From the HPS President – Health Physics News November 2014

This is a reprint of an article published in HP News, an official publication of the Health Physics Society ( Neither the Health Physics Society nor the author of the article have any affiliation with Atomic Insights.

Barbara Hamrick, CHP, JD, HPS Fellow

HamrickAt 2:46 p.m. Japan Standard Time (JST) on 11 March 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake struck, and 41 minutes later it was followed by a massive tsunami. Together these events took the lives of over 15,000 people. Many thousands more were injured, lost family and friends, and lost homes and businesses. As one of our colleagues, Matt Moeller, recently said to me, discussions of the events following the tsunami at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (NPS) should always be prefaced by honoring those who lost their lives in one of the greatest natural disasters in recorded history. So, before I begin, I would like to ask you, the readers, to take a moment and reflect upon all those who lost their lives and loved ones that day.

Over the last couple of years I have had the honor and privilege of serving on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Lessons Learned From Fukushima.1 A prepublication report was made available at the NAS website in July 2014 (download a free PDF version of the report by clicking on the blue tab on the right side of the web page). The report provides detailed findings and recommendations relating to nuclear plant safety, risk assessment, and emergency response, among other areas.

My focus here is on emergency response. Emergency responders in Japan were already undertaking a massive response to the devastation caused by the earthquake and tsunami when at 7:03 p.m. JST on 11 March 2011 the prime minister gave public notice of the occurrence of a nuclear emergency situation. The electrical power and communications infrastructures were severely damaged, and there was extensive damage to buildings, roads, and highways. Despite all this turmoil, evacuations began within a 2-km radius of Fukushima Daiichi NPS at about 8:50 p.m. JST the evening of 11 March 2011.

At that time, there was no knowledge of actual or imminent release, because there was no electrical power to allow dissemination of real-time information on the state of the plants. By 16 March 2011 approximately 140,000 people within a 30-km radius of the plant had been evacuated. In Japan at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident (as it is known in the United States), there were no official limits (for either dose or activity) to make decisions with respect to resettlement of the evacuated areas.

As of March 2014, three years after the accident, over 80,000 evacuees still lived in shelters or other temporary locations. Notwithstanding the estimated 100–500 PBq of I-131 released to the environment as a result of the accident, the World Health Organization anticipates that disease incidence resulting from the releases is likely to remain below detectable levels.

Conversely, as reported by Evelyn Bromet in Health Physics (February 2014), follow-up studies of populations impacted by the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl show long-term negative impacts on mental well-being, and it is likely the same effects will appear in the population impacted by the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Also, in a study by S. M. Yasumura and colleagues in Journal of Epidemiology (2012), it was reported that there may have been as many as 109 excess deaths in the elderly institutionalized population attributable to the evacuations.

The NAS committee recommended that industry and emergency response organizations in the United States should “assess the balance of protective actions” taken in response to a nuclear emergency and specifically noted that attention should be given to special populations (e.g., the elderly); to long-term social, psychological, and economic impacts; and to the development of resettlement

The issue for our profession and our society is how one makes that balance. Perhaps the hypothetical risks of low-level radiation exposure should at some point give way to the manifest detriments of death by evacuation, depression, chronic anxiety, and economic losses that go beyond simple economic solutions—e.g., losing the family business. While it is integral to our policies on risk management in this country that individuals have the right to make their own decisions related to what is an acceptable risk and what is not, if the decision is not adequately informed by the facts, then the right to make it cannot be fully exercised.

We, as health physicists and radiation safety specialists, must contribute to the conversation on risk, including, and perhaps especially, by acknowledging the competing risks in any given circumstance. When our focus becomes too narrow, we diminish the value of our information. In reality, nothing is perfectly safe, and context is everything. If emergency response organizations undertake an effort to revisit the balance of protective actions, with full stakeholder input, the starting point should not be “is it safe,” but “what is safe enough” in the full context of competing risks.

1 Barbara Hamrick serves as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Committee on “Lessons Learned From the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants.” This commentary, however, should not necessarily be construed as the committee’s representative position.

Nuclear energy getting attention on No Agenda podcast

No Agenda, staring Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak bills itself as “The Best Podcast in the Universe.” It is the best, most entertaining, most thought-provoking, and most professionally-produced podcast I listen to, so I cannot argue with the frequently repeated claim. On Episode 656, recorded and released on September 28, Curry and Dvorak chatted […]

Read more »

Fukushima is not contaminating Pacific

By Les Corrice It is widely reported that hundreds of tons of highly contaminated Fukushima Daiichi groundwater pours into the Pacific Ocean every day. But, an objective look at the evidence tells a completely different story. It’s long-past time for the Tokyo Electric Company (Tepco) and the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) to broadcast the truth […]

Read more »

The Godzilla Movie and the Parallel with Fukushima

By Les Corrice I’ve seen every Godzilla movie ever made. I was an adolescent when the first one hit America, and I immediately fell in love with monster movies…a passion I have held to this day. Needless to say, when the latest Godzilla movie hit the big screen a few weeks ago, I was there. […]

Read more »

I want to join the Okuma Town Senior Brigade

An Atomic Insights reader (thanks Pete51) sent me a link to an amazing documentary that ran at the beginning of May on NHK, a Japanese network that is available now on some US cable systems. It tells the story of six retirees who now work daily to protect and preserve Okuma Town, which is the […]

Read more »

TMI Operators Took Actions They Were Trained to Take

Editor’s note. This post has a deep background story. The author, Mike Derivan, was the shift supervisor at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant (DBNPP) on September 24, 1977 when it experienced an event that started out almost exactly like the event at Three Mile Island on March 28, 1979. The event began with a […]

Read more »

Some lessons were learned from TMI. Others were not.

Three Mile Island from the air

On March 28, 1979, a little more than thirty-five years ago, a nuclear reactor located on an island in the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, suffered a partial core melt. On some levels, the accident that became known as TMI (Three Mile Island) was a wake-up call and an expensive learning opportunity for both the […]

Read more »

Critical Analysis of Mousseau Fukushima Presentation

no. of birds vs. radiation field from Mousseau

Editor’s Note: On March 11, 2013, Dr. Timothy Mousseau gave a presentation at the Helen Caldicott sponsored symposium on the Medical and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima. This analysis by Dr. Patrick Walden, was posted as a TRIUMF wiki soon after that event and is republished here with his permission. Dr. Walden is a retired nuclear […]

Read more »

Ambulance-Chasing Lawyer Taking Advantage of US Sailors

On most issues, I tend to side with the opinions expressed on Democracy Now. The journalists on that viewer/listener-supported show do real investigative journalism and often question the spin provided by commercial media. When it comes to nuclear energy, however, the show and its host are unreliable and biased. On March 19, 2014, Democracy Now […]

Read more »

WIPP Fire – Accident Investigation Report

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014, a salt-hauling truck in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) caught fire when flammable liquids (either diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid) in the engine compartment contacted hot surfaces, most likely the catalytic converter. Though the fire filled much of the underground with smoke, all 86 workers underground at the time […]

Read more »

Tracking down and squashing “5 lethal doses” myth

Several times during the past couple of days, I have encountered comments from a variety of people who have claimed that a document released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request proved that the accident at Fukushima resulted in 5 people receiving lethal radiation doses. That claim does not match the […]

Read more »