Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident

Draft document: Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident
Submitted by Satoko Tanaka, Thanks & Dream : Association of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Evacuees
Commenting as an individual

Thank you for giving us chances to comment on ICRP publications.

I would like to offer my opinion as one of evacuees from the world's worst nuclear disaster in Fukushima.

Until 8 years agoI had never imagined that huge accidents occurred in nuclear power plants in Japan,but they actually did.

The place I lived was Tokyo,about 220km away from the accident cites,but the soil there was contaminated about 48,000bq/m2,equal to the Radiation Controlled Area.

Our family decided to evacuate to the west by this fact and the situation that I was 6 months pregnant.

I have met many evacuees so far,and knew that not a few of them have actually suffered from health damages after the accidentsuch as massive nosebleed,skin affections,problems of immune system,respiratory system,hemopoietic system,circulatory system.

All they could do was to move away from their hometown,as many of them could recover after the relocation.

Certainly,I reaffirm that the only and the best way to protect ourselves is to stay away from the radiation by any means.

As world-widely acknowledged,and accepted by ICRP,radiation risk for our health increase in proportion to the radiation dose,and there is no level without risk.

Despite this theory,why does ICRP intend to eliminate so early the RADIATION from presumable causes for health damages in contaminated areas,like childhood thyroid cancer case in Fukushima? (See 41 and B42 in your draft)

ICRP should watch the risk of low-dose-radiation-exposure more deliberately,and encourage Japanese government to continue the examination in Fukushima as long as the radiation risk can not be denied.

I also feel afraid that reference levelin emergency or recovery period after nuclear accidents is just a provisional target value and too high for public to accept.

What's required must be not such a reference level,but a limit level. ICRP should specify the annual exposure limit level of 1 mSv or less.

ThereforeI would like to ask ICRP strongly to review the publication as humanitarian issues.Your recommendation is likely to lead us to think that we can live along with artificial radioactivity,even if large accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima happen. It is the same with downplaying the radiation risk,and definitely unforgivable.

To protect lives and health for us and our children must be prioritized over any others.