Public Health Decision Making in the Case of the Use of a Nuclear Weapon
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials
3. Results
4. Preparedness
4.1. Instrumental Equipment
- -
- Building and routinely using online monitoring systems for searching for artificial radionuclides in the air or controlling the changes in the dose rate levels.
- -
- Active devices/monitors for contamination or radionuclide control (in situ equipment in the forms of radiometers, spectrometry systems, or counters) calibrated in certified laboratories.
- -
- Building and establishing a highly professional laboratory service for monitoring air, water, and food contaminations using radiochemical separation methods, based on certified or reference materials used in proficiency tests and interlaboratory comparisons, accredited or authorized by National Atomic Agency.
- -
- Dosimetry devices to protect emergency workers and the public.
- -
- Decision support systems—software for the simulation of the regional and global situation, radionuclide, and dose distribution in time intervals.
- -
- Respiratory system protection.
4.2. People
- -
- Building competences, new skills, creation of the management structure, gathering professionals and experts, decision makers, representatives of government and local administrations, authorities, coordinators, medical staff, etc.
- -
- Building an emergency team structure for early response, organizing courses, trainings, workshops for better understanding of the radiation protection rules, personal equipment, self-sheltering, etc.
- -
- Maintaining the population.
- -
- Teaching, raising awareness, and sharing knowledge about radiation and the principles of radiological protection among students of physics, chemistry, or related studies.
4.3. Instruction and Procedure Development and Establishment
- -
- Nuclear or radiation emergency plan constantly updated and tested.
- -
- Developing and testing procedures and national or regional instructions of intervention actions.
- -
- Establishing information exchange channels between staff on various decision-making levels and organization structures.
- -
- Stable iodine distribution protocols (if it is applicable) for the population.
- -
- Population communication protocols, including modern systems (apps for mobile phones) and common sources of information, etc.
- -
- Resource management: instruction for radiometric food and water analysis, protocols for clean water supply, food distribution, etc.
4.4. Medical Care Infrastructure and Sheltering Overview
- -
- Establishment of temporary hospitals.
- -
- Refurbishment of shelters for massively exposed residents.
5. Early and Intermediate Phases
5.1. Surface Nuclear Burst Effects
5.2. Radioactive Fallout
6. Recovery Phase
7. Discussion
8. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cimbala, S.J. Nuclear Weapons Policies. In Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, 3rd ed.; Kurtz, L.R., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 634–644. ISBN 9780128203125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Zhou, L.; Ren, H.; Zou, H. Determination, Separation and Application of 137Cs: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morgan, P. The Concept of Deterrence and Deterrence Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2022. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-572 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Milevski, L. Russia’s Escalation Management and a Baltic Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone. Orbis 2022, 66, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohba, T.; Tanigawa, K.; Liutsko, L. Evacuation after a nuclear accident: Critical reviews of past nuclear accidents and proposal for future planning. Environ. Int. 2021, 148, 106379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohba, T.; Liutsko, L.; Schneider, T.; Barquinero, J.F.; Crouaïl, P.; Fattibene, P.; Kesminiene, A.; Laurier, D.; Sarukhan, A.; Skuterud, L.; et al. The SHAMISEN Project: Challenging historical recommendations for preparedness, response and surveillance of health and well-being in case of nuclear accidents: Lessons learnt from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Environ. Int. 2020, 146, 106200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bershteyn, A.; Kim, H.-Y.; Braithwaite, R.S. Real-Time Infectious Disease Modeling to Inform Emergency Public Health Decision Making. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2022, 43, 397–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diez Roux, A.V. Social Epidemiology: Past, Present, and Future. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2022, 43, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, B.D. Advances in risk assessment and communication. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2005, 26, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stöhlker, U.; Bleher, M.; Doll, H.; Dombrowski, H.; Harms, W.; Hellmann, I.; Luff, R.; Prommer, B.; Seifert, S.; Weiler, F. The German Dose Rate Monitoring Network And Implemented Data Harmonization Techniques. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2019, 183, 404–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IAEA. A Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards, No. GSR Part 3. 2014. Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1578_web-57265295.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- IAEA. B Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 7, 2014. 2014. Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P_1708_web.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Solomon, G.M.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Zeise, L.; Faust, J.B. Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to Protect Communities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2016, 37, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CDC. Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Capabilities, National Standards for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Center for Preparedness and Response 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- NCRP. Key Elements of Preparing Emergency Responders for Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism, Commentary No. 19; National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bazyka, D.; Belyi, D.; Chumak, A. Lessons from Chornobyl: Considerations for strengthening radiation emergency preparedness in Ukraine. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2016, 171, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 (“the Basic Safety Standards Directive”), IAEA Safety Standards for Protecting People and the Environment General Safety Guide No. GSG-14. 2014. Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/PUB1902_web.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- ICRP. ICRP 2009 Annual Report ICRP, Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 113. 2009. Available online: https://www.icrp.org/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- IAEA. Arrangements for Preparedness for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. IAEA Safety Standard Series No. GS-G-2.1. 2007. Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1265web.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2020).
- Talaat, K.; Xi, J.; Baldez, P.; Hecht, A. Radiation Dosimetry of Inhaled Radioactive Aerosols: CFPD and MCNP Transport Simulations of Radionuclides in the Lung. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Paquet, F.; Bailey, M.; Leggett, R.; Lipsztein, J.; Marsh, J.; Fell, T.; Smith, T.; Nosske, D.; Eckerman, K.; Berkovski, V.; et al. ICRP Publication 137: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 3. Ann. ICRP 2017, 46, 1–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Długosz-Lisiecka, M.; Bem, H. Aerosol residence times and changes of radioiodine-131I and radiocesium-137Cs activity over Central Poland after the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor accident. J. Environ. Monit. 2012, 14, 1483–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Długosz-Lisiecka, M.; Perka, D. Modeling of 210Pb and 210Po radionuclide emissions from local power plants in central. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 2291–2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Masson, O.; Ringer, W.; Malá, H.; Rulik, P.; Długosz-Lisiecka, M.; Eleftheriadis, K.; Meisenberg, O.; De Vismes-Ott, A.; Gensdarmes, F. Size distributions of airborne radionuclides from the Fukushima nuclear accident at several places in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10995–11003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lauritzen, B.; Baverstam, U.; Damkjaer, A.; Sinkko, K. (Eds.) Operational Intervention Levels in a Nuclear Emergency, General Concepts and a Probabilistic Approach; NKS Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Report by the EKO-3.3 Subgroup; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Vienna, Austria, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Sakurai, M.; Murayama, Y. Information technologies and disaster management—Benefits and issues. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2019, 2, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swire-Thompson, B.; Lazer, D. Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2020, 41, 433–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Landman, C.; Päsler-Sauer, J.; Raskob, W. The Decision Support System RODOS. In The Risks of Nuclear Energy Technology. Science Policy Reports; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovalets, I.; Romanenko, O. Use of Nuclear Emergency Response System for Assessment of Transboundary Transfer and Radiological Risks of the Potential Accidental Releases at Khmelnitsky NPP. In Proceedings of the International Scientific-Practical Conference, Chernihiv, Ukraine, 29 June–1 July 2020; pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrade, E.R.; Silva, R.W.; Stenders, R.M.; Reis, A.L.Q.; Silva, A.X. Impact of the affected population size assessment on the decision-making after a nuclear event. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2021, 176, 109907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmerin, I.; Svensson, F.; Hirawake, T.; Ishimaru, T.; Ito, Y.; Kanda, J.; Nascimento, F.; Bradshaw, C. Benthic food web structures as an explanation for prolonged ecological half-life of 137Cs in flatfish species in the Fukushima coastal area. J. Environ. Radioact. 2022, 246, 106844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Povinec, P.; Hirose, K. Fukushima radionuclides in the NW Pacific and assessment of doses for Japanese and world population from ingestion of seafood. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Danesi, P.R. Environmental and Health Consequences of Nuclear, Radiological and Depleted Uranium Weapons. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 360–376. ISBN 9780444639523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daumann, F.; Follert, F.; Gleißner, W.; Kamarás, E.; Naumann, C. Political Decision Making in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Germany from the Perspective of Risk Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Takada, J. Radiation hazard and protection for the nuclear weapon terrorism. Int. Congr. Ser. 2005, 1276, 245–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; dos Reis, A.A.; Ansari, A.; Bertelli, L.; Carr, Z.; Dainiak, N.; Degteva, M.; Efimov, A.; Kalinich, J.; Kryuchkov, V.; et al. Public health response and medical management of internal contamination in past radiological or nuclear incidents: A narrative review. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Preparedness | Early and Intermediate Phases | Recovery |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
Effect | Radius [km] | Surface [km2] | Destruction Effects | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ground-Level Detonation | Airburst, 1 km High | Ground-Level Detonation | Airburst, 1 km High | ||
Nuclear fireball | 1.26 | 0.97 | 4.96 | 2.93 | Vaporization of matter |
Radiation | 1.94 | 1.66 | 11.8 | 8.67 | 5 Sv dose (fatal in about 1 month) |
Heavy blast damage | 2.18 | 2.39 | 14.9 | 18.0 | Heavy damage, fatalities at 100% |
Blast damage | 4.58 | 5.56 | 65.8 | 97.2 | Residential damage, building collapse |
Thermal radiation | 10.7 | 12.5 | 359 | 494 | Third degree burns on the skin |
Light blast | 11.8 | 14.5 | 435 | 662 | Glass window break |
Effect | Radius [km] | Surface [km2] | Destruction Effects | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ground-Level Detonation | Airburst, 1 km High | Ground-Level Detonation | Airburst, 1 km High | ||
Nuclear fireball | 0.78 | 0.60 | 1.89 | 1.12 | Vaporization of matter |
Radiation | 1.61 | 1.26 | 6.7 | 4.99 | 5 Sv dose (fatal in about 1 month) |
Heavy blast damage | 1.46 | 1.76 | 8.1 | 9.75 | Heavy damage, fatalities at 100% |
Blast damage | 3.0 | 4.0 | 29.5 | 50.9 | Residential damage, building collapse |
Thermal radiation | 6.3 | 7.4 | 126 | 172 | Third degree burns on the skin |
Light blast | 7.9 | 10.7 | 195 | 356 | Glass window break |
Fallout Contour with Min Dose Rate | Size (Width [km]/Downwind Cloud Distance [km]/Area [km2]) for 0.3 Mtons | Size (Width [km]/Downwind Cloud Distance [km]/Area [km2]) for 1 Mtons |
---|---|---|
0.01 Sv/h | 46.3/262/10,100 | 102/416/33,900 |
0.1 Sv/h | 30.1/181/4710 | 72.2/308/18,000 |
1.0 Sv/h | 13.8/101/1350 | 42.5/201/7100 |
10 Sv/h | 2.32/8.81/27 | 12.8/92.8/1140 |
Primary Protective Actions | Poland | Ireland [26] | Denmark | Sweden | ICRP [18] | IAEA 2014 [11] | EPA 2017 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evacuation | 100 mSv/7 days | 100 mSv/7 days | 70 mSv/7 days 10 mSv/day in max. 1 week | 3–30 mSv/day | 50–500 mSv/<1 week | 50 mSv < 1 week | 10 to 50 mSv/projected dose over four days |
Sheltering | 10 mSv/2 days | 50 mSv/7 days | 10 mSv | 1–10 mSv/day | 5–50 mSv/<1 day | 10 mSv/< 2 days | 10 to 50 mSv/projected dose over four days |
Temporary relocation | 30 mSv/30 days | 100 mSv in first year | 10 mSv/month or 1 Sv life dose | 5–50 mSv in the first month | 5–15 mSv life dose | 30 mSv in the first month | |
Permanent resettlement | 1 Sv/50 years (adult) or 70 years (kids) Or 10 mSv/2 years | 1 Sv life dose | |||||
Water and food controls | Based on national regulations | 1 mSv first year |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Długosz-Lisiecka, M. Public Health Decision Making in the Case of the Use of a Nuclear Weapon. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912766
Długosz-Lisiecka M. Public Health Decision Making in the Case of the Use of a Nuclear Weapon. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912766
Chicago/Turabian StyleDługosz-Lisiecka, Magdalena. 2022. "Public Health Decision Making in the Case of the Use of a Nuclear Weapon" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912766