Abstract

Purpose

We aimed for a quantitative evaluation that justifies guidelines for evacuation which take into consideration both the human and economic costs. To the best of our knowledge, such an evaluation has not been performed yet. The present guidelines published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are probably based on averting radiation risk only; IAEA did not cite any quantitative estimation of the human cost of evacuation.

Materials and methods

Quantitative estimation of the human and monetary costs of evacuation and, alternatively, the human and monetary costs of radiation exposure (non-evacuation). Associating human life with monetary value is psychologically difficult and somewhat challenging ethically; however, there is no escape from such an association (cost-effectiveness analysis) when making decisions regarding public health and safety, since extraneous public expenditures lead to a statistical life shortening. Estimating worst-case health consequences of irradiation, we used the conservative linear no-threshold (LNT) model because this model is widely used in spite of its controversy. In our estimation of the human cost of evacuation, we considered three factors: (a) direct loss of life (after Fukushima, 1% of the evacuees died within 2 years due to causes directly related to their evacuation), (b) loss of quality of life, and (c) loss of wealth leading to loss of life. The connection of economic loss with loss of life was performed according to the median cost-effectiveness threshold of 50–100 thousand USD per quality-adjusted life year.

Results

Even according to mortality calculations based on LNT, the overall loss of life due to evacuation is higher than the loss of life due to irradiation if the population-averaged first-year radiation dose is 500 mSv or less.

Conclusions

Based on the performed analysis, we suggest avoiding evacuation if the projected first-year dose is below 500 mSv. This suggested action level is about five-fold higher than the action level presently recommended by the IAEA (100 mSv per year).

中文翻译：

---

大规模核事故的后果和疏散准则：成本效益分析。

摘要

目的

我们的目标是进行定量评估，以证明疏散指南的合理性，其中要同时考虑人员和经济成本。据我们所知，尚未进行这样的评估。国际原子能机构（IAEA）发布的本指南可能仅基于避免辐射风险。原子能机构没有引用撤离人员成本的任何定量估计。

材料和方法

撤离的人力和金钱成本以及辐射暴露（不撤离）的人力和金钱成本的定量估计。将人的生活与货币价值联系起来在心理上是困难的，在道德上也有些挑战。但是，在做出有关公共卫生和安全的决策时，这种关联（成本效益分析）是无法避免的，因为多余的公共支出会导致统计寿命的缩短。为了评估辐射对健康的最坏情况，我们使用保守的线性无阈值（LNT）模型，因为尽管存在争议，但该模型仍被广泛使用。在估算疏散人员的费用时，我们考虑了三个因素：（a）生命的直接丧失（在福岛之后，疏散人员中有1％在2年内因与撤离直接相关的原因死亡。（b）生活质量下降，以及（c）导致生命损失的财富损失。经济损失与生命损失之间的联系是根据每个质量调整生命年的成本效益中位数阈值50–100,000美元进行的。

结果

即使根据基于LNT的死亡率计算，如果人口平均的第一年辐射剂量为500 mSv或更小，则疏散导致的总体生命损失仍高于辐射导致的生命损失。

结论

根据进行的分析，如果预计的第一年剂量低于500 mSv，我们建议避免撤离。该建议的行动水平比国际原子能机构目前建议的行动水平（每年100 mSv）高约五倍。