CEPN

The context of armed conflict situations presents unique challenges that can compromise the safety and well-being of both affected populations and responders in radiological and nuclear emergencies. The focus of the EU project RRADEW 'Resilience to RADiological Events in Wartime'(2024-2027) is to enhance nuclear Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery (EPR&R) systems by strengthening resilience to potential incidents in the context of war or armed conflict. The project is structured in five work packages focusing on the development of war scenarios (WP1), identification of resilience dimensions and indicators (WP2 and 3), development of decision-support, training materials and recommendations targeting key stakeholders (WP4), and key ethical questions for radiological protection in the context of armed conflicts (WP5). Since its start in 2024 the project has built a war-risk scenario matrix for nuclear facilities, produced a resilience framework that links the Sendai-definition of resilience to radiation emergencies, integrating social, technical and organisational dimensions across the EPR&R system, drafted training modules for deminers and first-responder monitors and produced an ethical matrix highlighting dilemmas such as dignity, autonomy and justice in armed-conflict radiological events. Together, these efforts aim to provide actionable frameworks and recommendations to ensure the safety and well-being of both affected populations and responders in wartime radiological incidents.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was introduced into the radiological protection system by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1966. The appropriateness of this model is still hotly debated today. Based on a recently published article, we summarize recent results in radiobiology and epidemiology and discuss their impact on the use of the LNT model regarding radiological protection. The scientific results published in radiobiology and epidemiology have strengthened our scientific knowledge of cancer risks associated with low dose and/or low dose-rate radiation exposure. In radiobiology, early stages of mutational carcinogenesis are considered to play a key role in carcinogenesis, with linear responses at doses as low as 10 mGy. Today, some non-mutation mechanisms appear clearly as non-linear, but their impact on the overall carcinogenesis process remains difficult to assess. In epidemiology, excess cancer risk has been observed at dose levels of 100 mGy or less. Some findings suggest that for some cancers, non-linear dose relationships may exist, but overall, the LNT model does not seem to seriously overestimate the risks of cancer at low doses. Overall, current results in radiobiology or epidemiology do not demonstrate the existence of a dose threshold below which the risk of radiation-induced cancer would be zero. Uncertainties remain, but if such a dose threshold existed for all solid cancers, it could not be greater than a few tens of mGy. In conclusion, we consider that the recent scientific knowledge does not call into question the use of the LNT model to assess cancer risks associated with exposure to ionizing radiation for the purpose of radiological protection. Today, the use of this model seems reasonable, and no other dose-response model seems to be more appropriate or justified for radiological protection purposes.

The system of radiological protection (the 'System') developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is built on nearly a century of efforts of numerous scientists and practitioners working together internationally. It rests on three enduring pillars: science, ethics, and experience. These pillars support the three fundamental principles that shape radiological protection strategies: justification, optimisation, and application of dose limits. Of note, optimisation of protection must be understood as a flexible and context-sensitive process, which allows identification of the appropriate level of protection, not simply the lowest dose, taking into account economic, societal and environmental factors. The System has proven effective in protecting workers, patients, members of the public, and the environment in all exposure situations. Effects of high doses, where acute injuries to healthy tissue occur, are rarely observed, and mostly due to accidental situations except for unavoidable side effects of radiotherapy. At low doses, the System is supported by application of the linear-no-threshold model. This model enables prudent (that is, carefully considered given existing uncertainties) policy decisions and estimation of risks at low doses by extrapolation from epidemiological data observed at medium and high radiation doses, acknowledging uncertainty without ignoring potential harm.

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in March 2011, the Japanese government implemented extensive decontamination and waste management measures, including the establishment of an interim storage facility in Okuma and Futaba. This study aims to analyze residents’ trust in the information provided by the public authorities regarding this facility and to identify factors influencing that trust. A survey was conducted among 1,558 former residents of Tomioka, Okuma, and Futaba who were 18 years or older and held resident cards for one of these towns in both March 2011 and 2024. The questionnaire collected data on demographic variables; intention to return; thoughts on the storage facility; trust in public information; concerns about radiation-related genetic risks and negative perceptions due to the nuclear accident; and mental health status, assessed using the mental component of the SF-8 health survey. The results showed that 57.7% of respondents trusted the information provided by the public authorities regarding the storage facility. Factors significantly associated with trust included their acceptance of the facility, lack of concerns about radiation-related genetic risks, lack of concerns about negative images resulting from the nuclear accident, and good mental health status. A logistic regression analysis indicated that acceptance of the facility and good mental health significantly increased the likelihood of trusting information provided by the public authorities, while concerns about genetic risks and negative images significantly decreased it. These findings underscore the vital importance of recognizing and addressing residents’ concerns about health risks and negative perceptions related to nuclear waste management. By supporting the mental well-being of the community and fostering transparent communication, authorities can build trust and improve the acceptance of waste management facilities. Actively engaging with residents and responding to their worries facilitates the identification of adequate and acceptable recovery efforts after a nuclear accident.

Statistical benchmark data are necessary when considering the basis for radiation protection criteria based on calculated risks. We herein focused on baseline mortality and incidence cancer rates as benchmark data collected from 33 countries. Furthermore, we calculated the lifetime mortality and incidence risks and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for all solid cancers, colon cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, and leukemia using the baseline cancer rates and compared them among the countries. The results showed that the lifetime mortality and incidence risks and DALYs for all solid cancers differed among the countries by a factor of 2–4 for males and 2–3 for females; these were low in less-developed countries. Our study proposed that health risk based on baseline cancer rates should be the benchmark for comparing radiation cancer risks.

BackgroundThe SHAMISEN (Nuclear Emergency Situations - Improvement of Medical And Health Surveillance) European project was conducted in 2015-2017 to review the lessons learned from the experience of past nuclear accidents and develop recommendations for preparedness and health surveillance of populations affected by a nuclear accident. Using a toolkit approach, Tsuda et al. recently published a critical review of the article by Cléro et al. derived from the SHAMISEN project on thyroid cancer screening after nuclear accident.Main bodyWe address the main points of criticism of our publication on the SHAMISEN European project.ConclusionWe disagree with some of the arguments and criticisms mentioned by Tsuda et al. We continue to support the conclusions and recommendations of the SHAMISEN consortium, including the recommendation not to launch a mass thyroid cancer screening after a nuclear accident, but rather to make it available (with appropriate information counselling) to those who request it.

On 27 November 2021, the non-profit organization (NPO) Fukushima Dialogue held the 23rd Fukushima Dialogue meeting in Naraha Machi, Fukushima Prefecture. The theme was “Sharing the situation surrounding Fukushima Daiichi treated water”. It was the 23rd meeting since the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) launched the ICRP Dialogue in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011, which the NPO Fukushima Dialogue took over in 2019. Held in a hybrid form, it was open to the public and has gathered up to 120 participants. The first part was devoted to presentations related to the theme of the meeting: technical aspects, testimonies about local (institutional or not) and foreign (Korea) perception, experiences from abroad of stakeholder involvement in the nuclear field. The second part was devoted to a structured dialogue between a panel of local citizens. The audience was participatory. This article summarizes the fruitful exchanges during these two days.

The Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA) has been a major topic of discussion in the literature over the past twenty years. In this paper, we propose a method to constitute a control group to isolate the OACA effect. Thus, we compared citation impact (MNCS) of 2,458,378 publications in fully OA journals to that (weighted MNCS) of a control group of non-OA publications (\#10,310,842). Similarly, we did the same exercise for OA publications in hybrid journals (\#1,024,430) and their control group (\#11,533,001), over the period 2010-2020. The results showed that there is no OACA for publications in fully OA journals, and that there is rather a disadvantage. Conversely, the OACA seems to be a reality in hybrid journals, suggesting that a better accessibility in this context tends to improve the visibility of publications. The lack of OACA for publications in fully OA journals is to be expected, as a great proportion of OA journals are newly created and less attractive to high-impact senior researchers.Another striking result of this paper is the fall of the OACA from 2016. The citation advantage fell from 70% to 9% between 2016 and 2020 (for publications in hybrid journals). We wonder if this fall is linked to the increase in the notoriety of pirate sites (eg Sci-Hub) from 2016. In other words, the democratization of pirate sites instantly cancels the positive effect of OA publication insofar as the question of access to scientific content no longer arises.

Judgements on tolerability and reasonableness are central to the optimisation of protection. There are currently several international developments regarding these key considerations which will contribute to the review and evolution of the system of radiological protection. The IRPA15 International Congress brought together the principal issues currently under discussion, and the outcome of these discussions is presented.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is regarded as one of the most disruptive technology of the century and with countless applications. What does it mean for radiation protection? This article describes the fundamentals of machine learning (ML) based methods and presents the inaugural applications in different fields of radiation protection. It is foreseen that the usage of AI will increase in radiation protection. Consequently, this article explores some of the benefits and also the potential barriers and questions, including ethical ones, that can come out. The article proposes that collaboration between radiation protection professionals and data scientist experts can accelerate and guide the development of the algorithms for effective scientific and technological outcomes.