EIP Pau 2011Socialand EthicalConsequencesofChernobyl–Deborah Oughton

(1)

2111 2005

RISK ASSESSMENT AT UMB

Deborah Oughton

Centre of Environmental Radioactivity, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

&

University of Oslo’s Ethics Programme

(2)

EIP Pau 2011

Overview

•

Ecological Risk Assessment

•

Protection of non-human species from ionising radiation

•

Production of data for Species Sensitivity Distribution

•

Emergency Preparedness and Remediation

•

Societal Consequences of Chernobyl and Fukushima

•

Risk Perception

•

ELSA – Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects

•

Stakeholder and communication

•

ICRP, IAEA, IUR activities

Socialand EthicalConsequencesofChernobyl–Deborah Oughton

(3)

EIP Pau 2011

International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP):

•

Independent organisation in existence since 1927

•

Initially provided guidance on medical uses of radiation

•

Provides Recommendations and Advice on Radiological Protection, Emergency Prepardeness and Nuclear safety

www.icrp.org

Deborah Oughton: MINA410 EnvironmentalRadiobiology, 2013

(4)

EIP Pau 2011

ICRP Three Stage Philosophy for Radiological Protection

• The Principle of Justification:

• Any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm.

• The Principle of Optimisation of Protection:

• The likelihood of incurring exposure, the number of people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual doses should all be kept as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA), taking into account economic and societal factors.

• The Principle of Application of Dose Limits:

• The total dose to any individual from regulated sources in planned exposure situations other than medical exposure of patients should not exceed the appropriate limits specified by the Commission.

ICRP 103 (2007)

(5)

EIP Pau 2011

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

“ If man is adequately protected then other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected” [ICRP, 1977],

(6)

EIP Pau 2011

Lethal dose to different species from acute radiation doses

Figure 3.1 Comparative radiosensitivity of different organisms demonstrated as the acute lethal dose ranges (reproduced from UNSCEAR 1996).

Reproduction 20-100x more sensitive

10⁰ 10¹ 10² 10³ 10⁴

Mammals Birds

Higher plants Fishes

Amphibians Reptiles

Crustaceans

Insects

Mosses, lichens, algae Bacteria Protozoa Molluscs

Viruses

Acute lethal dose (Gy)

(7)

EIP Pau 2011

Papers from Pentreath and Woodhead (1998- )

Report from International Union of Radioecologists (IUR) 2000 IAEA Report on ethical

considerations (2003) Issues:

Situations where humans are absent (e.g., disposal)

Not compatible with management of other environmental stressors Needs to be demonstrated

Background: Towards a Framework for

Radiological Protection of Non-Human Species

EU 6th-7th Framework Project s: FASSET, ERICA, PROTECT, STAR, COMET www.erica-project.org ; www.star-radioecology.org

(8)

EIP Pau 2011

 Deer

 Rat

 Bee

 Earthworm

 Pine tree

 Grass

 Duck

 Frog

 Trout

 Flat fish

 Crab

 Macroalga

Reference organisms:

ICRP « Reference Animals and Plants »

 Typical, accessible, documented, various sizes and life cycles, measurable dose-effect

 Generic virtual entities to serve as points of comparison to assess exposure and effects

Deborah Oughton: ERR Stockhom2010

(9)

EIP Pau 2011 Deborah Oughton: MINA410 EnvironmentalRadiobiology, 2013

Emerging consensus that radiation protection needs to address the effects of ionising radiation on non-human species (IUR, 2001)

Oughton and Strand: Oslo Consensus Conference, 2001

EU 6th-7th Framework Projects: FASSET, ERICA, PROTECT, STAR, COMET www.erica-project.org ; www.star-radioecology.org

ICRP 208 (2007) Environmental Protection - the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants www.icrp.org

IAEA Safety Standards www.iaea.org

Background: Towards a Framework for

Radiological Protection of Non-Human Species

(10)

EIP Pau 2011 FM310 Risk Assessment and Mangement

10 Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) – ERICA

UMB in ERICA/PROTECT:

• Responsible for stakeholder consultation

• Focused experiments for SSD data – earthworm irradiation

(11)

EIP Pau 2011 FM310 Risk Assessment and Mangement

11 Species Sensitivity Distribution

SF PNEC  HC

⁵

5%0 20 40 60 80 100

1 10 100 1000 10000

Dose (Gy)

or Dose Rate (µGy/h)

HD(R)_5%

PAF (% of Affected Species)

SSD Method SF from 1 to 5

EU TGD, 2004, ERICA, D5 (2006)

SF R R HD

PNED ( )⁵ )

( 

(12)

EIP Pau 2011

Sp = weighted; TW: none

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 Dose Rate (µGy/h)

Best-Estimate Centile 5% Centile 95%

Vertebrates Plants Invertebrates

R² = 0.9513 KSpvalue = 0.500

wm.lg = 3.71 wsd.lg = 1.09

Log Normal – Generic Ecosystem (SW+FW+TER)

Cumulative weightedprobability

HDR₅= 81.8 µGy/h CI_95%= [23.8-336] µGy/h Number of data = 24 Number of species = 18 Sp = weighted; TW: none

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 Dose Rate (µGy/h)

Best-Estimate Centile 5% Centile 95%

Vertebrates Plants Invertebrates

R² = 0.9513 KSpvalue = 0.500

wm.lg = 3.71 wsd.lg = 1.09

Log Normal – Generic Ecosystem (SW+FW+TER)

Cumulative weightedprobability

HDR₅= 81.8 µGy/h CI_95%= [23.8-336] µGy/h Number of data = 24

Number of species = 18 SF = 5 PNEDR 10 µGy/h

Example From ERICA and PROTECT Calculations (Garnier- Laplace et al, 2006, 2008)

Only 24 papers satisfied the EU SSD data quality criteria for

ecological tests, out of thousands of database entries on radiation effects studies on non- humans

(13)

EIP Pau 2011 13

Earthworm Reproduction Study

•

Irradiation (0.1 – 43 mGy/hr), 13 weeks

•

There was no radiation induced effect on

•

Viability, cocoon production rate, Sexual maturation rate in the F1 generation

•

Significant effects on cocoon hatchability at 11 mGy/hr but only after 9-3 weeks irradiation

0% 0%

0 20 40 60 80 100

1-4 5-8 9-13

Weeks of exposure

% Hatchability

Control 0.18 mGy/h 1.7 mGy/h 4.2 mGy/h 11 mGy/h 43 mGy/h

Hatchability of F0 cocoons

Hertel-Aas et al., Radiation Research, 2007

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Control 0.19 mGy/h 1.7 mGy/h 4 mGy/h 11 mGy/h 43 mGy/h

# F1 hatchlings per adult F0

**

*

**

• Reduction in the total number of offspring produced by each F0

(14)

EIP Pau 2011 14

Earthworm Reproduction Study

•

Irradiation (0.1 – 43 mGy/hr), 13 weeks

•

There was no radiation induced effect on

•

Viability, cocoon production rate, Sexual maturation rate in the F1 generation

•

Significant effects on cocoon hatchability

0% 0%

0 20 40 60 80 100

1-4 5-8 9-13

Weeks of exposure

% Hatchability

Control 0.18 mGy/h 1.7 mGy/h 4.2 mGy/h 11 mGy/h 43 mGy/h

Hatchability of F0 cocoons

Hertel-Aas et al., Radiation Research, 2007

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Control 0.19 mGy/h 1.7 mGy/h 4 mGy/h 11 mGy/h 43 mGy/h

# F1 hatchlings per adult F0

**

*

**

• Reduction in the total number of offspring produced by each F0

• Experiments were rigorously designed to meet the criteria for inclusion in SSD for ecological risk assessment

• The resulting data is referred to in all radiation wildlife reviews (ICRP, UNSCEAR, IAEA, etc,..)

• The study was followed up with investigations on

on adaptation, persistence, biomarker analysis

(15)

EIP Pau 2011

Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation

By Stephen Mulvey BBC News

« It contains some of the most contaminated land in the world, yet it has

become a haven for wildlife - a nature reserve in all but name. »

20 April 2006

Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'

By Mark Kinver

Science and nature reporter BBC News

«

The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has

created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.

»

14 August 2007

What is Harm? (Slide courtesy of Tom Hinton)

EthicalAspects. Article31, Luxembourg, 2012 Deborah Oughton

(16)

EIP Pau 2011

Ecosystem Approaches – Human – Environment – Economic Interactions

Hartig and Valentine 1989

What is the economic cost of marine

contamination after Fukushima

• Avoided fishing subsidies?

• Ecosystem protection?

• Loss of livelihood?

Shunsuke Managi, Tokohu University

http://www.whoi.edu/website/fukush ima-symposium/overview

Deborah Oughton: DoReMiMunich, 2013

(17)

EIP Pau 2011

Emergency Preparedness and Accident Remediations

(18)

EIP Pau 2011

Chernobyl lessons

•

Social, economic, political, ethical aspects of the accident and remediation actions

•

Stigma

•

Demographic changes in communities

•

Risk perception (risk aversion not always due to misunderstanding of probabilities)

•

Social and Self-help countermeasures

•

Media and communication

•

…

18

bbcnews

Bay, I and Oughton, D.H. 2005.

(19)

EIP Pau 2011 Social and EthicalIssues–Deborah Oughton

Social Costs Of the Accident

•

Loss of Agricultural Land – 800,000 hectares of agricultural land; 700,000 hectares of forest

•

Relocation

•

282 rural settlements relocated in Belarus

•

Integration problems

•

Stigma

•

Rural Breakdown

•

43 % migration from the Gomel region between 1986 and 2000

•

Shortage of doctors and teachers

UNDP 2002, The Human Consequences

of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident bbcnews.com

(20)

Direct and Indirect Health Effects

•

” Secondary, Stress and Social effects

•

Increased smoking, alcohol abuse, depression, anaemia, AIDs

•

Side–effects of thyroid treatment

•

Pregnancy – Communication Challenges

•

Increased voluntary abortion in Italy and Denmark

(Knudsen, 1991; Spinelli and Osbourne, 1991 )

Registered "Illnesses" in Ukraine per 10,000

Inhabitants

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

Petryna, 2002

Gerd Ludwig, National Geographic

(21)

Psychological Heath Effects

•

“The social and psychological consequences of Chernobyl far outweigh any direct heath

effects from radiation

exposure” (IAEA, 1991, + +)

•

The enormous social and

economic costs raise questions about the ethical justification of dose reduction measures

•

Claims that problems

grounded in the “irrational”

perception of radiation risks in the public

(22)

EIP Pau 2011

“Expert” frustration

…the waste of monetary and manpower resources due to an irrational phobia, in particular of “artificial”

radiation…may be seen as one of the many

meaningless luxuries which only a few countries are able to afford..the reasons for this unbalanced

perception reflects the basic psychological problems of less educated persons (Becker 1996)

Social and EthicalIssues–Deborah Oughton

(23)

Factors Influencing Radiation Risk Perception

•

Benefit to self

•

Personal control

•

Time – delay in negative effects

•

Effects in children (Responsibility)

All have ethical, psychological and physiological relevance

Management and remediation strategies need to address these issues

(24)

EIP Pau 2011

STRATEGY, EURANOS and NERIS EU Pprojects

• STRATEGY project (Sustainable Restoration and Long-Term Management of Contaminated Rural, Urban and Industrial Ecosystems). Financed under the EU 5^th Framework Program.

See www.strategy-eu.org.uk.

• Multi-disciplinary project assessing countermeasure strategies on a number of evaluation criteria, including technical and

economic factors, as well as practicality and acceptability, socio- ethical aspects, environmental consequences and indirect side- effect costs (Howard et al., 2002).

• Outputs: countermeasure templates, handbooks; stakeholder consultation (www.neris-eu.com)

• Social and Ethical Evaluation; environmental and indirect effects

(25)

EIP Pau 2011

«Countermeasure» Datasheet and Handbook History

•

IAEA (1994). Guidelines for Agricultural countermeasures following an accidental release of radionuclides. Technical report series 363. Vienna, IAEA. ISBN 92-0-100894-5.

•

NKS (Nordic Reactor Safety Group): Countermeasure Datasheets (K. Andersson et al, 2000, 2002)

•

IUR: Food and Agricultural Countermeasures - EC supported project (G. Voigt et al., 2000). Included Social aspects

•

STRATEGY (2000-2004): Countermeasure templates (Howard et al., 2004).

•

EURANOS: Generic handbooks and datasheets

•

NERIS: National adaption

•

+ numerous national initiatives

(26)

EIP Pau 2011

Version 1, 2006; Version 2, 2009

(27)

Name of countermeasure Objective

Other Benefits

Countermeasure description Target

Targeted radionuclides Scale of application Contamination pathway Exposure pathway Time of application

Constraints: In this section, various types of restrictions on countermeasure application are stated.

 Legal constraints

 Social constraints

 Environmental constraints

 Communication constraints

Effectiveness: In this section, the effectiveness of the method in eliminating the targeted contamination is estimated together with factors that may influence this value.

 Countermeasure effectiveness

 Factors influencing effectiveness of procedure (Technical)

 Factors influencing effectiveness of procedure (social)

Feasibility: This section describes what is required to carry out the countermeasure.

 Required specific equipment

 Required ancillary equipment

 Required utilities and infrastructure

 Required consumables

 Required skills

 Required safety precautions

 Other limitations

101 templates for urban,

rural, agricultural, forest, and social countermeasures

Andersson et al, 2002 (urban) Nisbet et al. 2003 (agricultl.) Kis et al., 2002 (averted dose) Hunt and Wynne, 2002

(social impact)

Alverez & Gil, 2003 (economic evaluation) Thørring & Liland, 2003 (cost-effectiveness)

Oughton, Bay, Forsberg, 2003 (socio-ethical aspects)

STRATEGY

(28)

W aste: Some countermeasures create waste, which may need special handling. This section is aimed at providing an overview of the waste problem.

 Amount and type

 Possible transport, treatment and storage routes.

Doses: This section describes how the

countermeasure leads to changes in various dose contributions.

 Averted dose

 Additional dose

 Factors influencing averted dose

Intervention Costs: This section describes the costs that may be foreseen in direct connection with the intervention.

 Equipment

 Consumables

 Operator time

 Factors influencing costs

 Communication costs

 Compensation costs

 W aste cost

Side-effect evaluation: This section provides descriptions of the indirect effects that the countermeasure application may have on the area.

 Ethical considerations

 Environmental impact

 Agricultural impact

 Social impact

 Other side effects Practical experience

(29)

EIP Pau 2011

Discussion Excercise: Post Accident Milk disposal problem

•

Millions of liters of

contaminated milk (Cs-137 half-life 30 years and I-131 half-life 8 days) with greater than permitted levels of 300 Bq/l under continuous

production

•

No possiblility of storage

•

Can’t stop lactation

•

What to do??

(30)

EIP Pau 2011

Stakeholder evaluation of management strategies

Contaminated Milk Acceptable Disposal

• Discharge to Sea UK

• Land Spread Finland/

Belgium

• Containment France

• Not acceptable: processing, mixing with non-contamminated milk

Nisbet et al., 2002

(31)

EIP Pau 2011

Fukushima

Socialand EthicalIssues–Deborah Oughton

(32)

EIP Pau 2011

Fukushima Challenges:

•

Tens of thousands died in the Fukushima earthquake, nearly half a million were made homeless, yet since the accident most of the Western media focus was on the nuclear incident

•

Foreign governments advised evacuation of citizens from a greater area than the Japanese

•

Reports of iodine tablets selling out in Europe

•

More than 25 embassies closed or relocated from Tokyo

32

See also Oughton and Howard 2012. The Social and Ethical Challenges of Radiation Risk Management, Ethics, Policy and Environment,

(33)

EIP Pau 2011

Consumer goods

•

More than 50 countries introduced restrictions on food imports – even though levels in foodstuffs were well below permitted limits

•

Total value of agricultural products imported to the EU from Japan: €187 million for agricultural products and

€18 million for fishery products.

•

In 2010, China was the fourth-largest importer of

Japanese farm and fishery products after Hong Kong, the United States and Taiwan, buying items worth about

¥55.5 billion.

33

“

Radioactivity: All cars from

Japan to be tested for radiation”

Headline

www.economicsnewspaper.com

• Consumer preception can have a big economic impact

• Remediation previously focused on food-chain exposures.

• Fukushima highlighted importance of other consumer goods

(34)

EIP Pau 2011

ICRP Fukushima Dialogues (Nov 2011 – )

(35)

EIP Pau 2011

Issues and concerns of Japanese population

http://ethos-fukushima.blogspot.de/p/icrp-dialogue.html

•

Radiation dose and effects

•

When will life return to normal?

•

Will I be able to farm my land again?

•

Will I ever be able to move home?

•

Societal infrastruture (schools, hospitals, transportation, shops, ..)

•

Will my children be able to play outside, walk to school, …

•

Will my children be able to find a partner, experience discrimination just because they come from Fukushima

Seafood Policy and Safety

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=167889&sectionid=1000

(36)

EIP Pau 2011

ELSA

• Ethical

• Legal

• Social

• Aspects (of technology)

Nanoteknologier og nye materialer: Helse, miljø, etikk og samfunn NFR Rapport 2005

NanoSkolen(Deborah Oughton) Oslo, 2013

ELSA needs to be fully

integrated in Risk Assessment.

It is not an «add-on» at the end

of a project

(37)

EIP Pau 2011

Risk and Uncertainty as a Research Ethics Challange

• Article 10 and 11 of the NENT Research Ethics Guidelines

• Part I: Uncertainty Management

• Traditional categorisation of uncertainties

• Developments in Categorisation and Mapping of Uncertainties

• Dealing with qualitative aspects (considerations of quality)

• Part II: Precautionary Governance of Science and Technology

UncAP Bergen Deborah Oughton

Strand and Oughton 2009 (www.etikkom.no)

(38)

EIP Pau 2011

Sources and Dimensions of Uncertainty

Technical or Numerical Uncertainty

• Inexactness

Model and Conceptual Uncertainty

• Unreliability

Epistemological Uncertainty

• Knowledge gaps/ignorance/unknown Social and Ethical Uncertainty

• Acceptance, interpretation, economic costs

Walker et al, 2004; Oughton, 2004 , van der Sjuis, 2006;

Described by statistics, addressed in risk assessment

and management through sensitivity analysis,

probabilistic risk assessment, etc

UncAP Bergen Deborah Oughton

(39)

EIP Pau 2011 MNSES9100 Risk –Deborah Oughton

Ranking Risks: Risk of death (Wilson and Crouch, 2001)

Action Average annual risk per

100 000 ”active persons”

Average annual deaths

Scuba diving 42 126

Hunting 3 600

Skiing 12 41

Tilting soda machines 2.5 5

Being hit by meteorite 0.04 2

Chloroform in drinking water*

0.07 ?

*legal limit

(40)

EIP Pau 2011 MNSES9100 Risk –Deborah Oughton

Lifestyle Risks (Wilson and Crough, 2001)

Action/state of affairs Annual per Capita Risk per 100,000

Mountaineering 60-600

Cigarette smoking 300

Motor vehicle accident 15

Home accidents 11

Potassium 40 in body 1

Drinking 140 pints of beer a year 0.2

Living near a nuclear power plant 0.1

(41)

EIP Pau 2011

Summary: Ongoing projects

•

EU NERIS and PREPARE

• Emergency preparedness: focus on

communication and ethical/societal issues.

• (EU NanoRem and NanoReg – ELSA issues)

•

IAEA

• Fukushima Report – leading human and societal consequences group

•

ICRP

• Fukushima dialogues

• Committee 4

•

NFR

• ELSA projects in NanoMat and BioMat

•

Other

• Prof II in Research Ethics, UiO; Deputy head NENT; Ethics coordinator UMB

Social and EthicalIssues–Deborah Oughton

Children’s drawing of scientists (Sjoberg, S. 2005:

www.uio.no/svein-sjoberg)

(42)

EIP Pau 2011

The Nuclear Rabbit

Earless bunny video stokes Japan nuke fears-[Jun 10 2011 - 10connects.com]

Experts say it is unlikely a rabbit born withou...-[Jun 10 2011 - ONE News]

Japanese earless rabbit no nuclear mutant, say ...-[Jun 10 2011 - ONE News]

Earless bunny raises fear of effects of nuclear...-[Jun 09 2011 - New York Daily News]

Japan's earless rabbit: A radiation mutant?-[Jun 09 2011 - The Week Magazine]

Fukushima's "mutant" earless bunny-[Jun 09 2011 - Salon]

Earless rabbit born near Fukushima nuclear powe...-[Jun 09 2011 - Batangas Today]

Blog: “When it's grown wings and spits acid then I'll worry”