Fukushima Medical University, 1 Hikarigaoka, 9601295 Fukushima, Japan.
Futaba Medical Center, 817-1 Otsuka, Moto-oka, Tomioka Town, Futaba-gun, 9791151 Fukushima, Japan.
Environ Int. 2021 Mar;148:106379. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106379. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
Standards and guidelines for preparedness and response in the case of a nuclear accident cover radiation protection, health management and communication with affected populations. Decision makers use these recommendations to decide on measures that protect people residing around a nuclear power plant that suffers an accident from radiation exposure; for example, sheltering, evacuation and relocation. While technological and radiological criteria exist for these protective measures, studies on past radiological and nuclear emergencies have shown that evacuation and relocation result in serious health effects; this needs to be considered in accident preparedness and responses in the future. Within the framework of the Nuclear Emergency Situations Improvement of Medical and Health Surveillance (SHAMISEN) (Ohba et al., 2020), a critical review of recommendations and experiences of previous major nuclear accidents was conducted, and the current paper focuses on the lessons learned about evacuation and relocation. We reviewed the contents of official documents and literature relating to the evacuation and relocation of residents, and to the evacuation of medical and other facilities in the three largest nuclear accidents to date: the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl accident, and Fukushima accident. We developed recommendations classified into the preparedness phase, early and intermediate phases, and recovery phase after an accident. In the cases of Three Mile Island and Fukushima, the evacuation area was set at 8-10 km from the nuclear power plant in the disaster prevention plan, and emergency responses, such as information provision and evacuation, had been developed only in this area. When the Fukushima accident occurred, evacuation beyond this area was urgently planned or instructed, resulting in marked confusion, such as forced multiple evacuations and relocations for long periods. Furthermore, information was lacking, and personal protective measures such as respiratory protection and iodine prophylaxis were not applied to evacuees. In hospital and facility evacuation, it became more difficult to implement evacuation owing to a lack of advance planning and support in the event of the accident. In Fukushima, more than 60 people in hospitals and nursing care facilities died during or soon after evacuation. In long-term relocation, in addition to continuing adverse mental effects, there were health effects relating to relocation, such as lifestyle-related disease. The return of residents to the evacuation area required many issues, such as a delayed recovery of the living environment, to be overcome in addition to measures to reduce the effects of radiation. Recommendations for evacuation in the SHAMISEN framework were developed (SHAMISEN Consortium, 2017; Liutsko et al., 2020) from these lessons of previous accidents.
核事故准备和应对标准和指南涵盖了辐射防护、健康管理和与受影响人群的沟通。决策者利用这些建议来决定保护核电站周围人群免受辐射暴露的措施,例如避难、疏散和搬迁。虽然这些防护措施存在技术和放射性标准,但对过去放射性和核紧急情况的研究表明,疏散和搬迁会导致严重的健康影响;这需要在未来的事故准备和应对中加以考虑。在核紧急情况改善医疗和卫生监测(SHAMISEN)框架内(Ohba 等人,2020 年),对以往重大核事故的建议和经验进行了批判性审查,本论文重点介绍了关于疏散和搬迁的经验教训。我们审查了与居民疏散和搬迁以及迄今为止最大的三次核事故中医疗和其他设施疏散有关的官方文件和文献的内容:三哩岛事故、切尔诺贝利事故和福岛事故。我们制定了分类为准备阶段、早期和中期阶段以及事故后恢复阶段的建议。在三哩岛和福岛的情况下,灾难预防计划将核电厂 8-10 公里范围内设定为疏散区,仅在该区域内制定了应急响应,例如信息提供和疏散。当福岛事故发生时,紧急计划或指示了超出该区域的疏散,导致了明显的混乱,例如长时间被迫多次疏散和搬迁。此外,缺乏信息,并且没有向疏散人员提供个人防护措施,如呼吸防护和碘预防。在医院和设施疏散中,由于缺乏事先规划,事故发生时疏散变得更加困难。在福岛,有 60 多名医院和护理设施的人员在疏散过程中或之后不久死亡。在长期搬迁中,除了持续的不良心理影响外,还存在与搬迁有关的健康影响,如与生活方式相关的疾病。除了减少辐射影响的措施外,居民返回疏散区还需要克服许多问题,例如生活环境的恢复延迟。从以往事故的经验教训中制定了 SHAMISEN 框架内的疏散建议(SHAMISEN 联盟,2017 年;Liutsko 等人,2020 年)。