top of page

ICRP International

Conference on Recovery After Nuclear Accidents

Radiological Protection Lessons
from Fukushima and Beyond

December 1 - 18, 2020

SESSION 1.1 / セッション 1.1

Updated: Jul 5, 2021

Opening: Views of International Organizations

Questions not answered during the live sessions will be transferred to the comment section below the session video recording. You may also use the comment section to ask questions after the livestream.







Questions from the Livestream 招待講演(生配信時)へのご質問


Post-Accident Recovery: Lessons Learnt and Future Considerations 事故後の復興:教訓と将来の考察 William D. Magwood, IV

Q: Do you think that to gain credibility it is necessary to first clarify that the responsibility for the damage and the occurrence of the nuclear accident lies with the countries which continue to use nuclear power? / 信頼を得るには、原発事故の加害責任と発生責任が原発を続けてきた国にあることをまず明確にする必要があるのでは?

Q: The NEA presentation referred to "Transition and recovery phases of emergency" and the ICRP presentation covered early phase, intermediate phase, and late phase. We need uniformity in the system of phases. / NEAの発表では、「緊急事態の移行と復興の段階」を使用し、ICRPの発表では、初期段階、中期段階、後期段階を使用している。段階の同一システムを使用する必要がある。


Developments since the 2013 UNSCEAR Report on the Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure due to the Fukushima Accident


Gillian Hirth

Q: What are Data provided by Minamisouma city and Naraha town -Dose estimates? Could you explain this further? / UNSCEARのご講演 Data provided by Minamisouma city and Naraha town -Dose estimates は何か、もう少しご説明いただけませんか?

A: In addition to the extensive literature review undertaken for the UNSCEAR 2020 report, a number of measurement campaigns were carried out by municipalities to assess individual doses from external exposure. Two locations (Minamisoma City and Naraha Town) in these municipalities provided external exposure measurement data to the Committee. This data was anonymous, and was very useful in supporting the development and validation of a revised model for estimation of external exposure to the wider population.


The new ICRP recommendations on recovery 復旧に関するICRPの新勧告 Michiaki Kai 甲斐 倫明

Q: How many public comments did you receive? What kinds of comments did you receive? How did you reflect these comments in the publication? I would like to know the differences between the draft of this report and the new one. / 甲斐先生、ありがとうございました。パブリックコメントはどのようなものがどれぐらいきて、どのように反映されたのでしょうか。ご教授いただけましたら。昨年のドラフトとの変更点をわかりやすく教えてください。

A: More than 300 sets of comments were received each ranging from a single sentence to many pages. All can be viewed on the ICRP website by going to, selecting ‘Consultations’ under ‘NEWS’, and scrolling down to ‘Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident’. The direct link is HERE. Several months were spent considering all these comments carefully to develop the final version. When the report is published, an accompanying document will summarize how the comments were treated.

1文のものから数ページに及ぶものまで、300以上のコメントが寄せられました。全てのコメントは、ICRP Webサイト(の[NEWS]の下の[Consultations]をクリック頂き、[Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident]の[Comments]をクリック下さい。直接リンクはです。これらの全てのコメントを検討し、最終的にPublicationとして出版するために、数か月を費やしました。このPublicationが出版される際に、頂いたコメントに対する回答の要約も合わせて公表致します。

Q: Some residents are appealing for restoration to the original state. Is it correct to interpret ICRP's recommendation that to prioritise avoiding higher levels of exposure, protection from a small amount of exposure should be tolerated, that is, restoration to the original state by soil dressing etc. may be postponed? / 原状回復を裁判に訴えている住民もいます。 より高レベルの被曝を避けるのを優先するためには,少しの被曝からの防護は甘受されるべきだ,つまり,客土などによる原状回復は後回しでよい,というのがICRPの勧告内容だと理解してよいのでしょうか。

Q: It is difficult to “recover” the widespread pollution situation, which keeps the prices of agricultural products lower than before the accident, despite being forced to do farm work under higher exposures than before the accident. How does ICRP recommend that this issue be resolved through the cooperation of local people and reconciliation between stakeholders? Unless the contaminated person acknowledges the responsibility for pollution and actively "recovers" it with soil dressing, it will not be restored, correct? / 広範に汚染が広がる状況を元通りに「復旧」するのは困難であり,そのために事故前と比べて農産物の価格が低いままになっています。事故前と比べて高い被ばくを受けるなかでの農作業を強いられているにもかかわらずです。この問題は,地域の人たちの協力やステークホルダ間の「和解」によって,どのように解決されると考えて,ICRPは勧告しているのでしょうか? 汚染者が汚染の責任を認め,客土などによる積極的な「復旧」をしない限り,元通りにはならないのではないでしょうか?

Q: Early phase, intermediate phase, and long-term phase are used in the presentations repeatedly. These need to be explained in relation to planned exposure situation, emergency exposure situation and existing exposure situation. / 発表では、初期段階、中期段階、長期段階が繰り返し使用されます。これらは、計画的な被ばく状況、緊急時被ばく状況、および現存被ばく状況に関連して説明する必要があります。

Q: Are dose limits for occupational workers in existing exposure situations the same as for planned exposure situations. Can you clarify? / 現存被ばくにおける職業労働者の線量限度は、計画的な被ばく状況と同じです。説明して頂きたい。

Q: The update of ICRP-109 and 111 uses terms such as early phase, intermediate phase and late phase. But IAEA GSG-11 uses terms such as urgent phase, early phase and transition phase. Two main publications (ICRP & IAEA) using two different phases can cause confusion. Can we harmonize and make this consistent internationally? / ICRP-109および111の更新では、初期段階、中期段階、後期段階などの用語が使用されています。しかし、IAEA GSG-11は、緊急段階、初期段階、移行段階などの用語を使用しています。2つの主要な出版物(ICRPとIAEA)は、2つの異なるフェーズを使用していますが、これらは紛らわしい用語です。私たちは国際的に調和し、一貫性を保つことができますか?

Related Posts

See All

Y. Moriwake, A. Takamasa, H. Toma, S. Sakoda

Introduction of Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan’s Project on Japanese Translations of ICRP Publications Y. Moriwake (JAPAN NUS CO., LTD.; Secretary, ICRP Publications Japanese Translation Commit


Organised by


Hosted by

© 2020 ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection

  • White Twitter Icon
  • White YouTube Icon
  • White Facebook Icon
  • White Instagram Icon
bottom of page