ML21309A557
| ML21309A557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/2021 |
| From: | Tanya Smith NRC/NSIR/DPR |
| To: | |
| Smith T | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21309A655 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML21309A557 (23) | |
Text
Developing good habits for public protection
Todd Smith, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor for Emergency Preparedness and Incident Response Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
DISCL AIMER The views and opinion expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission.
Evidence suggests a change in radiation protection But how do we change?
Deliberate Good HabitGood Governance
Scarry, Elaine. Thinking in an Emergency, W.W Norton & Company, Inc, 2012.
We rely on habit in times of uncertainty
Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (HHS, 2014)
Crises, by definition, create very high levels of uncertainty.During crisis situations, decision makers are often unable to collect and process information in a timely manner. They rely on established routines for situations that are, by definition, not routine.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Crisis Emergency Risk Communication: 2014 Edition, HHS/CDC, 2014.
Rather than emergency bringing about the end of thinking, thinking should bring about the end of emergency.
Elain Scarry, Thinking in an Emergency Protective actions should do more benefit than harm
Stressors can disrupt the balance between protection and harm
The World Health Organization identified three such stressors:
Stressor 1 - Radiation Stressor 2 - Protective Actions Stressor 3 - Stigmatization
How can good habits help protect the public?
World Health Organization. A framework for mental health and psychological support in radiological and nuclear emergencies, 2020.
Stressor 1: Radiation
Which communication habit is useful?
Habit 1: Radiation is invisible, its effects are uncertain, and the public fears it.
Habit 2: Radiation is detectable, predictable, protectable.
What we know and what the public understands
Radiation Risks in Perspective (2006)
We know more about the health effects of ionizing radiation than most other carcinogenic agents.
Strengths of Public Messages (U.S. CDC, 2012):
Participants felt another key message was that low exposures of radiation may result in minimal or no health effects.
o Exposure to the radiation can be harmful.
o I guess that not all radiation is bad, depending on the dose.
Mossman, Kenneth. Radiation Risks in Perspective, CRC Press, 2006.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC). Health Effects Message Testing: Detonation of Improvised Nuclear Device, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) and National Center for Environmental Health, Radiation Studies Branch, January 2012.
Develop habits of communicating what is known
Communicating During and After a Nuclear Power Plant Incident (2013)
How much radiation is safe?
According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposure between 5-10 rem (50-100 mSv) usually results in little to no harmful health effects.
It takes a large dose of radiation more than 75 rem (750 mSv) in a short amount of time (usually minutes) to cause immediate health effects like acute radiation sickness.
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Communicating During and After a Nuclear Power Plant Incident, June 2013.
Stressor 2: Protective Actions
Which response habit is useful?
Habit 1: Immediate evacuation out of an abundance of caution.
Habit 2: Go inside, stay inside, tune in.
Lessons from All-Hazards Risk Communication
Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (U.S. HHS/CDC, 2014)
Give decision makers and others with influence in the community open access to complete scientific information.
Risk Communication Strategies for the Very Worst of Cases (Johns Hopkins, 2019)
Our elected officialsdont really talk about these issues with any degree of urgency...
Improving or increasing the knowledge of key leaders and decision makers will help.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Crisis Emergency Risk Communication: 2014 Edition, HHS/CDC, 2014.
Johns Hopkins, Risk Communication Strategies for the Very Worst of Cases: How to Issue a Call to Action on Global Catastroph ic Biological Risks, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security, 2019.
The NRC supports public protection with evidence
Protective Action Decision -Making in the Intermediate Phase (NUREG/CR-7248)
Evacuation Time Estimate Study (NUREG/CR-7269)
Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) Size Methodology Sensitivity of Dose Projections to Weather Analysis of the Effectiveness of Sheltering-in-Place Use of Heating and Ventilation Systems during Sheltering-in-Place Dose Reduction Effectiveness of Masks Nonradiological Health Impacts of Evacuations and Relocations (NUREG/CR-7285)
MACCS Consequence Model Improvements to Inform Protective Action Recommendations Gathering and sharing best practices Shared understanding of offsite response organization (ORO) capabilities and practices for protecting the public in the transition phase
- Monitoring
- Relocation & reentry Best Practices identified for:
- Food condemnation Communicating with the public
- Drin k in g wate r Developing partnerships and
- Actions beyond the EPZ sharing resources for monitoring Situation-dependent decisions based on science Leveraging technology Vulnerable populations, livestock and pets
U.S. NRC. NUREG/CR-7248, Capabilities and Practices of Offsite Response Organizations for Protective Actions in the Intermediate Phase of a Radiological Emergency, June 2018.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7248/index.html Providing insights into effective evacuation S tate-of -the -art traffic simulation models used to better understand evacuation dynamics and to develop insights for protecting the public and first responders.
U.S. NRC. NUREG/CR-7269, Enhancing Guidance for Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, January 2020.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7269/index.html Analyzing the protection of shelters
1
= +
Dose Reduction Factors Effectiveness of sheltering-in-place (U.S. EPA, 2017) (Smith, 2021)
U.S. EPA. EPA-400/R-17/001, PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, January 2017.
Smith, Todd R. Transforming Protective Action Strategies for Radiological Emergencies Exacting the Science of Sheltering-in-place. Oregon State University, 2021.
Quantifying the benefits of masks
https://ramp.nrc-gateway. gov/
Because the public wants to know how to be safe
Health Effects Message Testing (U.S. CDC, 2012)
Feedback on Public Messages:
Although participants understood the main messages, they expressed that the information they would want to hear during an emergency came too late in the message.
If there was any good message, it was one that youre best off being inside and I really dont remember exactly, but let s say go in a cellar or someplace that s secure.
o The first part of it reminds me of just going back to very informational, and the second part reminds me more of what you would do for an emergency.
o I marked out the first two sections. Just give me the rest down at the bottom.
o Just give them the information to keep themselves safe, what to do until further notice.
U.S. CDC. Health Effects Message Testing: Detonation of Improvised Nuclear Device, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Educ ation (ORISE) and National Center for Environmental Health, Radiation Studies Branch, January 2012.
Develop protection habits supported by science
Clear, concise instruction on how to be safe, supported by evidence Stressor 3: Stigmatization
Which habit is useful?
Habit 1: Unique response to radiological emergencies and prolonged displacement from home.
Habit 2: Develop resilient communities able to face all hazards.
Prolonged displacement has quantifiable effects
Meta-analysis of Odds Ratio for All Health Effects
Displaced populations are more at risk across all hazards and all health effects
U.S. NRC. NUREG/CR-7285, Nonradiological Health Consequences of Evacuation and Relocation August 2021.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7285/index.html Use the same habits for all hazards
A unique hazard does not require a unique response
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://community.fema.gov/ProtectiveActions/s/
Communicate balanced views of the risk Protective Action Questions & Answers for Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies (U.S. EPA, 2017 )
How much radiation is safe? How much is considered low risk?
It takes a large dose of radiation more than 75 rem (75,000 mrem or 750 mSv) in a short amount of time (usually minutes to hours) to cause immediate health effects, such as acute radiation sickness.
Infants, the elderly and pregnant women are more sensitive to radiation exposure than healthy adults.
Factors like age, gender and even previous exposure also might influence a body s reaction to radiation exposure.
Follow these three steps to limit your exposure to radiation and lower your risk:
- 1. Get inside a building or to a basement to protect yourself.
- 2. Carefully remove the outer layer of your clothing, seal it in a plastic bag and get clean (shower or wipe off ).
- 3. Li ste n to officials and emergency responders for further safety instructions.
U.S. EPA. EPA-402/K-17/002, Protective Action Question & Answers for Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies: A companion document to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Protective Action Guide (PAG), September 2017.
Change is possible Through deliberation, good governance, and good habit, we can keep the public safe.
What will not change The U.S. NRCs commitment to protect public health and safety will not change.