Preventing and Responding to Nuclear Power Plant Disasters

Public Health Disaster Response

Public Health Responses to Disasters

Public Health responses to three disasters in Japan; Pandemic and All Hazard Preparedness Act (PAHPA)

What other public health measures were undertaken to mitigate the impact of these disasters?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention engage in public health preparedness programs as regular part of their mission. Public health preparedness programs are designed to enhance the capacity of communities, individual citizens, and public health systems to address emergencies and disasters that have implications for impacting health and well-being. Factors considered by public health preparedness programs include: Activities focused on prevention, quick responses that result in protecting people and the environment, and recovery measures that are required by the "scale, timing, or unpredictability [of a health emergency or disaster] that threatens to overwhelm routine capacities ("CDC," 2014).

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the lead agency for ensuring that the public receives advice on and assistance for the triple catastrophe experienced by Japan ("WHO," 2014). The magnitude of the earthquake caused a tsunami, which undermined the structural integrity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant ("WHO," 2014). WHO has been engaged in monitoring the nuclear accident situation since it first occurred ("WHO," 2014). A component of WHO monitoring has been the release of risk assessments and associated recommendations covering an array of public health concerns ("WHO," 2014). Particular foci of the risk assessments have included breastfeeding concerns, contamination of food and water, mental health issues, potassium iodide intake, and problems related to trade / transport / travel ("WHO," 2014). Technical support has also been provided by WHO networks (such as REMPAN, INFOSAN) to national authorities ("WHO," 2014). A key function of WHO is collaboration through agencies partnerships in order to better focus and coordinate the efforts of independent experts, and United Nations organizations ("WHO," 2014).

One very substantive issue associated with nuclear-reactor accidents is the lack of experience of medical practitioners and public health organizations with this type of disaster (Christodouleas, 2011). Indeed, the very nature of disasters contributes to problems with coordinated action in the treatment of people who experienced exposure to radiation and with respect to communication with people in the community regarding the public health response (Christodouleas, 2011). As with other types of disaster preparedness, there is a definitive need to engage in regular, mock response practice (Christodouleas, 2011). For any agency or institution with proximity to nuclear power plants -- or organizations that have a defined role in disaster response because of their position in the public health system -- there is an urgent need to describe disaster response in terms of dependable algorithmic response plans (Christodouleas, 2011). A key aspect of the planned disaster response is communication with individual patients and with the impacted communities about the risk of varying exposure levels. (Christodouleas, 2011, 2011) Such communication must address the "widespread public apprehension about acute radiation sickness and long-term cancer risks" and foster absolute participation throughout affected communities that enable the public health system to be fully and effectively engaged in robust response to the disaster (Christodouleas, 2011).

2.What measures were undertaken to mitigate radiation disasters in particular?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up by the United Nations in 1957 to audit world nuclear safety ("World Nuclear Association," 2014). Following the Chernobyl disaster, this role took on heightened importance, requiring particular safety procedures and reporting of all incidents, even the most minor ("World Nuclear Association," 2014). The IAEA works closely with the required nuclear safety inspectorates in every country operating nuclear power plants ("World Nuclear Association," 2014). Licensing regulations reflect the thrust toward robust conservative engineering in the industry that dictates the construction of containment structures -- as least so far as designs for reactors in the Western world ("World Nuclear Association," 2014). A key focus has been on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandated safety indicator of the "calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents" ("World Nuclear Association," 2014). In the United States, "utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million" ("World Nuclear Association," 2014). While this calculated core damage frequency has been one of the main metrics to assess reactor safety, European safety authorities prefer different metrics to determine reactor safety, emphasizing the "actual provision of back-up hardware" as well as "probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) for core damage frequency" ("World Nuclear Association," 2014).