Learning from History – Evacuation Criteria

Learning from History – Evacuation Criteria

Friday, July 27th 2012Kyoto, Japan

Richard WilsonMallinckrodt Professor of Physics (Emeritus)

Harvard University

I first wish to thank the organizers of this International Conference for inviting me

to come and tell you my opinions on the tragic events that you have faced.

It is indeed a great pleasure to be here. I am a small person and have always

been shorter than my friends and family. So it is an especial pleasure to come to

a place where everyone is the right height!

In Any Situation Compare Risk and Benefit

• This is done all the time, sometimes explicit often implicit.

• If the situation changes (such as an unexpected accident) a different Risk-Benefit calculation is appropriate.

• True for any technology, nuclear or otherwise

• Best to have the calculation IN ADVANCE

so that panic does not set in

Effects of Radiation on people:What do we know from previous incidents?Those who do not understand history are

condemned to repeat it

Medical X rays

Radium Dial painters

Hiroshima-Nagasaki

Windscale (UK)

TMI

Chernobyl

Tokai (Japan)

Theft of medical Source (Brazil)

Medical X rays

• The advantage of medical X rays is great (one can see a fracture!)

• Physicians argued (correctly) in 1900 that medical X rays were so beneficial that they outweighed any adverse effect.

BUT• The same benefit could be gained

with 100 times less risk • As late as 1980, X rays were done

badly

Nuclear Power in Ordinary Operation

• Radiation doses can be kept small both for the public and for the workers very easily for a cost much less than the cost of electricity

• Therefore a cost-benefit calculation says : do so and make doses ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)

• BUT when something out of the ordinary occurs

this calculation NO LONGER APPLIES• The basic elements of a more appropriate

calculation can be found from basic science and from history and should be understood in advance

Avoid Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS)

ARS can occur if dose in a week is: > 200 Rems (2 Sv).

It can result in death within a few days.At 400 Rems (4 Sv) The guts are destroyed and death soon follows.

Evacuation to avoid ARS is appropriate.At Fukushima, no one in the public got

ARS.the highest exposed WORKER got 0.2 Sv

MORE RADIATION COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED

AS SOON AS ACCIDENT OCCURREDImmediate Evacuation Unnecessary

Chronic Effects Doses can accumulate over yearsand chronic effects can be related

to the CUMULATIVE DOSEcancer

heart disease genetic effects

No cancers are caused specific to radiation

But radiation can cause an increase in natural cancer rate

Perhaps 30% at 2 Sv (200 Rems)(maybe much less)

What did history say one should do?

A big effect would be the chain: •iodine drops on ground•Cows eat the grass concentrate iodine in milk•Children drink milk•Concentrate in thyroidSO BREAK THIS CHAIN AT ONCE•Windscale (1957) confirmed that: •Tell children not to drink local milk for a month Not done early enough at Chernobyl

Immediate Actions Planned in Advance

Allow radiation exposure standards to rise at once to earlier allowed levels:•10 Rems (0.1 Sv) (average) per accident•80 Rems (0.8 Sv) for life saving activities •80 Rems (0.8 Sv) for an astronaut•More for elderly volunteers

If no ARS then DO NOT EVACUATE AT ALL for 2 days to allow a carefully considered wise decision

First hydrogen explosion

• Wind was blowing out to sea! (Good)

• Evaluate effects at site boundary

(My evaluation was a day late waiting for the numbers to be available in English or German)

My Estimate of Dose at Site Boundary

My Dose Calculation at Site Boundary

March 2012 Calculation– The releases at first three days

unimportant. But those of Tuesday/Wednesday (after wind changed) were crucial.

– Peak probably noble gases (little effect) followed by cesium. (134 and 137)

– Take peak and multiply by width– I found a site boundary dose of about 2

Rems (0.02 Sv) and falling–My 2011 CAT scan doses totaled 2.4 Rems– Should I or anyone, be worried?

My Report (for Massachussetts)

After TMIOnly a few isotopes actually matterA driving force needed to disperse

radionuclides

TMI: almost no dispersive force

Chernobyl: initial explosion plus graphite fire at 4000 ° F (2200 ° C)

Fukushima only hydrogen explosion and fuel at 1900 ° F (1050 ° C)

Evaporation Temperature

184°C

671°C

1750°C

990°C

Products of Fission Gases

(1) Noble Gases (Kryton,xenon)(2) Iodine goes to thyroid: leukemia, thyroid cancers (Do not drink milk for a month)

Solidssublimate as temperature goes up

(A) Cesium 134, 137. do not stay in body(B) Strontium, transuranicsThese only sublimate at higher temperature, not much even at Chernobyl

Table not broken down by age (MY MISTAKE!)

Rems/man or manRems?

• We need the effect on an individual or the small group being affected then Rems per man is the proper description(emphasized by the late Rosalyn Yalow, Nobel Laureate who died a couple of months ago)

• Traditionally health physicists assume a linear dose response and then it is clear that the societal effect is best expressed in Man Rems or Person Sievert

Adverse Effects of Evacuation

– Stress can increase cancer rates 5% or more

–Direct loss of life due to lack of facilities

–NO ONE CONSIDERED THESE AT ALL– These could have been discussed in

advance– Scientists discussed these after TMI and

adverse effects of evacuation were the only casualties!

Chairman Gregory Jaczkotestimony in US Congress

March 17th 2011 “ Recently, the NRC made a recommendation

that:Based on the available information that we have, that for a comparable situation in the

United States, we would recommend an evacuation to a much larger radius than has currently been provided in Japan. As a result of this recommendation, the ambassador in Japan has issued a statement to American citizens that we believe it is appropriate to

evacuate to a larger distance up to approximately 50 miles.”

This recommendation was not accompanied by a justification .

I formally objected within a week but my objection was not acknowledged by NRC

Jaczko’s recommendation was echoed by President Obama and

had an immediate deleterious effectIt has not to my knowledge been explained or

withdrawn by Dr Jaczko or the President

Once the President had said something motives other than public health took precedence.

Sensible discussion became difficult

Media editors would no longer admit letters and comments from experts(I was effectively silenced)

Sensible journalists were cowed.

Japanese media amplified it still further.

ApologyI cannot speak for

Dr. Jaczko or President Obama. But I make a personal apology to all the

Japanese people. I regret that I was unable to stop these damaging statements

I have requested a formal review by NRChttp://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/Comment by Richard Wilson.doc

What was the effect on the way to Tokyo?

• I looked at the data published by MEXT (Ministry of Education,Culture,Sports,Science & Technology in Japan) and by KEK (High Energy Accelerator Research Organization)

• The first slide is from MEXT, the second is the same BUT different axes. It does not look so bad!

What about Ibaraki? (on way to Tokyo) Cumulative 0.4Sv (40 mRem) (1/10 of yearly background)

It looks different with different scale. Dose the same but seems negligible

At KEK the numbers are still smaller.

My friends at KEK understand radiation.

Subsequent study (IAEA, INPO, TEPCO, etc)

confirms:

•No one got Acute Radiation Syndrome•Highest exposure in a worker: 30 Rems

NOT 400 Rems!

•If there are cancers the probability of causation (POC) will be less than 50% in

all but a few cases.

Threshold or linearity?

It is important that you understand the argument

for low dose linearity

BUT when dose is low it should not matterBut do not in public argue with your supporters who reject the threshold

arguments

Data only exist at levels much higher than background

Alternate Dose-Response ModelsData above region of interest

Cancer Over Background

Excess Dose

Low dose Linearity is a General Argument

• Probability of dying in a car accident in Harvard Square is roughly proportional to the number of cars!

• If the medical outcomes is not distinguishable from an outcome occurring naturally then the argument applies

• Inherent in the multistage theory of cancer

• Lung effects caused by air pollution

Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report

assuming low dose linearityUS National Academy of Sciences

Not broken down by age

BUT Deposition to NW of plant highest from Tuesday/Wednesday releases

Sv

0.103

0.225

0.101

0.01

0.001

0.001

0.23

0.1

0.1

What should a decision maker have done (my personal opinion)?

• Order an immediate evacuation for many km ? • Make it easy for any VOLUNTARY evacuation

– to avoid panic as happened after Katrina

• Do simple steps to reduce exposure to fall out – including measurement

• ORDER all out clean up for years • Facilitate individual towns and people in

voluntary steps

• Richard Wilson paper in DOSE_RESPONSE (2012): “Evacuation Criteria After a Nuclear Accident:

A Personal Perspective”

NO

YES

NOYES

YES

Comparison with other disasters

10,000,000 per year

5,000 upwards

• Even under the usual conservative model of low dose linearity

• Natural background every year produces 2000 the number of cancers in the world as Fukushima did in a lifetime!

• Which should the world worry about more?

Public Panic may have stopped nuclear power for 50 years

Nuclear Engineers only emphasize safety improvements

Radiation experts and basic scientists are silent

They allow nonsense to dominate the discussion

Cost is determined by virulent public opposition

Yet problem is important for terrorism:(1) Take 1000 Ci medical source(2) Add a few pounds TNT(3) Explode in Wall Street

EFFECT:(A) Less than 10 people die (situation in Brazil)(B) 20 square miles out of action using existing conservative regulations

THIS MAKES ACTION ATTRACTIVE FOR A TERRORIST

Many Nuclear Power Programs are Cancelled

Even More Important

What do you do if someone explodes a nuclear bomb in Osaka Harbor?

Run away as fast as you can? Take shelter for 24 hours till radioactivity

does and listen to which way the wind is blowing?

Then if you are in the plume run fast,

but which way? Away from explosion? Sideways away from plume?

NO

YES

NO

YES

Thank you for listening