a medical point of view there is no reason that the carcinogenic rate caused by radiation should be treated specially and it should match the attention paid to other carcinogenic factors such as smoking In other words the majority of the evacuations and jettisoning of agricultural products or decontamination stemming from the accident would have been unnecessary if most of the scientists theories had been taken into account Because as it is clear from the Figure 1 the places that have been or will be exposed to radiation over a level of 100 mSv are limited to an area very close to the nuclear power plant 3 Risk Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plant Accident Regarding the Chernobyl disaster the worst nuclear power plant accident ever the evaluations of its health effects vary According to the collaborative study Chernobyl s Legacy conducted by UN institutions from 2003 to 2005 47 nuclear power plant workers out of 134 died from acute radiation injury because they were exposed to a high level of radiation by being engaged in fire extinguishing and so on The increase in the death toll caused by radiation is estimated at about 4 000 of which 2 200 were nuclear power plant workers About 4 000 children who drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine 131 got thyroid cancer however the cure rate was over 99 IAEA 2005 On the other hand in the study report by the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR in 2008 it concluded that there is no symptom of the increase in the carcinogenic rate in the long term that is likely to stem from radiation exposure as a result of follow up research into 530 thousand nuclear workers who were involved in operations after the Chernobyl disaster According to this study the total death toll is 62 overall 47 nuclear power plant workers and 15 who died of thyroid cancer UNSCEAR 2008 What is widely agreed among many reports however is that the stress from the fear of radiation had a much greater impact than the damage caused by the disaster 350 000 people were compulsorily evacuated 200 000 lost their homes 1 250 committed suicide and between 100 000 and 200 000 sought an abortion They experienced severe psychological trauma and most of them suffered from mental disorders Thus the hurt caused by losing their homes and jobs due to disproportionate evacuation orders or forced replacement is much severer than that rendered by the radiation itself The Chernobyl disaster is the only severe accident one with 5 or more deaths in over 50 years since the nuclear power generation started According to the OECD Organization for Economic Co operation and Development approximately during the same period from 1969 to 2000 about 20 000 people respectively died from accidents in oil well drilling and coal mining throughout the world see Figure 2 Especially at coal mines deaths from accidents are unofficially estimated to be more than 10 000 annually in China alone In the field of hydroelectric power the accident at the Banqiao dam and the Shimantan Reservoir dam in China 1975 alone claimed the lives of 30 000 people On the contrary there has not been even one severe accident caused by nuclear power plant in the OECD countries Looked at worldwide the lowest death rate per production of electricity is by nuclear power generation if counting only the direct death toll of Chernobyl OECD 2010 Figure 2 Severe Accidents 5 or more deaths Occurring during the Years 1969 to 2000 Energy Type OECD Countries Non OECD Countries No of Accidents Deaths Deaths GWYr No of Accidents Deaths Deaths GWYr Coal 75 2 259 0 157 1 044 18 017 0 579 Oil 165 3 713 0 132 232 16 505 0 897 Natural gas 90 1 043 0 065 45 1 000 0 111 LPG 59 1 905 1 957 46 2 016 14 896 Water 1 14 0 003 10 29 924 10 285 Nuclear power 0 0 1 31 0 048 Total 390 8 934 1 480 72 324 In addition due to respiratory diseases caused by air pollution attributed to thermal power generation it is estimated that there are several hundred thousand deaths annually throughout the world This indicates that the effect on the environment resulting from using fossil fuels is far greater than that derived from nuclear power generation When such opportunistic costs are taken into consideration whether or not the risks of nuclear power generation are greater than those of thermal power generation is not obvious It is rather unlikely that there will be another unfortunate disaster in which an enormous earthquake of a scale experienced once in a thousand years striking a 40 year old nuclear reactor like that of the Fukushima Daiichi plant and that even the standby power supply would then stop Still given the fact that there were no deaths in that accident the possibility that fatal accidents will occur in OECD countries in the foreseeable future is very low The opinion exists that the costs of nuclear power generation are enormous because some people have anticipated that the compensation payments for the Fukushima disaster could total several trillion yen However such a huge compensatory amount for an accident that brought no deaths is excessive when compared with past disasters or accidents The worst accidents envisaged by the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage are those with death tolls of tens of thousands It would be wrong if TEPCO collapsed due to the loss of only property as would be the case in this disaster The Financial and Management Investigation Committee on TEPCO hereafter the TEPCO Investigative Committee organized by the Cabinet Office estimates that the amount of compensation to be paid by TEPCO in the 2 years from 2011 would be 4 5 trillion yen The breakdown is as follows Cabinet Office 2011 Compensation payouts until the normal situation has been restored 1 trillion and 24 6 billion yen in the initial year 897 2 billion yen in the subsequent and following years Expenses for evacuation and returning to home 113 9 billion yen Mental distress 127 6 billion yen Business loss 191 5 billion yen Damages associated with invalidity and other factors 264 9 billion yen Temporary damages 2 trillion and 618 4 billion yen Damages such as loss of assets 570 7 billion yen Damages in agriculture tourism manufacturing and other industries due to harmful rumors 1 trillion and 303 9 billion yen More than half of the costs in the initial year would be spent for damages caused by harmful rumors The breakdown is Damages in agriculture fisheries and food industries due to harmful rumors domestic 833 8 billion yen Damages in agriculture fisheries and food industries due to harmful rumors export 65 1 billion yen Damages in tourism due to harmful rumors 336 7 billion yen Damages in manufacturing service and other industries due to harmful rumors 68 4 billion yen It seems to be an overestimation especially the damages for agricultural products which are up to nearly 900 billion yen considering that the total shipments of agricultural products were 245 billion yen in Fukushima in 2010 It is true that consumers have been holding off on their purchases of agricultural products but it is inappropriate that losses of all products be covered by self reporting if they are from individually designated areas by the interim guidance as if it was rational for consumers or clients to refrain from buying and so on because of the fear of contamination by radioactive materials If full compensation is promised without considering whether the products are contaminated by radioactive materials or not farmers will have an incentive to demand money for all agricultural products including unpolluted ones just by discarding them This will not only be a waste of a vast amount of food but will expand the amount of indemnification to be made by TEPCO to more than necessary Compensation for agricultural products without setting any principles should be avoided It is imperative to conduct sampling tests on agricultural products to discover whether they contain radioactive materials and if they hold more than the provisional restriction values that they should be discarded but if lower then they should be on the market indicating that they are produced in Fukushima The decision whether or not to buy them should be one made by consumers Since it is possible that their prices might be lower than usual losses should be estimated considering this difference 4 Reassessment of Economic Efficiency of Nuclear Power Generation Overestimation of the risks of nuclear power generation would affect the evaluation of its economic efficiency The Technical Subcommittee on Nuclear Power Nuclear Fuel Cycle etc of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission when reviewing the cost of nuclear power generation assumed a severe accident to be priced at 5 trillion yen based on the calculation results arrived at by the TEPCO Investigative Committee They estimated that the unit price of electric generation would increase by 1 2 to 1 6 yen kWh if a severe accident occurred once in 500 reactor years Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan 2011 In addition the cost for back end activities such as reprocessing will be 1 to 2 yen kWh however it is also included in the current cost calculation 1 4 yen kWh therefore it is not so different However this assessment is questionable The biggest problem is that decontamination expenditure is not included It is stated that they will review and calculate those costs in the future but it should be noted that the degree of decontamination relies much upon dose criteria For instance for decontamination of cadmium 800 billion yen in total was spent excavating soil of 1 600 hectares for 30 years the cost was 500 million yen per hectare If the same decontamination approach is to be taken by following the policy provided by the Ministry of the Environment it means that all the areas with more than additional annual doses of 1 mSv per year effective doses 2 5 mSv per year which will be over 10 thousand square kilometers will have to be decontaminated and the price is estimated to be 500 trillion yen No doubt that a less expensive approach such as decontaminating certain areas and places like schools will be taken in practice because taking the approach as above is impossible in reality Conducting decontamination according to the dose criteria of 1 to 2 5 mSv levels which can be normally observed would cause a vast waste of resources such as problems of dumping sites for the removed soil Some municipalities have already started ad hoc decontamination pressured by some of the residents If the government overlooked their actions the cost would be demanded to the government resulting in an enormous fiscal burden The government should immediately decide on a uniform standard If the threshold is set to 100 mSv the cost of compensations and decontamination would be greatly lowered As shown in Figure 1 the area with a dose level over 100 mSv per year is a mountainous one within a ten kilometer radius to the northwest of the nuclear power plant Therefore it would be more realistic for TEPCO to buy up the area than to conduct decontamination If they bought 10 square kilometers of the land excepting the mountainous area for example the amount paid for acquisition would be 200 billion yen on the basis of the average land price in Fukushima 20 thousand yen per 1 square meter Even with compensation not recompensing harmful rumors collectively but as mentioned previously by letting the market evaluate the price of compensation for agricultural products would be less than half the estimate Temporary losses could be less than 1 trillion yen if an independent committee strictly assessed property losses Even if TEPCO bore the actual expenses of evacuation etc it should be possible to make the compensation for residences less than 2 trillion yen in the initial year if houses in which residents can no longer live in are bought up and no decontamination is conducted According to the report by the TEPCO Investigative Committee the net assets of TEPCO are excess assets of 1 trillion and 292 2 billion yen but the amount of compensation is not reflected On the basis that Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund will issue government compensation bonds to TEPCO it is assumed that the revenue recognition income will be the same amount therefore the compensation cost is not reflected in the consolidated net assets But the bonds will eventually become TEPCO s debts 3 6 trillion yen in the initial year and 900 billion yen per year afterward as compensation payments the existence of the company will be threatened If the compensation can be reduced by more than half management reconstruction would become more realistic through means such as asset disposition and management rationalization It would be desirable if appropriate procedures were taken through legal liquidation not by governmental discretion If the amount of compensation was reduced to less than 2 trillion yen the additional costs estimated by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan could be around 0 7 yen kWh Also if decontamination is conducted only on land whose dose levels are over 100 mSv its costs would be reduced to 200 billion yen as described above The government has currently budgeted 1 trillion and 200 billion yen for decontamination which seems excessive The increase in costs resulting from risks caused by the disaster would be 1 yen kWh or less even if this budget is added and keeping the initial year s compensation amount to less than 2 trillion yen The probability of the occurrence of a severe accident once in 500 reactor years which is equivalent to once in 10 years for all 54 nuclear reactors in Japan is far surpassing the IAEA criterion of once in 100 000 reactor years and therefore this is the unrealistic maximum value 2 The Japan Atomic Energy Commission has not yet announced the calculation result of power generation costs According to the approximate calculation in 2004 by the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan hereafter FEPC however the costs of nuclear power generation would be 5 3 yen kWh if they reprocessed spent nuclear fuel and 4 6 yen kWh without reprocessing If 1 yen kWh is added as the cost for this accident the power generation costs would rise to 6 3 yen kWh and 5 6 yen kWh respectively In regard to power generation costs of other means the calculation made in the same year as above are as shown below and nuclear power seems an inexpensive energy source along with coal or LNG Agency for Natural Resources and Energy 2004 Coal fired thermal power 5 7 yen kWh LNG fired thermal power 6 2 yen kWh Oil fired thermal power 10 7 yen kWh Hydro power 11 9 yen kWh There are many criticisms against this evaluation because with different preconditions merits and demerits will change There are many other estimation reports but here let us take a look at the one by Kenichi Oshima 2010 based on financial reports submitted by power companies He states that costs of nuclear power generation are higher than those of thermal power generation His calculation however adds all the costs including past subsidies in the construction cost as well as combining those of pumped storage power generation If the unit price of electricity generation the unit price of development costs for technological development and so on and the unit price of location subsidies generated from three major acts Act on the Development of Areas Adjacent to Electric Power Generating Facilities Act on Special Accounts for Electric Power Development Acceleration Measures and Act of Promotion of Power Resources Development Tax are summed up and then averaged according to different generation sources the cost of nuclear power generation would still be cheaper than that of thermal power generation by adopting his method of calculations 3 The results are as follows Nuclear power generation 8 93 yen kWh Thermal power generation 9 02 yen kWh Hydro power generation 7 52 yen kWh The subsidies included in the estimated costs here for nuclear power generation have been drastically reduced lately and it is expected that costs of nuclear power generation would become much lower in the future Although Oshima brings the past costs into question since what should be concerned when comparing for economic efficiency are those for similar purposes in the future it is meaningless to compare such costs with those of large scale hydro power generation because building new hydro power plants is virtually

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120101-02/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Health Effects of Radiation on Human Health ― a review of academic articles : Global Energy Policy Research
    3 The atomic bomb survivors life span study LSS is the authoritative radiation effect epidemiological study in the world Individual doses were estimated by computer simulation and about 120 000 survivors medical histories have been accurately traced The ICRP s recommendations have been primarily based on the LSS study results This LSS data is open to thepublic on the RERF website Epidemiological studies of nuclear plant workers have been conducted widely in several countries including Japan 4 5 The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986 caused the world s widest radioactive pollution Shibata 3 described the epidemiological study results of areas nearby Chernobyl and says that thyroid carcinoma risks from drinking milk have been high but there has been no significant leukemia increase and the biggest effects on health were mental ones NO COMPLETE EVIDENSE ABOUT LNT HYPOTHESIS It has been revealed that the result of Dr Muller s research which is the basis of the LNT model is valid only for cells without a DNA repair function There are some recent researches denying this LNT model 6 The LNT is just a hypothesis if it does not have any biological grounds Most epidemiological research shows that there is no significant cancer risk increase under 100mSv exposure However scientists tend to open only statistically significant results Many studies therefore apply regression lines and show that the slopes of excess relative risks are significantly greater than zero That does not mean that cancer risks are significantly greater than zero in low dose areas It is a limitation of epidemiology which it cannot claim that low dose radiation is not harmful because researchers cannot control other factors that are assumed as error terms even with such LSS data with many samples A recent debate about LNT model for a low dose less than 100mSv was made in the Radiation Research journal between 2007 and 2008 Tubiana et al 8 criticized the 2007 US BEIR IV report 7 which aligned with LNT for its lack of biological basis On the contrary Brenner et al 9 stated that it was too early to make a conclusion Then again Tubiana and other researchers wrote comments that were against Brenner s note 10 11 12 13 Tubiana et al 14 made a comprehensive review of radiation effect studies and says that the LNT model is inconsistent with recent research results Another important thing we have to take into account is the dose rate effect which means that the more slowly we are irradiated the less effects we will have from the irradiation The ICRP adopts 2 as a coefficient of dose and dose rate effectiveness factor DDREF However the amount of effect reduction is still being researched and discussed All articles referred to here were written before the Fukushima accident References 1 柴田義貞 放射線の人体影響 原爆被爆とチェルノブイリ事故 学校保健研究 Vol 42 2000年 Yoshisada Shibata Effects of Radiation on Human Atomic Bomb Radiation Exposure and Chernobyl Accident The Japanese Association of School Health vol 42 2000 2 Preston DL

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120101-06/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Final chapter "Conclusions" of the Russian government report "25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident: Summary and Overview of its Impact and Overcoming its Aftereffects, 1986-2011" : Global Energy Policy Research
    disruption of normal life restrictions on business activities related to the accident and material losses inflicted far more damage to people Now one can justly assert that one of the main lessons of the Chernobyl accident is the underestimation of the importance of social and psychological factors Experience has shown that their role is crucial for radiation contamination of any scale Decisions of management should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the long term socioeconomic consequences of decisions including analysis of their impact on social psychology A crisis in the development of sociopolitical situation is possible even in conditions of rapid objective improvement of the radiation situation Effective and scientifically sound measures to eliminate the effects of radiation accidents can be implemented only with trust in government and with consistent and fair information policies Today s societal obligation to the majority of people affected by the accident is for the state to make restitution for the errors up until now That is why social security must remain a priority for state Chernobyl programs for the time being At the same time on the state level it is necessary to develop evidence based strategies of social protection for various categories of citizens that were mobilized by the state to perform work that involves health risks The basis of this strategy should be the long term interests of not only the individual but also society as a whole The development and implementation of state policy in this area should take into account the following principles and criteria taking into account the reasonable requirements of existing regulations and practices already carried out Providing health protection for affected citizens with favorable environmental conditions and work in the affected areas are a priority of state policy in overcoming the consequences of the Chernobyl accident As it is clear in the articles 7 41 and 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation when an emergency occurs the main task is to protect the populace Targeting and coordinating the activities of public authorities local self government organizations and citizens in accordance with their rights powers and duties in this area Planning and implementation of measures to overcome the consequences of the Chernobyl accident the definition of their scope and content takes into account the level of socioeconomic impacts of reasonable sufficiency and efficient use of financial resources Health protection and rehabilitation of citizens included in the National Register It is these categories of people requiring medical monitoring to detect diseases at an early stage and the timely provision of preventive curative and rehabilitative health care The main criterion for deciding on appropriate actions to overcome the consequences of the Chernobyl accident is the average annual effective dose to the population and for areas where it is below the norms the cumulative dose of the population The criteria for the organization of activities in agriculture and radiation monitoring of food raw materials and food safety standards are for quality and safety of food raw materials and

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120123-02-1/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • From“25 Years from the Chernobyl Accident: Summary and Overview of its Impact and Overcoming the After-effect, 1986-2011", the last chapter "Conclusion" : Global Energy Policy Research
    which 28 died immediately By end of 2010 further 22 people died Other death from acute radiation injury has not been confirmed The Russian government s analysis of the situation after 25 years from the accident reveals compared with radioactive element economic and social impacts due to the Chernobyl accident brought much more serious damage such as psychological stress disruption of familiar lifestyles limitations of economic activities and material losses These analyses would be helpful in dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident The radiation dose in Fukushima is lower and potentials of health hazards are small Nevertheless due to social disruption there are growing damages caused by the accident It is a similar situation to the Chernobyl accident Japanese should deal with accidents calmly and should not repeat the mistakes of Chernobyl Video Is Fukushima Dangerous Distorted images of Japan Morley Robertson Nobuo Ikeda What s happen What was the cause in Fukushima Morley Robertson writer and DJ talk about distorted images of Japan after Fukushima nuclear plant accident with Nobuo Ikeda 21st Century Energy Challenges At the ARPA E 2012 summit Bill Gates and U S Energy Secretary Steven Chu discussed the largest energy challenges of the 21st century in the U S and around the world A Web TV Program Is radiation really so harmful Considering risks of nuclear power generation Japanese only Agora Institute who operates GEPR broadcasted a Web TV program Is radiation really so harmful Considering risks of nuclear power generation on internet video streaming channel Niconico Live on January 19th in Japanese only Nobuo Ikeda President of Agora Incorporated and three experts on radiation risk analysis and energy policy discussed about the situations after Fukushima nuclear accident Their opinions were consistent that potentiality of health damage caused by the Fukushima accident is very small

    Original URL path: http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120123-02/ (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive



  •