Abstract
Since November 2011, Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN) experts have participated in the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s (ICRP) dialogue initiative for the rehabilitation of living conditions after the Fukushima accident. In 2013, IRSN and Centre d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire (CEPN) launched a study to identify the main lessons that can be learned from these dialogues, and benefit French IRSN experts in the event of a postaccident situation. The main lesson is that in order to protect the inhabitants of contaminated areas efficiently, experts must work in cooperation with local actors to develop a co-expertise process. The availability of measurement devices for inhabitants is crucial to allow them to assess their own radiological situation. Measuring radioactivity makes it visible, and allows individuals to discuss the results in their communities and develop local projects to improve their daily life. Eventually, inhabitants create a practical radiological protection culture to manage their situation. However, helping people to protect themselves does not mean that authorities and experts have no responsibilities, and this calls for strong ethical principles such as not making decisions for people about their future. To be helpful, scientists need to understand that, as necessary as radiation protection is, it is not the only problem that inhabitants are facing and it cannot control people's lives. Radiation protection experts must commit themselves to be at the service of individuals and the community, and the issues they want to address.
1. INTRODUCTION
In November 2011, when the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the Japan Radiation Safety Forum initiated the first seminar of the dialogue initiative for the rehabilitation of living conditions after the Fukushima accident, they asked various international organisations to participate and support the independence of the dialogue.
The French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire, IRSN) and the Centre d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire (CEPN) agreed to be involved in this initiative for the following reasons:
IRSN and CEPN have been involved in the ETHOS and CORE projects in Belarus in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. They learned the importance of involving the population with the support of national and local authorities and experts to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of protective actions. They wanted to bring their testimony to the inhabitants of Fukushima, and learn from the experience of Japanese people living in the contaminated areas.
It is a considerable challenge for IRSN to understand what is at stake in the contaminated areas, and to learn and transmit this information to colleagues in France and worldwide.
2. ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY IRSN AND CEPN
2.1. Introduction
Beyond supporting the dialogue initiative and reporting on their experience in Belarus, IRSN and CEPN launched an analysis in 2013 to identify lessons to be learned that could benefit French experts if such a situation should occur in France.
This work has been undertaken in cooperation with Japanese stakeholders and experts involved in the dialogues in Fukushima Prefecture.
The main lessons can be summarised into four topics:
the human dimension of the postaccident situation; stakeholder engagement: authorities, the public, and experts; the co-expertise process; and development of a practical radiological protection culture.
2.2. The human dimension of the postaccident situation
The potential health consequences of the contamination of vast territories raises strong concerns among the inhabitants about health, particularly that of children. However, this is not the only problem that inhabitants face. The appearance of radioactivity in their daily lives is a disruption that creates an unprecedented situation, and deeply upsets the relationship of humans with themselves, others and their environment.
Living in a contaminated environment is a complex situation that generates numerous questions among the affected population, even for the most trivial elements of everyday life (e.g. going out, coming home, opening windows to air the house, drinking, eating, sending children to school), at a time when they have lost confidence in the authorities and experts.
That leads to a complete loss of control over everybody’s daily life, a feeling of helplessness and neglect, and a general feeling of discrimination and exclusion.
Furthermore, the technical answers to improve the radiological situation (i.e. decontamination, travel bans and other restrictions, food controls) have indirect effects that isolate affected people from their day-to-day environment.
Contamination has a tremendous emotional and social impact that challenges the inhabitants’ lifestyles and relationships with others (i.e. neighbours, family). Ultimately, each individual is confronted with the following dilemma:
to stay in the contaminated territories or leave; once evacuated, to return home or not.
All inhabitants need to evaluate the possibility of working and living in contaminated areas, and have to find a way to reconstruct their lives.
2.3. Stakeholder’s engagement: Inhabitants, local authorities, and supporting experts
In the months following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, different types of stakeholders committed themselves to face the situation and its complexity.
Local authorities had to take charge of the situation and rely on local administration (e.g. Date city and Iitate village). Some local communities mobilised themselves to initiate actions (e.g. Suetsugi and Hippo). Both addressed the practical concerns of the inhabitants, but needed the help of experts to develop solutions.
The experts who supported the affected people were of very different backgrounds and committed themselves personally. A key challenge for them was the lack of connection of their engagement with the institutional framework, as the national authorities remained distant from these local initiatives for a long period of time. Only in the last year has the Japanese Government started to show an interest.
From their experience close to the inhabitants, Japanese experts identified the following lessons.
People urgently need reliable and accessible information, but it is extremely difficult to talk about the effects and risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation. Inhabitants want the experts to be modest, given the uncertainties and limits of knowledge. They want them to distinguish science from judgements and, above all, to respect everyone’s values and choices. Consequently, experts must not conclude that the situation is safe and promote dialogues rather than lectures. Japanese experts highlighted the importance of cooperation with local professionals involved in management of the situation (i.e. education, health, and administration). Scientists need to understand that, as necessary as radiation protection is, it cannot control people's lives. They must commit themselves to the service of individuals and the community. The values and choices of individuals must be respected, whatever they are.
2.4. The co-expertise process
A co-expertise process needs to be developed to address problems faced by the inhabitants in their daily lives. This co-expertise relies on the following:
places for dialogue should be established to allow experts to listen to questions, concerns, challenges, and expectations of those affected, and to discuss them together; in order to be relevant and efficient, assessment of the situation of the people and their community must be conducted jointly by locals and experts; projects need to be implemented to address the problems identified as the most important at individual and community levels, with the support of local professionals, experts, and authorities; and the results of these co-expertise processes must be evaluated and disseminated.
In Fukushima Prefecture, a few communities gradually engaged themselves in the implementation of practical projects in a similar way to that of Belarus; however, there were large differences regarding the means for measurement to characterise the radiological situation and the role of social media to share the information.
From their experience, Japanese experts highlighted some key points.
Measurement and dialogue are important to restore confidence. However, scientific explanations alone cannot create confidence in experts; returning regularly to interact with people and share experiences and feelings is crucial. Reaching out to the population, using a common language, and undertaking action in the long term are key elements to working with the population. Furthermore, lessons learned must be shared in order to foster emulation among communities. Financial support from the administration is needed to generalise these types of actions and ensure their sustainability.
2.5. Development of a practical radiological protection culture
Step by step, the co-expertise process promotes the development of practical radiological protection culture within the affected communities.
This culture gradually allows people to interpret the results of measurements: ambient levels, external and internal doses, contamination of products, and development of his/her own benchmarks against radioactivity in day-to-day life.
With this approach, people need to be able to take measurements themselves with suitable devices in order to make their own decisions and protect themselves at an individual level or at other levels (e.g. family, local community) by discussing the results among themselves with the help of experts. This practical radiological protection culture makes it possible to improve living conditions.
The appropriation process of the practical radiological protection culture in some communities, such as Suetsugi, is very similar to that of Belarus, but seems faster and is now complementary to the actions of the authorities. These communities seem to have regained control of their life and started to consider their future in their beautiful country.
However, the empowerment of inhabitants raises an important question: does helping people to protect themselves mean that authorities have no responsibilities?
3. WHICH ROLES FOR PUBLIC BODIES?
This process of stakeholders' empowerment raises important questions: what are the roles and responsibilities of public bodies, experts, and authorities? What could be the ethical principles for public bodies to take actions?
3.1. Responsibilities for authorities after a nuclear accident
One key responsibility of authorities is to quickly implement a dose level above which it is not authorised to reside permanently, and the adoption of different criteria to guide actions, taking into account the prevailing circumstances (e.g. food contamination levels).
In addition, authorities and experts must ensure radiation monitoring and health surveillance of the population over time.
Besides these responsibilities at global level, authorities and experts are also responsible for accompanying and supporting all affected people in their local projects to restore decent spiritual, moral, and material living conditions:
the establishment of places for dialogue is crucial and must be supported by public bodies; experts must contribute to joint assessment of the radiological situation; and the help of authorities and experts is crucial for the development of a radiation protection culture.
In short, it is crucial for authorities to take responsibility for implementing conditions allowing respect of freedom and justice.
3.2. Some ethical principles
The empowerment of people also carries risks, and these have to be considered carefully by experts and authorities in their relationships with inhabitants. These include:
trivialising the radiological risk or manipulating people in some way to make them stay in contaminated areas; leaving people alone and abandoning them to face the risk without help, or trying to protect people against their will.
To prevent these risks, the following ethical principles have to be adopted:
not to make decisions for people about their future – whatever their decisions, their autonomy and freedom must be respected; experts and authorities must commit themselves to be at the service of improving protection against radiological risk, and, more generally, the living conditions of the population in a global manner; and experts must always keep a prudent attitude towards radiological risk.
3.3. Perspectives and challenges
Should such a situation happen in France or Europe, people’s trust in authorities and experts will certainly be lost at first. However, the Japanese experience demonstrates that it has been possible in some places to regain this trust by working with local actors and helping them to develop solutions matched to their concerns.
But what would be the place of a national expert such as IRSN at local level? How can we prepare ourselves for this work with the population? This major challenge is faced by experts collectively in France, Europe, and worldwide.
To record and share the memories of this experience, a web documentary has been created and is freely available, in Japanese, French, and English, at www.fukushima-dialogues.com, and on the IRSN and ICRP websites.