Global Energy Policy Research

If our planet is to be home to ten billion or more people, how we treat the environment will have to change markedly. Unless education is improved to the point that at least some in the electorate engage with the underlying science, society will not be aware of what needs to be done or how to do it. This is not just a matter of spreading exciting science through the media – we need to build basic education with confidence and based on serious numbers, in the same way we examine our personal finances and the economy.

The health and economic prosperity of the human race depend on applications of science in engineering and medicine, and these have involved the outer (or electronic) part of atoms. Use of the inner (or nuclear) part has raised public and political apprehension when used for energy production but less so when used for human health e.g. following the legacy of Marie Curie. The cause of this concern is historical and cultural with no basis in science.

Months of dramatic press reports of radioactive leakage from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in Japan have carried an apparently dire safety message; and industry, governments and the public worldwide have reacted that, at whatever cost, such an accident should never happen again. But, this is a mistake. Another accident like Fukushima, somewhere, sometime, should be avoided but would represent no global disaster.

Since the tsunami and ensuing reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant in March last year, the author has freely conducted, as a scientist in the discipline of radiological protection science, on-site radiological hygiene surveys in an autonomous format apart from any organization. In the beginning, the most feared short-term nuclear hazard (risk factor) was considered to be thyroid doses from radioactive iodine. Tests were completed in April in last year for 40 evacuees from Namie-machi plus residents from the city of Nihonmatsu and Iitate Village. The results of these 66 individuals confirmed low doses of 8 mSv or less, approximately one thousandth of the Chernobyl accident’s maximum thyroid radiation dose of 50 Sv.

Though it is possible to bring up the idea of individual responsibility, when one thinks of the negative influence that is spreading, as a member of the Japanese community, isn't it necessary to do something to help the society as a whole? However, to confront this, it is necessary to understand people's emotions.

The radiation problems that followed the Great East Japan Earthquake and the subsequent nuclear power plant disaster is truly an international problem. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), a non-governmental organization that advises governments and international institutions on regulatory matters on radiation protection, is keeping watch over the course of the nuclear disaster with great concern, and taken occasions to make necessary recommendations.

I live in the Inagi City, located on the west side of the 23-ward block shaping central Tokyo. Compared to before the Great East Japan Earthquake, my community has experienced virtually no change in its ambient air radiation dosage to date. Matching this fact with current scientific wisdom, I consider any risk originating from the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident to be quite small among the various circumstantial risks in raising children here.

Famous American website ”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” reports Low-level radiation risks.

On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake struck, causing an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This accident resulted in radioactive material resulting as product of fission in the nuclear reactor to be released into the atmosphere, contaminating a large area.

In the midst of the early March season of the plum blossoms traditionally held for prayers of good health of young girls, a rather shocking news story came out. According to the Kofu Regional Justice Bureau, a woman who evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture to Yamanashi Prefecture in June last year has filed for relief. Her child was refused entrance to a nursery in Yamanashi, a consequent victim of rumors associated with the nuclear power plant accident. As its reason, the nursery explained that the facility could not provide a response in the event that another parent expressed any anxiety over the nuclear incident. The woman was further requested to voluntarily abstain from letting her child play at a park near her evacuation site. The woman is now living outside of Yamanashi Prefecture as a result.

Japanese private volunteers learning from the experiences of ETHOS PROJECT , aims for reconstruction and protection from radioactivity with residents independence. This site introduce their activities.（Mainly in Japanese）

It is a report of reconstruction activities in Belarus from the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl

The Rehabilitations of Living Conditions after the Fukushima Accident

Renowned for his academic achievement and medical treatment work, Dr. Hakumei Oh sent GEPR a contributing article expressing his concern over the propagation of scientifically groundless information that is inciting a crisis atmosphere with respect to the current situation of radioactivity and health in Japan.

Since the release of radioactive materials from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, much information on radioactive substances is flying around in various media. At the same time, so-called experts are sending out scientific data or opinions based on such via television, newspapers, and their personal blogs and so on.

This web site shows information about radioactivity monitoring in Japan. It is highly unlikely that there will be any health damages with current level of radiation.

Human beings were powerless to halt the tsunami that took nearly 20,000 lives last March 11. But as the anniversary of that day approaches, the survivors may be facing another disaster—and this time, the Japanese people have the capacity to help.

Flooded by the large tsunami of 3.11, the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant lost its cooling function, which caused its nuclear fuel to melt partially. Subsequently, hydrogen explosions outside the containment vessels caused the release of mainly radioactive gases, which contaminated Fukushima Prefecture and neighboring regions.

This was published in 2008, and is a guideline for radioactivity protections for nuclear disasters.

This Article translated from Japanese. Russian National Academy of Science published the original report at 2011.(Russian) This report has not translated in English. GEPR hope to be used this content by all experts and people in the world. Mr. Keiichi Nakagawa, M.D, PhD, provided translated articles from Russian to Japanese to GEPR.

The Science Council of Japan published a discourse "For the Correct Understanding of Radiation Protection" (Japanese Only) in June 2011. The Science Council of Japan is an organization representing Japan's scientists. The discourse expresses a view that protection standards set by the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) is appropriate. Japanese government refers to this discourse when making policies for radiation protection.

We will provide soon from this report "Conclusion" in English. Original Articles GEPR introduce the report of the Chernobyl accident, which was published by the Russian government. Thanks to Dr. Keiichi Nakagawa, M.D., Ph.D., and Associate Professor, Tokyo University, who provided the this Japanese translation. GEPR Thank appreciate his kindly cooperation.

This article is a technical proposal, and an analysis of current agriculture in Japan. The report identifies important problems.

It surveys 203,904 workers between 2005-2009, and the average cumulative dose-exposure was 13.3 mSv　per capita. Health hazards are not observed among them in this research.

There are regions in the world with high-dose natural radiation. The annual radiations are, in Ramsar (Iran) 10.2mSv average, 260mSv maximum, Guarapari (Brazil) 5.5mSv average, 35mSv maximum , and Kerala (India) 3.8 mSv average, and 35mSv maximum. In Japan it is 0.46mSv average and 1.26mSv maximum. Health damage caused by radiation in these areas has not been observed.

Although nearly ten months have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake, the ensuing "radiation panic” seems to be growing more serious by the day, instead of calming down. We see a tearful academic professional speaking out on the dangers, and a physician just emphasizing safety. In short, we find the positions of experts divided, while the "common knowledge” of the vested interests enveloping the nation’s nuclear power plants has made many of people skeptical of the opinions of these experts. Meanwhile, I have haplessly been labeled the "official’s scientist,” despite having no connections to TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company) or the Japanese Government. But the question remains: Why is expert opinion so divided over the effects of radiation exposure?

This article is to verify the possibility of health damage caused by low-dose exposure, using the follow up data of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors from atomic bombs. With the exposure to 200 millisieverts (mSv) or more, the risks of leukemia and solid cancer increases. Meanwhile, the relationship is not clear between low-dose exposure to less than 200 mSv and its effect on human health. We will make a commentary about this article soon.

This WG advised a 20mSv limit for radiation exposure to the region affected by the accident in Fukushima. And another documents reported by this WG. "Summary" (only in Japanese) "Messages from overseas experts about radiation" (English and Japanese)

[SUMMARY] (by Editorial staffs) National radiation regulations are very restrictive in most countries, to response the fear of people. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended that national radiation regulations should require that any exposure be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). There are no reasonable reasons to adopt such regulations. People in Fukushima confront the highly mental pressure. It is evident that ALARA-based regulations should be reconsidered.

The carcinogenic risk induced by low doses of ionizing radiation is controversial. It cannot be assessed with epidemiologic methods alone because at low doses the data are imprecise and often conflicting. Since the 1970s, the radiation protection community has estimated the risk of low doses by means of extrapolation from the risk assessed at high doses, generally by using the linear no-threshold (LNT) model.

[SUMMARY] We made a quick review of academic articles that assess (ionizing) radiation effects on human health. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors’ life span study (LSS) has been the most renowned and comprehensive data source. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF,　Hiroshima), which has been conducting this study, applied a linear dose response model based on the "Linear No Threshold (LNT)” model, and it has been the biggest basis of the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP)’s recommendations. However, the effects of a low dose (less than 100mSv) are not statistically significant and there have been a lot of biological studies that advocate that low dose radiation risks are less than those induced by the LNT model.

The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Environmental Protection Agency Grant #X-826842-01, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant #NRC-04-98-061, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB5D1003. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was the most severe in the history of the nuclear power industry, causing a huge release of radionuclides over large areas of Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Now, 20 years later, UN Agencies and representatives of the three countries have reviewed the health, environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor that occurred on 26 April 1986 was the most serious accident ever to occur in the nuclear power industry. The reactor was destroyed in the accident and considerable amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment. The accident caused the deaths, within a few weeks, of 30 workers and radiation injuries to over a hundred others. In response, the authorities evacuated, in 1986, about 115,000 people from areas surrounding the reactor and subsequently relocated, after 1986, about 220,000 people from Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The accident caused serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected and vast economic losses over the entire region. Large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere.