Learning from History – Evacuation Criteria Friday, July 27 th 2012 Kyoto, Japan Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt 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 OCCURRED Immediate Evacuation Unnecessary

Chronic Effects Doses can accumulate over years and chronic effects can be related to the CUMULATIVE DOSE cancer 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 thyroid SO 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 TMI Only a few isotopes actually matter A 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) Solids sublimate as temperature goes up (A) Cesium 134, 137. do not stay in body (B) Strontium, transuranics These 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 Jaczko testimony in US Congress March 17 th 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 effect It 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.

Apology I 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 NRC 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 matter But 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 Models Data 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 linearity US National Academy of Sciences Not broken down by age

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

Sv

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 NO 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