Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident


Draft document: Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident
Submitted by 瀬川 嘉之 Yoshiyuki SEGAWA, Takagi School
Commenting as an individual

 本草案は段落(3)で、「委員会は福島原子力事故を受けて、大規模な原子力事故が発生した場合の人および環境の放射線防護システムの実施に関連する最初の一連の問題を特定した」「この刊行物は、事故後の10年間に得られた教訓とともに、これらの問題のいくつかに対処することを意図している」としている。しかし、すでに提出されているいくつかのコメントにあるように、ICRPは福島事故における現実の把握を決定的に欠いており、事実や評価の誤認もたくさんある。福島事故では緊急時でもその後の汚染対処でも放射線防護上重要な問題が明らかになっていない。したがって、このまま放射線防護に関する勧告をするのは適切ではない。

そもそも緊急時のPublication109および長期汚染のPublication111で適用しているとされる2007年勧告における3つの被ばく状況で特徴付けられた対処が福島事故では有効ではなかった。また、1977年勧告以来の正当化、最適化といった防護原則も現実適用において疑わしい。ICRPは福島事故に照らして基本勧告の検証と改訂をする必要がある。ICRPが本草案を一旦廃棄し、市民社会全体の参画による福島事故の実態把握と検証からやり直すことを提案する。

 

This draft states in paragraph (3) that " Following the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 in Japan, the Commission identified a first series of issues relevant to implementation of the system of radiological protection of people and the environment in the case of a large nuclear accident" " The present publication is intended to address some of these issues, together with the lessons learned during the decade following the accident". However, as mentioned in some comments which have already been submitted, ICRP has definitely failed to grasp the reality of the Fukushima accident, and has also made many misunderstandings in the facts and assessments. In the case of the Fukushima accident, whether in the emergency or in the subsequent contamination, important issues related to radiation protection have not been identified. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make recommendations on radiation protection as they are.

For the first place, responses or actions characterized by three exposure situations in the 2007 Recommendations, which are applied in Publication 111 for emergencies and Publication 109 for long-term contamination, was not effective in the Fukushima accident. Moreover, the protection principles of justification and optimization, which have been in place since the 1977 Recommendation, are also questionable in practical application. ICRP needs to review and revise its basic recommendations in light of the Fukushima accident. I propose that ICRP scrap this draft and start over with the assessment and verification of the Fukushima accident through the participation of the entire civil society.


Back