ICRP1xxへのコメント

2019/9/2　公開　根拠となる文献など不十分だが､参考までに公開する｡
図はuploadが面倒なので省略した｡typoなどは適宜修正する.
10/10バージョン｡修正中であり､大幅に改訂する予定｡

10/23, 25と二回に分けてICRPサイトに投稿した内容

　　　総論 (｢1　全体的なコメント｣部分｡英語のあとに日本語｡ただし､日本語の修正は英語版に追いついていない)

　　　各論 (｢3.各部分へのコメント｣部分｡英語のみ+pdf添付)

ICRP PUBLICATION 1XX

Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident

Update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111へのコメント

濱岡豊

10/10バージョン

慶應義塾大学商学部

hamaoka@fbc.keio.ac.jp

1.前提

1.1　コメント対象

　ICRP(2019), "ICRPPublication 1xx:Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident: Update of Icrp Publications 109 and 111,"

･パブコメページ　

･甲斐氏による日本語補足資料　プレゼンテーション資料､画像､一部訳

　

･日本語版

　市民科学研究室　ICRP(国際放射線防護委員会)の勧告改訂草案の日本語訳を掲載中

　　甲斐氏らによる部分約の他､市民団体による残りの部分の翻訳も掲載｡

1.2　関連文書　(次ページの｢図　改訂版の位置づけ｣参照)

○ICPR Pub. 103 (2007勧告)

　ICRP (2007), The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 

○ICRP Pub. 103(2007年勧告) 英語版　　日本語版

　上記に基づいて､被曝事故に関して､緊急時､長期汚染時に分けて勧告をまとめたもの｡今回のパブコメ対象文書は福島などでの経験を踏まえて､上記の109&111について大規模原子力災害に注目して改訂したものとされている｡

○ICPR Pub. 109　ICRP(2009a)　ICRPPublication 109: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations for the Protection of People in Emergency Exposure Situations.

日本語版)　緊急時被ばく状況における人々の防護のための委員会勧告の適用　

　　

○ICPR Pub. 111　ICRP(2009b)　ICPR Publication 111: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-Term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency.

日本語版)原子力事故または放射線緊急事態後の長期汚染地域に居住する人々の防護に対する委員会勧告の適用　

○ICRP_TG84 (2012), Report of ICPR Task Group 84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Power Plant Accident in Japan Vis-à-Vis the ICPR System of Radiological Protection: accessed 2019/8/11.

福島核災害に関して､初期の課題をまとめたもの｡

○その他　ICRP　Publication　一覧　英語　　日本語版　

○解説イベントの動画など

･8/22　阿部知子事務所主催1回目のヒヤリング　子どもに年１０MSvの被曝容認？〜放射線新基準でヒヤリング

　ICRP出稿経験のある規制庁職員による概説と濱岡､満田氏による解説｡この文書の古いバージョンなどを含む資料も公開｡

･8/23 ICRP新勧告「被災者を守れない」〜市民団体が批判

･9/2 ICRP新勧告について学習会～ICRP委員による説明

　この文書作成TG座長　甲斐氏による説明と質疑応答｡

･9/9 第101回公開研究会「ICRP新勧告（案）の問題点～パブコメ応募のてびき～」

･9/18　阿部知子事務所主催２回目のヒアリング  ICRP勧告案に対するヒアリング (TGの副座長本間氏による説明)

図　改訂版の位置づけ

1　全体的なコメント

1.1　全体的なコメント

このPublication作成に携わったICRP　TG93, Committee 4および､その前提となる福島原発事故の初期段階での課題をまとめたTG84の各メンバーの努力に感謝する｡

Reference level の引き下げは､一般公衆の放射線被曝を減らす方向であり高く評価する｡一方で､(1) このPublicationの位置づけの不明確さ､(2) Publication作成の前提としての事実認識の不足､(3)他のリスクを導入することによる被曝影響の過小評価につながる不十分な評価枠組､勧告の実効性の低さ,(4)引用文献の偏りや誤り(5)Pub 109&111からの変更点やその理由が明示されずstekeholderが意見を表明しにくいことなど大きな問題がある｡福島における健康被害など確定していない問題もある｡

 ICRP103(2007年勧告)から12年が経過し､勧告そのものの改訂にとりかかる時期である｡実際､このドラフトでも援用されている実効線量の見直しに関するTG79､低線量･率に関するTG91､Detriment Calculation Methodologyに関するTG102､Emergency Dosimetryに関するTG112､Reasonableness and Tolerabilityに関するTG114などのプロジェクトが進行中である｡それらに基づいて､2007年勧告を改訂した後､Pub109&111を改訂すればよいのではないか｡

　以下､この章で全体的なコメントGeneral Commentを述べた後､次章でPublicationの各文にコメントする｡

(1)このPublicationの位置づけの不明確さ

　タイトルにはUpdate of ICRP 109 and 111 とあり､109と111が改訂されreplaceされるものと考える｡しかし､本文(line 193-197)には､109と111が核災害､放射線緊急事態全般を扱ったのに対して､このPublicationは､”Large Nuclear Accident”にfocusしたとある[1]｡サブタイトルにも､”Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident”とある｡そうであれば､既存の109&111は､このPublicationでは扱われていない状況も含んでいるので､このpublicationが発行されても有効である｡よって､”Update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111“ではなく､”Application of ICRP 109&111 to Large Nuclear Accident”とすべきではないか｡

　一方で､”Table 3.1. Reference levels for emergency responders.”､”Table 6.1. Reference levels for optimisation of the protection of people in the case of nuclear accidents.”にまとめられているようにReference levelsの変更も含まれているようである｡

その後､平均被曝量100mSv以下を分析対象として､有意な係数が得られている論文は多くある(例えば､Richardson et al.  2015)､Leuraud et al. 2015)｡NCRPの最近のレポートでもこのことを認めている｡“Most of the larger, stronger studies broadly supported an LNT model. Furthermore, the preponderance of study subjects had cumulative doses <100 mGy (NCRP 2018,p.6)”｡よって､100mSvを緊急時の参照レベルの上限とすること自体を見直す必要がある｡

　このように､Publicationの位置づけを明確にすべきであるし､後述するように事実把握が不十分であることや実行可能性が低い内容となっている｡ICRP103(2007年勧告)から12年が経過し､勧告そのものの改訂にとりかかる時期である｡関連するプロジェクトや改訂が終わるまで､109&111の改訂は延期すべき｡

(2)福島やチェルノブイリの事実把握の不足

  このPublicationのpurposeは Chernobyl and Fukushimaの経験を(Publication 109と111に)統合することであるという[2]｡しかし､ドラフトでは､政府や専門家､そして東京電力の対応における課題が充分に認識されていない｡

　背景(1.1. Background)で記述されているように､今回の改訂は､ICRP Task Group 84のレポート(ICRP_TG84 2012)で指摘された､放射線防護実施上の課題issuesへの対応が中心となっているようである｡このレポートは2012年という事故後1年間(emergency phase)で認識された課題をまとめており､その後､明らかとなった中期もしくは長期段階 (intermediate/ long term phase)における問題点をカバーしていない[3]｡以下に指摘する､これらの課題をANNEX B　FUKUSHIMAに加筆し､それらを解決する方策を含めてPublicationを改訂すべきである｡なお､国会事故調の報告書(NAIIC 2012)Ch.3には､事故後約1年間の官邸､政府､東京電力等の対応の問題点がまとめられているので参照されたい｡この他､少なくとも以下の点をANNEXに含めるべきである｡

･日本政府が､放射線防護に“体系的な取り組み”を行っていないこと｡例えば､計画的避難区域の設定､事故直後の校舎･校庭の使用[4]､避難区域の解除のいずれにも年間20mSvを用いており､事故後8年経過してもこの基準のままである｡これは緊急時は20-100mSvの下限､現存被曝時には1-20mSvの低い方､それを時間とともに引き下げるというICRPの勧告に体系的に従ってはいない｡また､防護戦略に関して､ICRP109&111では永久移転permanent locationも記述されているが､日本政府は帰還政策に偏重している｡さらに､意思決定時にstakeholderをほとんど参加させていない｡

･原発事故にともなう放射性物質排出の責任者である東京電力が､事故の責任を十分に認めず､賠償や除染などに不十分な対応しかしていない｡このため､同社が負うべき責任が､被災住民や全国の消費者の負担に帰されている｡

･”co-expertise”に関して､住民の能動的な活動については賛同する部分もある｡これは､チェルノブイリや福島でのETHOSを念頭においたと考えられるが､その活動の起源を考えると､すべてを肯定することはできない｡ANNEX A. CHERNOBYLではETHOSについて､まったく述べられていないが､ICRP Publication 111 "ANNEX A.6. Chernobyl/Commonwealth of Independent States”によると､住民らのself-help活動は､経済状況の悪化､旧ソ連の崩壊などによって補償が得られなくなったことが起源だという｡つまり､事故の責任企業や国が行うべきことを住民に担わせるためのものであった｡これは極めて重要な点であるので､ANNEX Aにも加筆すべきである｡チェルノブイリでは事故後5年の線量が5mSv以上の地域では移住を認めたが､福島ではそうしていない｡それぞれの事例について詳細に記述し､さらに二つの地域を比較することも重要である｡

･専門家の中にも､ICRPが採用しているLNTを否定する者､100mSv以下ではリスク係数が有意ではないことを影響がないと誤解する者などがおり､これが専門家への信頼を失う大きな要因となったこと｡

(3)放射線被曝の影響の過小評価につながり､最適化の実行可能性も低い意思決定の枠組み

　"2.2. Consequences of a large nuclear accident"はPub109&111になかった項目である｡内容に関しても､ICRP103､109&111では､放射線による健康影響Radiation-induced health effectsだけでなく､Societal consequences､Economic consequencesを考慮すべきとしたが､改訂案では､さらに”Consequences for fauna and flora” ､”Psychological consequences” ､”Health impacts of changes in lifestyle”が加えられている｡しかし､これらを考慮して､どのように評価するのか､具体的な手法が明示されておらず､実行可能性が低い｡

ICRP101(ICRP 2006)では､Cost–benefit analysis､Cost-effectiveness analysis､Multi-attribute utility analysisなどの手法が紹介されている｡これら手法を用いて評価するには､各consequenceを列挙し､(定量的)に評価する｡さらに､それらの重要度も(定量的に)評価する必要がある｡しかし､例えばSocietal consequence にある､”a collapse of trust in experts and authorities(Line 378)”をどのように(定量的)に測定し､さらには放射線被曝による健康影響の可能性と比べた重要度を評価する方法が明示されていない｡実行可能性は低く､少なくとも福島では､そのようなことは行われてはいない｡

各節の記述についても､"2.2.5. Psychological consequences"では､Suzuki(2015)とMaeda(2017)など､福島を対象とした論文が引用されているが､"2.2.1.2. Cancer and heritable diseases"では､福島に関する論文はまったく紹介されていない｡福島での甲状腺検査の結果について､地域差がないとするOhira et al.(2016)､Suzuki et al.2016)､有意な地域差があるとするTsuda et al.(2016)､外部線量と有意な相関があるとするKato(2019)などがある｡後述するように､これに関して､改訂案 (Para B 42) では､不適切な引用および解釈を行っており､放射線被曝の影響を過小評価している｡提案されている意思決定の方法は､放射線被曝の影響以外の様々なconsequenceを考慮させることによって､放射線被曝の影響をさらに過小評価する方策となっている｡

(4)引用文献の偏りや引用方法などの問題

　前述のように､福島についてpsychological consequenceについての論文は紹介されているが､被曝影響についての論文は本編では､まったく引用されていない｡同様にCo-expertiseの有効性の根拠としては､ICRPのLochard(2019), Ando(2016, 2019)のように活動の当事者が主観的､定性的に記述したもののみである｡推奨するのであれば､第三者が定量的に評価した研究に基づくべきである｡このように､引用されている文献には偏りがみられる｡

              さらに､パラグラフ(B 42)では､"The first and second rounds of the thyroid ultrasound examinations were completed in March 2014 and 2016, respectively. Children will continue to have ultrasound examinations biennially until they reach 20 years of age, and every 5 years thereafter. Childhood thyroid cancer cases found in Fukushima Prefecture are unlikely to be the result of radiation exposure after the accident."と述べているがと述べているが､引用先のレポートはthe first roundについてしか述べていない｡また､"However unlikely, the possibility of the radiation effects cannot be completely denied at this point in time. (FUM 2018, p.11)"とあり､ドラフトでの記述は誤りである｡また､"Line 1930) 　In this regard, a long-term thyroid health monitoring programme should only be conducted for those individuals exposed in utero or during childhood or adolescence with 100–500 mGy absorbed dose to the thyroid."の根拠は､IARC報告書だと考えられるが､それを直接引用せず､概要を紹介したTogawa et al.(2018)を引用している｡ IARCのレポートは"現在進行中の福島での健康調査へのrecommendationを含んでいない"と強調しているので[5]､ドラフトにも含めるべきではない｡引用方法だけでなく､内容の解釈にも問題がある｡引用方法および文献をしっかりと理解することも科学的文献の基本である｡ドラフトでは､上記の重要な点でそれが行われていない｡再度内容を充分にチェックすべきである｡

            なお､参考レベル100mSvの前提となっている､”(22) There is reliable scientific evidence that whole-body exposures on the order of ≥100 mSv”の引用元はICRP103(2007年勧告)という古い文献である｡後述するように､その後､低い被曝量でも有意なリスク係数が得られる研究が発表されている｡それら疫学研究の知見を踏まえてICRP103自体を改訂すべきである｡

(5) Pub 109&111からの変更点やその理由が明示されていない

ICRP103(2007年勧告)では､EXECUTIVE SUMMARYに主要な変更点が述べられているが､本Publicationでは､それがなされていない｡例えば現存被曝時の参考レベル1-20mSvについて109､111と改訂版の関連部分を下記に示す｡本Publicationでは､the actual distribution of doses in the population and the tolerability of riskが付け加えられている｡しかし､その理由は明確に説明されていない｡また､tolerabilityも説明もしくは定義されていない｡主要な変更部分を明記し､その理由を説明すべきである｡

このように､ドラフトには大きな問題点があり､関連するプロジェクトも結論を得ていない｡関連プロジェクトが修了するまで109&111の改訂は延期すべきである｡

 1.2　加筆すべき事項

　前節で述べた事項のうち､加筆すべき事項を具体的に指摘する｡

･放射線の確率的影響がLNTモデルに従うことの明示

　前述のように､福島事故の際に､100mSvまでの被曝には影響がないという誤った解釈がなされた｡ICRP103 para 36 にはLNTを採用することが明示されているにも関わらず､ICRP109&111および改訂案には､LNTを採用することが明示されていない｡今後の混乱を避けるためにも､ICRPの防護体系ではLNTを前提としていることを明示すべきである｡

･日本政府の非体系的な取り組み

2011年4月22日､｢事故発生から1年の期間内に累積線量が20ミリシーベルトに達するおそれのある地域を計画的避難区域に設定した[6]｣｡これはICRP109での緊急時の参考レベル100-20mSvの下限を選んだものと考えられる｡一方､事故直後の校庭の使用や､避難区域の解除についても同じ20mSvが基準とされている｡避難区域の解除を､現存被ばくへの移行と考えれば､1-20mSvの下方を採用すべきというICRP109の勧告からは外れている｡

ここまでは改訂案の(Para B 7, B9, B28)に記述されている｡線量の低減にともなって参考レベルを引き下げることをICRP109(Para y)では述べているが､日本政府は事故後8年経過してもそのままとしていることを指摘すべきである｡

さらに､ICRP109&111で重視されている意思決定時のstakeholderの参加を軽視している｡この点については､本Publicationで引用されているAndo(2016)は次のように述べている｡" numerous ‘lines’ are set by central and local government standards (Ando 2016, p.76)"｡

この他､日本政府は炉心溶融ではなく炉心損傷と呼ぶことによって事故を過小にみせるなど､事故当初から情報の公開には消極的であった｡チェルノブイリでは甲状腺screeningが35万人に対して行われたが､福島では､1080名にしか行わなれず､途中で打ち切られた理由も不明である｡さらに､放射線防護策に関して､帰還の促進を重視し自主避難者への対応を軽視している｡このように､日本政府の取り組みは非体系的である｡

･Nuclear Accidentの原因企業の責任の明示

　このpublicationがfocusするLarge scale nuclear accidentは電力会社の運営する発電所において生じる｡よって､事故対応や､その後の賠償については､電力会社が全面的に責任を負うべきであるが､このことが明示されていない｡本来ならば､Polluter-Pays Principleに則って､放出された放射性物質は東京電力が除去すべきである｡しかし､責任を拒否することすら行われている[7]｡賠償請求についても､東京電力が窓口とされ､加害者が被害者への賠償を査定する方法が取られた｡最近ではADRの拒否が多発している｡

風評被害という言葉が使われるが､本来これは根拠がない情報によって､被害を受けることを意味する｡福島県内には原発事故によって､放射性物質が拡散されたのであり､それが農水産物に含まれる可能性はある｡それがないとしても､イメージが低下したものを忌避するのは消費者の当然の対応である｡このように､事故に伴う農水産物の売上の低下については､本来､東電が対応すべきであるにも関わらず風評被害という言葉によって､責任が消費者側に転嫁された(吉川　2018)｡前述のように､チェルノブイリのETHOSも国からの補償が得られなくなったための自助活動が起源とされている｡

このように原発事故の責任者がすべきことが曖昧にされ､消費者に大きな負担が強いられている｡このことを是正するためにも､大規模原子力事故の原因企業が責任を果たすことを前提とすることをドラフトに明記すべきである｡

 表　主な改訂ポイントとそれへのコメント

	109&111	ドラフト版	コメント
Publicationの位置づけ	103(2007年勧告)を緊急事態､長期汚染地域に適用｡	109&111を大規模原子力災害に適用｡	今回のドラフトは109と111を大規模原子力災害に適用したのであれば､Update ofではなく､Application of 103, 109&111 とすべきなのでは?  参考レベルを変更したのであれば､103にも遡って適用するのか?
LNTへの言及	LNTの言葉は使われず｡	左に同じ｡	Para 22には概ねLNT的な説明が書かれているが､LNTという単語が示されていない｡100mSv以下では影響がないと誤解する者がいるので､LNTを明示すべき(ICRP　103のPara 36における記述)｡ 　ただし､100mSvの根拠はICRP103(2007年)での文献サーベイ｡その後の研究蓄積を踏まえて､それ自体を再考する必要がある｡
On-site, off-siteの区分	なし	あり
事前の準備	109　7.緊急時被曝状況に対する準備	Preparedness	Preparednessの重要性に注目したことは評価｡ただし､日本では避難計画は規制委員会の審査対象となっていないことを明示｡ 　避難したので高齢者などに死亡者が生じたことが紹介されているが､被曝を避けるために避難をしても死亡者がでないようにすることはpreparednessに含まれるはずである｡
緊急時の対応者､公衆の参考レベル	緊急対応者　20-100mSv 　状況によっては超過を許容｡ 公衆　20-100mSv	緊急対応者　≦100mSv 状況によっては超過を許容｡ 公衆　≦100mSv	上限100mSvを緊急対応者と公衆で同じとする理由が不明｡
公衆の参考レベル	公衆 緊急時　20-100mSv 現存被曝　1-20mSvの下方から選択 長期的には1mSv/yearを目指す｡	公衆 緊急時　100mSv以下 現存被曝　10mS以下｡ 長期的には1mSv/年 のオーダー｡	厳しくなったと考えていいのか? 上限20→10mSv､および長期的に1mSvの｢オーダー｣に変更した理由､表記を変更した理由を明示｡
Accidentの責任者の責務	明示されず｡	明示されず｡	放射性物質を排出した企業が責任を果たすことが前提｡東電の不十分な対応をANNEXに記述すべき｡ チェルノブイリのself-helpは国などが賠償を履行せず､苦肉の策として開始された(Pub 111 ANNEX)｡Self-help, co-expertiseを前提とすべきではない｡ 風評という言葉も企業の責任を消費者に転嫁するものである｡
考慮すべき帰結	Health effect/ Economic/ Societal	左に加えて “Consequences for fauna and flora” ”Psychological consequences” ”Health impacts of changes in lifestyle”	Psychological には､福島での調査結果が引用されているが､Radiation Health effectには福島での影響についての論文は示されていない｡ANNEXでは､放射線の影響ではなさそうと書かれている｡Radiationの影響を過小評価しているのではないか｡ Psychologicalは被曝の影響ではないと考えているようだが､被曝によって中枢神経系に(器質的な影響が生じ)､cognitiveな障害が生じることを示す研究も行われている(例えばCEREBRAD プロジェクト)｡ Economicについては､個人レベルでの失業､収入減といった重要な問題が記述されていない｡ Societal に､専門家や当局への信頼の崩壊が挙げられているが､それをどう測定､(例えば被曝による健康影響と比べた)重要度を評価するのか?具体的な方法を明示すべき｡ 現在の記述では､マクロレベルを中心にしつつも､ミクロ(個人)レベルのConsequencesが混在している｡住民の意思決定への参加を促進するためにもミクロ(個人)レベル/マクロレベルに分けて整理すべき｡
様々な帰結を考慮した意思決定の方法	明示されず｡ ICRP101でcost-benefit, multi-attribute法などを紹介｡	明示されず	実行可能性を高めるためにも､どのように評価するのか具体的に示すべき｡
防護のための選択肢	Pub 109　付属書B(緊急防護措置) B.1　ヨウ素甲状腺ブロック B.2　屋内退避 B.3　避　　難 B.4　個人の除染と医療介入 B.5　農業に関する予防的対策 Pub 109　　8.3　永久移転 Pub 111 4.1　当局によって履行される防護対策 4.2　被災した住民によって履行される防護対策 5.1 放射線モニタリング 5.2 健康サーベイランス 6. 汚染された食品や他の物品の管理	3.4.1.3. Iodine thyroid blocking 3.4.1.2. Sheltering  3.4.1.1. Evacuation  3.4.1.4. Decontamination of people  3.4.1.5. Precautionary restrictions of foodstuffs Environmental and individual monitoring  3.4.2. Protective actions for the intermediate phase  3.4.2.1. Temporary relocation  3.4.2.2. Foodstuff management  3.4.2.4. Decontamination of the environment  3.4.2.5. Management of business activities  3.4.2.3. Management of other commodities  参考　Chernobylの章には下記の項目あり A.4.2.1. Long-term or permanent relocation  .4.2.2. Agricultural protective actions  A.4.3. Health surveillance  A.4.3.1. Follow-up of people with clinically significant deterministic effects  A.4.3.2. Health monitoring programme  A.4.3.3. Epidemiological studies  A.4.3.4. Participation of stakeholders	永久移転　permanent relocationについて､改訂版では本文中(para 161) でPub109と同じ程度の内容は言及しているが､独立した項目となっていない｡ 重要なので独立した項目とすべき｡移転の前提として､旧家屋などへの補償を充分に行うことが前提｡
長期汚染状況での住民の位置づけ	政府が主導する住民らのフォーラムの結成	削除	なぜ削除?
	自助努力による防護対策	専門家と住民のco-expertise	チェルノブイリでは経済の悪化､ソ連の崩壊などによって必要な補償が得られなくなったために開始された｡責任企業が充分な補償などの対応をおこなうことが大前提であり､住民の自助努力は最低限とすべき｡ 福島では承諾無しで個人データが利用され､さらに専門家や自治体への信頼が低下した｡研究倫理など､co-expertiseの前提条件を明記｡
Chernobylの記述	111に具体的な政策､ETHOSの歴史的背景なども記述｡	記述されず｡	ICRP111のANNEX-A6に加筆する形にすべき｡ Fukushimaとの政策の比較も行うべき｡
Fukushimaの記述		簡単に記述｡	日本政府の非体系的な対応 東電の責任 などを明示すべき｡
執筆者､事務局のCOI開示	なし	なし	開示すべきである｡

3.各部分へのコメント

 以下､本Publicationを行もしくはパラグラフ毎にコメントする｡

MAIN POINTS

line39　The principle of optimisation of protection applied with reference levels, considering all impacts (radiological, non-radiological, social, economic, and environmental), is essential to mitigate the consequences during the emergency response and to improve living conditions in affected areas during the recovery process.

→　Impact is a mixture of micro (individual level) and macro (aggregated or social) levels and should be sorted out. In the text, there is no specific description about the effects of radiation exposure on the development of thyroid cancer in Fukushima, but individual papers are cited on psychological sequence, etc. Is it not an attempt to underestimate the effects of radiation exposure? Unbiased citations should be used.

impactにmicro (individual level)､macro(aggregated or social) level が混在しており､整理すべきである｡本文を読むと被爆による影響については福島での甲状腺がんの発症についての具体的な記述がないが､psychological consequenceなどについては個別の論文が引用されている｡被曝影響を過小評価しようという意図ではないのか｡バイアスのない引用をすべきである｡

Line　44　　For protection of responders and the population during the emergency response,  the reference level should not generally exceed 100 mSv, while recognising that higher values may be necessary to save lives and for the prevention of catastrophic conditions.

→It should be explicitly stated that the dose here is effective dose. It is necessary to explain why the reference level  for responders who deal with accidents and the general public is the same.

　ここでの線量はeffective doseであることを明示すべき｡職業的な立場で事故対応に当たるresponders と一般公衆 the populationが同じ基準となっている理由を説明すべき｡

Line　48　For people living in long-term contaminated areas during the recovery process, progressive reduction in exposure will result from continuing optimisation of  protection. Reference levels should be selected to support this progressive improvement, taking into account the progress already achieved. Levels should be within or below the Commission’s recommended 1–20-mSv band taking into account the actual distribution of doses in the population and the tolerability of risk for the long-lasting existing exposure situations, and would not generally need to  exceed 10 mSv per year. The objective of optimisation of protection is a progressive reduction in exposure to levels on the order of 1 mSv per year.

→In this document, the reference level can be interpreted as 1 -20 mSv, but Table 6.1 defines it as ≤ 10 mSv per year. It should be changed to the following sentence in accordance with Table 6.1.

Levels should be within or below the Commission’s recommended 1–10 mSv/year band taking into account the actual distribution of doses in the population and the tolerability of risk for the long-lasting existing exposure situations.　｡

Why 10 mSv instead of 20 mSv? Why the actual distribution of doses in the population should be taken into account?  What is “tolerability”? Nothing explained in this sentence that cause ambiguous interpretation. To avoid ambiguity, these must be explained, or the sentence should be simplified as follows.

Levels should be within or below the Commission’s recommended 1–10-mSv/year band for the long-lasting existing exposure situations.　

この文章だと､reference levelは1-20mSvのままのようにも読めるが､Table 6.1. では≤10 mSv per yearとされている｡Table 6.1.にあわせて次の文に変更すべき｡

20mSvではなく10mSvとした理由､the actual distribution of doses in the population を考慮する理由､さらにTolerabilityの定義もしくはも必要｡それらがなければさらに文章は次のように簡略化すべき｡

Line 57　For protection of the public and the environment during the recovery process, the Commission recommends a ‘co-expertise’ approach in which authorities, experts, and stakeholders work together to share experience and information in affected communities, with the objective of developing a practical radiological protection culture to enable individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives.

→I believe that the 'co-expert' was recommended based on the experiences in Chernobyl, ETHOS in Fukushima, and the Fukushima Dialogue.ETHOS was originally performed at Chernobyl, but is not introduced at all in ANNEX A. CHERNOBYL. For Fukushima, the draft and ANNEX B. FUKUSHIMA quoted Ando (2016, 2018), an individual's subjective assessment, in which authorities unilaterally set standards without considering the opinions of the residents that is far from ICRP’s stakeholder participation principle. Although more than 20 Fukushima dialogues have been conducted, the activities of ETHOS in Fukushima are limited to some areas and the number of participants is limited. Moreover, Kimura (2018) criticized ETHOS in Fukushima as “It has helped portray the reduction of government/industry responsibility”. Recommendation should be grounded by quantitative studies by third parties.

Additionally, Ando (2016, 2018) describes the measurement of dose with a personal dosimeter, but in Date City in Fukushima Prefecture, there was also a problem of research ethics in which professors wrote papers using data from a person who does not consent to use the data for research. There is also criticism that the study
underestimates the effectiveness of decontamination (Kurokawa and, Tanimoto 2019).

As mentioned above, these activities originated from the failure of companies responsible for the nuclear accident to take appropriate measures. Because of the premise of accountability and the lack of positive evidence, "co-experts" should be removed and the paragraph should be modified as follows.

Line 57　 For protection of the public and the environment during the recovery process, the Commission recommends a ‘co-expertise’ approach in which authorities, experts, and stakeholders work together to share experience and information in affected communities, with the objective of developing a practical radiological protection culture to enable individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives.

For protection of the public and the environment during the recovery process, the Commission recommends a ‘co-expertise’ approach in which authorities, experts, and stakeholders work together to share experience and information in affected communities, with the objective of developing a practical radiological protection culture to enable individuals authorities to enable residents or stakeholders to access necessary information and to participate policy making process to make informed decisions about their own lives.

 ‘co-expertise’はチェルノブイリや福島でのETHOS､福島ダイアローグでの経験に基づいて勧告されていると考える｡ETHOSは､もともとはチェルノブイリで行われたが､ANNEX A. CHERNOBYL ではまったく紹介されていない｡福島に関して本文およびANNEX B. FUKUSHIMAで引用されているのは､Ando(2016,2018)という個人の主観的な評価であるし､そこで描かれているのは､authoritiesが住民の意見を考慮せず一方的に基準をきめるという内容である[8]｡福島でのETHOSの活動は一部地域に限定され､福島ダイアローグも20回以上行われてはいるものの､参加者は1000人程度と限定的である[9]｡福島でのETHOSに対して､Kimura (2018)は”It has helped portray the reduction of government/industry responsibility”と批判している｡勧告に取り入れるならば､第三者による定量的な評価を行った論文に基づくべきである｡

　なお､Ando (2016, 2018) では､個人線量計によって線量を測定することが記述されているが､福島県伊達市では本人が研究への利用を承諾していない者のデータを使って論文を書くという研究倫理の問題も生じた[10]｡さらに､その研究には除染の効果を過小評価しているという批判も存在する(黒川, 谷本 2019)｡

　前述のように､このような活動は､原発事故の責任企業等が､適切な対応をおこなわないことが起源となっている｡責任を果たさせることが前提であることや､積極的に肯定するほどのエビデンスは得られていないことから､”co-expertise”についての記述は削除し､次のように変更すべきである｡

　繰り返しになるが､ICRP Publication 111 (ICRP(2009b)" ANNEX A. HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF LONG-TERM CONTAMINATED AREAS"では､"A.6. Chernobyl/Commonwealth of Independent States countries"では

ETHOSについて､次のように説明している｡ETHOSの活動はソビエト連邦の崩壊などによって､政府が補償を負担できなくなり､それへの対応として行われたとある｡つまり､事故の責任企業や国が行うべきことを住民に担わせるためのものであった｡このような歴史的経緯も説明すべきである｡

“(A 38) During the mid 1990s, the continuous degradation of the economic situation due to both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the financial burden of the rehabilitation programmes pushed the inhabitants of the areas to restart private production and to rely ever more on wild products to ensure their daily subsistence. In

the absence of individual knowledge and adequate means to control the radiological quality of foodstuffs at the local level, the effect of this change was inevitably a significant increase in the level of exposure within the population, and particularly among children because of the importance of dairy products in their diet. This put strong pressure on the authorities and experts, and contributed to aggravate further the loss of confidence of the population in their ability to manage the situation.( ICRP 2009b)”

“(A 39) Faced with this difficult situation, the authorities tested new approaches, such as the ETHOS Project in the late 1990s and the CORE Programme in the early 2000s in Belarus, with the aim of involving the population directly in the management of the radiological situation. ( ICRP 2009b)”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(g) The principle of optimisation of protective actions applied with reference levels aims to

→ It should be clarified optimized for whom: residents or government. 

誰にとってoptimなのかを明示すべき｡

Line　107　(i) For protection of responders and the population during the emergency response, the reference level should not generally exceed 100 mSv, 

→ Please clarify “effective dose.”  Upper limit for the public should be lower than that for the responders as a profession. 

effective doseであることを明示｡職業として対応するresponders と子供も含まれる一般公衆を同じ基準とするべきではない｡後者についてはより低くすべきである｡

Line　114

　As pointed out in Line 48, this should be changed.

Line　48で指摘したように変更すべき｡

Line　125　(l)　 co-expertise process 

Changes should be made as described above.

上述のとおり変更すべき｡

Line 166   (3) Following the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 in Japan, the Commission  identified a first series of issues relevant to implementation of the system of radiological protection of people and the environment in the case of a large nuclear accident (ICRP, 2012b). These issues included: difficulties related to the quantification of exposures; interpretation of potential radiation-induced health effects; ad-hoc protection of responders; societal impacts of the evacuation of people; recognising the importance of psychological consequences; and challenges related to the rehabilitation of living conditions in contaminated areas. The present publication is intended to address some of these issues, together with the lessons learned during the decade following the accident. 

→As I explained above, ICRP _ TG 84 (2012)  was written 1 year after the accident, thus . There is a lack of understanding of the facts later phase. 

前述のように引用されているICRP_TG84(2012)は事故1年後に書かれたもの｡その後の事実把握が不足している｡

1.2. Scope and structure of the publication

Line　194　(6) This publication was to recommend application of the system of radiological protection 

 →As mentioned above, positioning of this publication must be clarified.

前述のように位置づけを明らかにすべき｡

Line　193 　(6) This publication was to recommend application of the system of radiological protection in emergency and existing exposure situations related to radiological accidents, respectively. While Publications 109 and 111 were intended to deal with all exposure situations resulting from a nuclear accident or a radiation emergency, this publication focuses on the protection of people and the environment in the case of a large nuclear accident. 

→

In the case of large nuclear accident, the necessity of permanent relocation increases. Publication 109 had a separate section for “8.3 permanent relocation”, but the draft does not. Permanent relocation is an important alternative and should be a separate section.

Large Nuclear Accidentの場合､permanent relocationの必要性が高くなる｡Publication 109では､8.3 Permanent relocationと独立したセクションを設けていたが､ドラフトでは独立して扱われていない｡Permanent relocationは重要なalternativeなので､独立した節とすべきである｡

Line　209-211 　

They underline the role of the ‘co-expertise process’ for the rehabilitation of living conditions of affected people during the recovery process. 

→As mentioned above, 'co-expert process' is not working, so this sentence should be deleted.

前述のように‘co-expertise process’ が機能したとはいえないので削除｡

Line　219　Annexes A and B describe the key aspects of implementation of radiological protection adopted to manage the consequences of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, 

→両地域での実態をより詳しく調査すべき

Line　223　(9) The recommendations given in this publication for the protection of people and the environment during the emergency response and the recovery process of a large nuclear accident supersede all previous recommendations (ICRP, 1984, 1991, 1999, 2009a,b). 

→It says supersede all previous recommendations, but ICRP (2009 a, b), or ICRP 111 & 109, deals with situations other than a large nuclear accident and cannot be superseded.

supersede all previous recommendationsと書かれているが､ICRP(2009a,b )､つまりICRP109&111は､a large nuclear accident以外の状況も扱っており､supersedeできない｡

270　2.2. Consequences of a large nuclear accident

This is a section that Pub 109 & 111 did not have. They are arranged in the following order. Effects of radiation (2.2. 1 and 2.2.2) and others are considered to be separate, but those that are important to humans should be summarized first. For each consequence, problems at the individual level and at the national and local government levels are mixed. Taking into account the participation of residents in decision making, the level of impact should also be clearly defined and classified as follows.

2.2.1. Radiation-induced health effects

2.2.2. Consequences for fauna and flora

2.2.3. Societal consequences

2.2.4. Economic consequences

2.2.5. Psychological consequences

2.2.6. Health impacts of changes in lifestyle

	Micro (Individual) level	Macro (country, region) level
Radiation induced Health Effect
Economic consequences
Psychological consequences
Societal consequences
Health impacts of changes in lifestyle
Consequences for fauna and flora

　これはPub 109&111にはなかったセクションである｡下記の順に並んでいる｡放射線による影響(2.2.1と2.2.2)と､それ以外に分けているものと考えられるが､人にとって重要なものを先にまとめるべきである｡また､個人レベル､国や地方自治体レベルの問題が混在している｡住民が意思決定に参加することを考慮して､影響が与えるレベルも明示して次のように分類すべきである｡

Line　301　Table 2.1. Dose thresholds for selected tissue

The relationship between Dose here and effective dose used at the reference level should be explained.

 ここでのDoseと参考レベルで使うeffective dose の関係を説明すべき｡

Line　324　(22) There is reliable scientific evidence that whole-body exposures on the order of ≥100 mSv can increase the probability of cancer occurring in an exposed population. 

→With regard to Fukushima, it was misunderstood that "risk coefficients is insignificant " for doses below 100 mSv was "There is no effect." This paragraph should clearly indicate the adoption of the LNT model. The source of the quotation of "Whole body exposures on the order of ≥ 100 mSv can increase" is the old one ICRP(2007). Since then, there have been a number of papers in which significant coefficients have been obtained with an average exposure of less than 100 mSv (For example, Richardson et al. 2015, Leuraud et al. 2015). In recent survey of epidemiological studies NCRP (2018) concluded “Most of the larger, stronger studies broadly supported an LNT model. Furthermore, the preponderance of study subjects had cumulative doses <100 mGy (NCRP 2018,p.6)”. Therefore, it should be rewritten as follows.

(22) There is reliable scientific evidence that even whole-body exposures <100 mSv can increase the probability of cancer occurring in an exposed population (NCRP 2018,p.6).

福島に関しては､100mSv以下では｢有意なリスク係数が得られない｣ということが100mSv以下では｢影響がない｣と誤解された｡このパラグラフでは､LNTモデルを採用していることを明示すべき｡なお､" whole-body exposures on the order of ≥100 mSv can increase "の引用元は(ICRP, 2007 )という古いものである｡その後､平均被曝量100mSv以下を分析対象として､有意な係数が得られている論文は多くある(例えば､Richardson et al.  2015)､ Leuraud et al. 2015)｡NCRPの最近のレポートでもこのことを認めているNCRP(2018)[11]｡よって､次のように書き直すべき｡

Line 315　2.2.1.2. Cancer and heritable diseases

Lifestyle changeのセクションでは福島での肥満の増大などが紹介されている｡ここでも､福島において､甲状腺がんが検診対象者予想よりも多くみつかったこと､地域差もしくは外部線量との相関があることを示す研究を紹介すべきである｡(23)の後に(23)’として次のような文を加えるべきである｡

(23)’ Regarding the results of thyroid ultrasound examinations in Fukushima, Ohira et al. (2016) and Suzuki et al. (2016) examined regional differences of thyroid cancer detection rate for the 1^st round and conclude that there are no significant difference, on the contrary, Tsuda et al. (2016) reported statistically significant regional differences. Kato (2019) related external dose and thyroid cancer detected in the 1^st and 2^nd round and obtained statistically significant relationship. Health effect of radiation is undetermined in Fukushima. 

Line　335 　2.2.2. Consequences for fauna and flora

(25) Implementation of protective actions 

　ここでは､ICRP91,108,114, 136などで論じられてきた放射線が動植物に与える影響が考慮されている｡このような視点とあわせて､放射性物質による環境汚染が人間の行動に与える影響も評価する必要がある｡例えば､福島では山林については､住居に近接した部分しか除染は行われず[12]､森林での経済活動および趣味で行われていた山菜採りもできなくなった｡山林だけでも､これらを考慮した評価をする必要がある｡政府の2016年12月時点での除染費用の見積もりは6兆円であったが､日本経済センターJapan Center for Economic Researchでは30兆円かかると見通している[13]｡森林を除染しないことを前提にしても､これだけ不確実であり､環境のどこまでを考慮するかによって､この費用は大きく変化する｡当然ながら森林の伐採による除染には､環境破壊が伴うことも考慮すべきである｡

　空間線量は時間とともに低減するのであり､除染せずに一時的に移住することも重要｡

Line　335　2.2.3. Societal consequences

There is a mixture of micro and macro levels, including the possibility of individual migration (Para 26), damage to public goods such as infrastructure (Para 28), loss of confidence in expert and authorities (Para 29), and problems in areas where evacuees can be accepted (Para 30). It should be organized as described above.

It should be noted that the term "a collapse of trust in experts and authorities (Para 29)" has various meanings, and the definition of “trust” should be clarified. If trust is part of what we call “social capital”, it is a macro-level concept. How to measure trust and evaluate consequence of “collapse of trust” is unclear and impractical.

　個人が移住する可能性(Para 26)､インフラという公共財へのダメージ(Para 28)､expert や当局への信頼の喪失(Para 29)､避難者の受け入れ地域における問題など(30)など､ミクロ､マクロレベルが混在｡前述のように整理すべき｡

　なお､"a collapse of trust in experts and authorities(Para 29)"とあるが､trustの意味は多様であり､定義を明示すべきである｡いわゆるソーシャルキャピタルの一部としてtrustを捉えているのであれば､マクロレベルの概念である｡これをどう測定し､consequenceを評価するのかはも明らかにされておらず実行可能性が低い｡

Line　393　2.2.4. Economic consequences

Only macroscopic effects are described, such as the agricultural sector (31), infrastructure (32), Companies (33), and change in the local demography (34). In Fukushima, the abandonment of agriculture, forestry, and corporate bankruptcies caused unemployment, a decline in personal income, a decline in the value of assets such as houses, and an increase in the cost of living due to the separation of family members. The impact on the individual level should also be described to promote stakeholder participation.

　これについては､the agricultural sector(31)､ infrastructure (32)　､Companies (33)､Change in the local demography (34)のように､マクロな影響しか記述されていない｡ 福島では農林業の放棄や企業の倒産による､失業､個人収入の減少､家屋など資産価値の減少､家族が別居による生活コストの上昇など､個人レベルで大きな影響が生じた｡Stakeholder の参加可能性を高めるだけでなく実効性を高めるためにも､個人レベルでの影響についても説明すべきである｡

Line　413　2.2.5. Psychological consequences

　(36) These studies highlight 

It says "These studies highlight" but it is not clear which study it refers to. Is it the body of literature summarized at the end of the paragraph? There are other similar expressions in the draft, but each sentence should specify the documents on which it is based. The sentence should be revised as follows.

              

Studies (Bromet, 2011 , 2014; Harada, 2015) highlight sociopsychological and psychosomatic disorders associated with the emergency response of the accident and during the recovery process.

In addition, Murakami et al. (2018) found that the "Anxiety about radiation exposure" was lower in thyroid examination (including family members) participants. Such studies should also be introduced. In addition, studies have shown that radiation exposure effects on the central nervous system and brain, resulting in cognitive impairment. Psychological effects could attributable due to exposure. These studies should also be surveyed.

　　“These studies highlight”とあるが､どのstudiesのことを指すのかが不明である｡パラグラフ最後にまとめられた文献群のことだろうか｡他にも同様の表現があるが､文毎に根拠となる文献を明示すべきである｡

例　Studies(Bromet, 2011 )　highlight sociopsychological and psychosomatic disorders associated with the emergency response of the accident and during the recovery process. 

なお､Murakami et al.(2018)は､甲状腺検査 (家族も含む) 参加者の方が｢放射線への不安｣が低くなっていることを見いだした｡このような研究も紹介すべきである｡さらに､被曝によってcentral nerve systemや脳に器質的な影響が生じ､cognitiveな障害が生じることを示す研究も行われている[14]｡心理的な影響が被曝によるものである可能性もある｡それら研究もサーベイすべきである｡

Line　434　 Sususki, 2015→Suzuki

2.2.6. Health impacts of changes in lifestyle

Line　466　Considering the level of exposure of the affected population, these disorders cannot be considered as direct radiation induced health effects but are linked to a change in lifestyle resulting from the accident 

→The radiation exposure is still being re-estimated. Thyroid cancer is also under discussion as explained above. It is too early to describe these disorders cannot be considered as direct radiation induced health effects and this sentence should be revised as follows.

Line　466　These disorders could be considered as direct radiation induced health effects but are linked to a change in lifestyle resulting from the accident 

被曝量は現在も再推定が進行中｡甲状腺がんについても論争中である｡these disorders cannot be considered as direct radiation induced health effectsとの記述は時期尚早であり､次のように修正すべき｡

Line　470　2.3. Principles for protection of people and the environment 

Line　474 reasonably achievable 

→The meaning of "reasonable" is unknown. It is written in the past Publication, but it should also be stated in this Publication.

reasonablyの意味が不明｡過去のPublicationには書いてあるが､このPublicationでも明記すべきである｡

Line　477　radiation exposure on humans and biota, and the societal, economic, and psychological 

→radiation exposure による影響はhumans and biotaにしか生じないと考えているのか?間接的なものも当然重要｡上の枠組に応じた表現に変更｡

Line　482　(43) For emergency and existing exposure situations, the fundamental protection principles to guide action are the justification of decisions and the optimisation of protection. For implementation of the optimisation principle, the Commission recommends using reference levels to guide decision making concerning protective actions. 

→For whom is this justification? Individual, authority? It should be specified whether it is either one or both. The same goes for Optimization.

誰にとってのjustificationなのか?個人､authority?いずれかなのか両者なのかを明示すべき｡Optimizationについても同様｡

Line　486　(44) The principle of individual dose limitation does not apply because the sources of exposures on-site and off-site are no longer under control in the case of an accident. Under these conditions, it is difficult to predict, with sufficient precision, the doses that will be received by exposed people, and to guarantee compliance with dose limits established for planned exposure situations. 

→Isn't it possible to apply “The principle of individual dose limitation”　in case of emergency?

緊急時にも予測すれば､The principle of individual dose limitation はapplyできるのではないか?

Line　482 to guide action are the justification of decisions and the optimisation of protection. For implementation of the optimisation principle, the Commission recommends using reference levels to guide decision making concerning protective actions. 

→ だれがdecide するのか不明

Line　490 　(45) Once an emergency situation is declared, decisions on protective actions on-site and off-site should be taken promptly during the early phase to be effective. Given the short time to react, these actions should be prepared in advance on the basis of plausible scenarios, and adapted as much as possible to the actual situation. 

→For this purpose, it should be clearly stated that the evacuation plan should be subject to the nuclear power plant operation inspection, and that it should be an effective plan that does not cause death due to evacuation. Thus the following sentence must be added.

Line　490 　(45) Once an emergency situation is declared, decisions on protective actions on-site and off-site should be taken promptly during the early phase to be effective. Given the short time to react, these actions should be prepared in advance on the basis of plausible scenarios, and adapted as much as possible to the actual situation. These actions or emergency evacuation plan should be an effective plan that does not cause death due to evacuation, and the plan must be approved by the regulation authority and it must be also approved by the referendum in surrounding municipalities.

そのためには､避難計画を原子力発電所稼働審査の対象とし､周辺住民の同意を得るべきである｡さらに､避難による死亡が生じないような実効性のある計画であることが前提であることを明記すべき｡これらの点を示す次の文を付加すべき｡

Line　505　 　protect pets and livestock

→Consideration of protect pets and livestocks is also important, but it should be clearly stated that priority should be given to dealing with vulnerable children and pregnant women. The following sentence should be added after (45).

(45’) During and under nuclear disaster, radiation protection measures must be focused radiation sensitive group: children and pregnant women. 

protect pets and livestockへの配慮も重要だが､よりvulnerableなchildren, pregnant womenへの対応を優先することを明示すべき｡(45)の後に次の文を加えるべき｡

Line　519　2.3.1. The justification of protective decisions

(48)The principle of justification states that any decision altering a radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm. It is part of the ethical goal to do good (principle of beneficence) while avoiding doing harm as much as possible (principle of non-maleficence), as stated in Publication 138 (ICRP, 2018). 

→ On what criteria do you evaluate good and harm? Publication 138 "Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection" is cited, but it is an abstract argument and has low effectiveness.

goodとharmをどのような基準で評価するのか? Publication 138　“Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection”が引用されているが､抽象的な議論であり､実効性が低い｡

Line　530  Decisions should be based on a reasonably conservative approach to consider the inevitable uncertainties concerning the situation on-site as well as off-site, and bearing their potential negative consequences in mind. 

→Specific method should be specified.

具体的にはどのような方法なのかを明示すべき｡

Line　531　 (49) Justification thus goes far beyond the objective of radiological protection, which is to avoid or reduce exposure, as it may also have various health, psychological, societal, economic, environmental, and political consequences. Thus, justification falls under the overall ethical goal of societies, which is to contribute to the health and well-being of individuals and the quality of life of affected communities, with preservation of biodiversity and sustainable development representing an integral part. 

→It seems to be trying to underestimate the effects of radiation by considering effects other than radiation.
For the victims, this would not have happened without the release of radioactive substance from the nuclear power plant. First of all, it must be clarified that the electric power companies responsible for the nuclear accident should fulfill their responsibilities. Thus, the following must be added to after (49).

(49’). The responsibility for a nuclear power plant accident lies with the power company that owns and operates the plant. It is clarified that the electric power company is responsible for the overall response including emergency response to halt progress of the accident, information disclosure, and compensation after the accident.

radiation 以外の影響も考えることによって､radiationの影響を過小評価しようとしているようにみえる｡

　被害者からみると､原発からの放射線の放出がなければ､起きなかった被害である｡まずは､原発事故の責任者である電力会社が責任を果たすことを前提とすべきである｡

(49’) 原子力発電所事故の責任はそれを所有､操業する電力会社にある｡事故拡大の防止､事故の終息､この間の情報開示､事後後の補償含めた全体的対応は電力会社が責任をもっておこなうことが前提である｡

(50) Responsibility for judging justification usually falls on the authorities to ensure an overall benefit, in the broadest sense, to society, and thus not necessarily to each individual. 

→Each individual has a different value judgment, so each individual should be justified. Stakeholder should participate in the justification process, at least assuming that the operator of the nuclear power plant is financially responsible. In the first place, the authority function was not functioning properly in Fukushima. In addition, local governments, which are one of the authorities, have a conflict of interest in either underestimating the nuclear accident or preventing the relocation of residents, such as obtaining subsidies from the nuclear power plants or collecting resident taxes from residents. This is a problem of nuclear power regulation in Japan pointed out by the American Atomic Energy Society (AMERICAN _ NUCLEAR _ SOCIETY 2012). This kind of inconvenience arises when authority is at the center. Judgement should be made through citizen based.

個人によって価値判断は異なるため､各個人がjustificationすべき｡少なくとも原発の運営者が経済的責任を負うことを前提に､stakeholderがjustificationの作業に加わるようにすべきである｡そもそも福島ではauthorityの機能が不全であった｡また､authorityの一つである自治体は､原発の立地によって補助金を得る､住民から住民税を徴収するなど､原発の事故を過小評価したり､住民の移転を阻止するという利益相反関係にある｡これは米国原子力学会によって指摘された日本の原発規制の問題点である(AMERICAN_NUCLEAR_SOCIETY 2012)｡Authorityが中心になると､このような不都合が生じる｡住民が中心となった方法とすべきである｡

(Para 51)には住民をinvolveすることが書いてあるので､50と統合すべき｡

Line　2.3.2. The optimisation of protective actions

Line　624　　radiological, socio-economic, and environmental characteristics of the exposure situation, as reflected by the views and concerns of stakeholders, and the ethical values that govern radiological protection (ICRP, 2018). 

→Specific methods should be specified. At the very least, since radiation protection alternatives are evaluated on the basis of these consequences and their goodness and harm, the respective goodness and harm should be specified.

具体的な手法を明示すべき｡少なくとも､これらのconsequenceとそのgoodとharmに基づいて､選択肢を評価するので､どのような選択肢があるか､それぞれのgoodとharmを明示すべき｡

Line　679　(66) The optimisation process must recognise that there are inevitable conflicting interests, and seek to reconcile the differences and needs of various groups. For example, producers of goods, services, and food will wish to continue production, but their ability to do so is affected by the willingness of consumers. 

→The electric power company that caused nuclear power accident should be responsible to the sales decline of products from the affected area. This sentence pass on responsibility for purchasing products to consumers and inappropriate. It should be modified as follows.

(66) The optimisation process must recognise that there are inevitable conflicting interests, and seek to reconcile the differences and needs of various groups. However, the electric power company that caused the nuclear power accident should be responsible to the accident and related damage. For example, the sales decline of products from the affected regions should be compensated by the company.

電力会社が事故の責任者であり､生産物を購入する責任を消費者に転嫁することは不適切｡次のように修正すべき｡

　(66)については､風評被害とすることによって､消費者の責任に転嫁している｡このような発想が不適切であることを明示｡

Line　728　The Commission calls these types of actions ‘self-help protective actions’, and considers their implementation to be an integral part of the optimisation process that can be very effective and should be supported and encouraged 

→First of all, the responsible electric power company should take appropriate measures, and 'self-help protective actions' should be minimized. The sentence should be modified accordingly.

Line　728　The accident caused power company should responsible for radiation protection of affected residents, industries, and environment. It should take every measure to protect them from radiation. ‘Self-help protective actions’ that also shift responsibility of the company to the residents should be minimized.

まずは責任のある電力会社が適切な対応をし､‘self-help protective actions’は最低限とすべき｡次のように修正｡

Line　744  (72) A strategy for protective actions should be prepared by authorities as part of national preparedness and planning arrangements. 

→For the preparation process of the strategy, local residents must be participate and the final decision should be made through a referendum. Modified as follows:.

(72) A strategy for protective actions should be prepared by authorities and citizens as part of national preparedness and planning arrangements. The preparedness strategy must be supported by a referendum.

strategy のpreparation process には住民も参加させ､最終的には住民投票によって決定することを明記｡次のように修正｡

Line　788　Fig. 2.3　

The relationship between this figure and “representative individuals” defined in ICRP103 must be clarified. In the initial stage, the overall dose is high, and the 95% tile should not exceed 100 mSv? In the figure, arrow indicates does reduces, however in some cases, the dose may not need to be reduced because of other factors. The figure must be indicate this point.

このFigureと代表的個人との関係を明示｡初期の段階においては全体的に線量が高く､その95%タイルが100mSvを越えないということではないのか｡また､optimization によって被曝量が低下する方向に矢印が描かれているが､他の要因を考えると､線量を減少させる必要がない場合も生じる場合もある｡このことを図示すべきである｡

Line　797 restricting exposures of the affected population and the emergency responders should generally not exceed 100 mSv. This may be applied for a short period, and should not generally exceed 1 year. 

→As mentioned above, the public including children should have a lower reference level than the responder.

上述のとおり､子供も含まれる公衆はresponderよりもreference levelは低くすべき｡

restricting exposures of the emergency responders should generally not exceed 100 mSv. The affected population that includes children and pregnant women should generally not exceed 20 mSv. This may be applied for a short period, and should not generally exceed 1 year.

Line　815　should be adjusted. It should be noted that maintaining exposure below or in the range of 100 mSv effective dose is no guarantee of the absence of excess incidence of thyroid cancer in a population when there has been intake of radioiodine. In case of a possible intake of radioiodine, specific protective actions should be implemented (see Section 3.4.1.3).

→If the 100 mSv dose does not include internal radiation exposure, that fact is clearly stated in the main point.

100mSvには内部被曝量は含まないのであれば､そのことをmain pointなどにも明示｡

(79) For the optimisation of protective actions during the recovery process 

Line　826　(80) For people living in long-term contaminated areas following the emergency response, the Commission recommends that the reference level should be selected within or below the Commission’s recommended 1–20-mSv band taking into account the actual distribution of doses in the population and the tolerability of risk for the long-lasting existing exposure situations, and would not generally need to exceed 10 mSv per year, with the objective to reduce exposure progressively to levels on the order of 1 mSv per year. 

→Change to the above expression

(80) For people living in long-term contaminated areas following the emergency response, the Commission recommends that the reference level should be selected within or below the Commission’s recommended 1–10 mSv band, with the objective to reduce exposure progressively to 1 mSv per year.

前述の表現に変更

Line　861　(82) For protection of the environment in emergency and existing exposure situations, the Commission recommends the use of Derived Consideration Reference Levels (DCRL) 

　→Specific values and bands should be exemplified.

具体的な値､バンドを例示すべき｡

3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Line　907 To be effective, urgent protective actions (e.g. evacuation, sheltering, iodine thyroid blocking, restrictions on local food and water supplies) need to be implemented promptly 

→福島県浪江町では、SPEEDIによる予測情報が公開されなかったため､線量の高い地域に避難した[15]｡飯舘村では､プルームが通過したにも関わらず､福島第一原子力発電所から40km離れていたために､避難計画が

“In the 30km area surrounding the nuclear power plant residents had no choice but to evacuate voluntarily. Even though a high level of radiation was observed in Kawamata and Iitate, designation of the planned evacuation area was delayed.

l  Inside the 30km radius area, the shelter-in-place order was issued at 11”

Line　935 

(89) During the early phase, the Commission recommends that affected people should be informed by all available channels, including radio, television, text messages, emails, and social media. Information should be spread quickly and continuously regarding: what is known; what is not known; reasons for the urgent protective actions taken; what will be done to provide information updates; where to get more information; and what processes will be used to gather and consider the views of those affected to inform decisions on the termination of urgent protective actions. 

→In Fukushima, TEPCO reported the possibility of a core meltdown to the Nuclear Safety Committee at the beginning of the accident, however, it acknowledged the possibility of a core meltdown on May 15, 2011 for Unit 1 and on May 24 for Units 2 and 3. The use of radio and television to is important, but it is meaningless if information is not disclosed. As a precondition for using these media, it should be clearly stated that all emergency calls from power company should be made public in real time. The sentence must be modified as follows.

(89) During the early phase, the Commission recommends that affected people should be informed by all available channels, including radio, television, text messages, emails, and social media. Critical information, such as emergency calls from the power company should be disclosed real time. 

福島では､事故初期に炉心溶融の可能性が通報されていたにもかかわらず[16]､東電が炉心溶融を認めたのは､1号基については2011年5/15日､2､3号基については同24日であった[17]｡ラジオ､テレビの利用は重要だが､そもそも情報公開しないと意味がない｡これらメディアを使う前提として､電力会社からの緊急通報はすべてリアルタイムで公開することを明示すべきである｡

Line　1039　3.2.2.2. Individual monitoring 

(101) In the early phase, triage is important to identify people who need care due to their level of exposure (decontamination, medical treatment), and those who only require health surveillance. These decisions will be based on limited monitoring information and will concentrate on the identification of those with an urgent need for treatment. In the first few hours, it will only be possible to perform initial screening measurements using

→In Fukushima, the criteria for surface screening have been raised and the results of screening have not been well documented. Preparedness should also include establishing a measurement regime. To clarify it, the following sentence must be added after paragraph 101.

(101’) Initial measurement is important to evaluate possibility of health effect of radiation to the affected people. In this regard, the authority and power company must prepare both measurement devices such as hand-held monitors, portal monitors, and WBC and enough number of trained examinees. 

福島では表面スクリーニングの基準が引き上げられ､スクリーニングの結果も充分に記録されていない｡Preparednessには､測定体制を整えることも含めるべきである｡このことを､パラグラフ101の次に追加すべきである｡

Line　1050 　(102) Thyroid dose monitoring in the early phase is important for children and pregnant women.

→In Chernobyl, measurements were taken on 350,000 people immediately after the accident, but in Japan only 1080 were measured. The cause of the suspension was also unknown. This is clearly stated in ANNEX.

チェルノブイリでは35万人について事故直後に測定されたが､日本では1080名のみ｡途中で打ち切られた原因も不明とされた｡このことをANNEXに明示｡

Line　1058　The Commission recommends expressing thyroid exposure in terms of organ dose. 

→Explicit reason. The relationship with effective dose and organ dose must be also explained to avoid confusion.

理由を明示｡effective doseとの関係も説明｡

Line　1065 WBC including babies, provide useful information to mothers for understanding their child’s situation, and options for adjusting their diet (Hayano, 2014). 

→In WBC, internal exposure is more easily detected in adults than in children. Hayano (2014) conducted WBC 2 years after the accident, and the initial exposure due to iodine was not measured. The preparedness should include early WBC measurement and/or urinal examination after the accident immediately.

　WBCでは子供よりも大人の方が内部被曝を検出しやすい｡(Hayano, 2014)は､事故後2年目以降の測定結果であり､ヨウ素などによる初期被曝については測定されていない｡事故後早期にWBCや尿検査を行うこともpreparednessに含めるべきである｡

Line　1069　 (104) Measurement data should be collected centrally and made available as soon as  possible to all relevant organisations in charge of management of the emergency response in  order to assist them in making protective decisions. For the sake of accountability and  transparency, the Commission recommends that this information should also be made  available to members of the public, accompanied by clear explanations. 

→However, it is important to observe ethics, such as how to use data collected from individuals. Please add this pint after the sentence.

 (104) Measurement data should be collected centrally and made available as soon as  possible to all relevant organisations in charge of management of the emergency response in  order to assist them in making protective decisions. For the sake of accountability and  transparency, the Commission recommends that this information should also be made  available to members of the public, accompanied by clear explanations.Expert must follow research ethics, collected data from individuals without consent must not be utilized for research.

　ただし､個人から収集したデータについては､利用方法など倫理を守ることが重要であることを追加｡

(105) Medical monitoring programmes that are focused on people affected by a radiation  emergency should consider two target groups: people who developed clinical conditions during the emergency; and people known to have been exposed but not showing any  symptoms. Follow-up in the first group is aimed at diagnosis and treatment of long-term  complications. Conversely, the main purpose of epidemiological follow-up in the second  group is the detection of adverse effects or diseases that are potentially related to radiation exposure (e.g. cancer).

　→The word "epidemiological" should be deleted because group is followed not only for the epidemiological study but also for health monitoring. This point should be added to the sentence.

(105) Medical monitoring programmes that are focused on people affected by a radiation  emergency should consider two target groups: people who developed clinical conditions during the emergency; and people known to have been exposed but not showing any  symptoms. Follow-up in the first group is aimed at diagnosis and treatment of long-term  complications. Conversely, the main purpose of follow-up in the second  group is the detection of adverse effects or diseases that are potentially related to radiation exposure (e.g. cancer), early detection and treatment.

epidemiologicalだけが目的ではなく､health monitoringが目的でfollow-upするので､epidemiologicalという言葉は削除｡

Line　1115 　(108) The justification of decisions that may affect the exposure of emergency responders should be taken in light of the expected benefits in terms of avoidance or reduction of off-site population exposures and contamination of the environment. Overall, these decisions should aim to do more good than harm; in other words, they should ensure that the benefit for the individuals concerned and society as a whole is sufficient to compensate for the harm they cause to the responders. 

→It is difficult to do this in an emergency. Responders should be trained in advance so that they can make decisions in a short period of time.

緊急事態にこれを行うことは困難｡短期間でも意思決定できるようにresponderを事前教育することを文末に追加｡

(108) The justification of decisions that may affect the exposure of emergency responders should be taken in light of the expected benefits in terms of avoidance or reduction of off-site population exposures and contamination of the environment. Overall, these decisions should aim to do more good than harm; in other words, they should ensure that the benefit for the individuals concerned and society as a whole is sufficient to compensate for the harm they cause to the responders. Potential responders should be trained in advance so that they can make decisions in a short period of time.

Line　1131 recommends applying the principle of optimisation of protection using reference levels for managing individual doses. These 

→つまり個人ではなく社会全体では一人を犠牲にして被害を防ぐという意味で最適なのか｡そうであれば､充分な補償をすることが前提

3.3.3. Protection of emergency responders during the intermediate phase on-site 

1182　(114) On-site, the intermediate phase of the emergency response starts when the source is declared stabilised by the authorities

→福島ではdeclareされたのか?

Line　1202 management in order to overcome the lack of radiological protection culture 

→The meaning of "radiological protection culture" is unknown. Should be defined.

" radiological protection culture "の意味が不明｡定義すべき｡

Line　1204 ensuring that they have decent working and housing conditions. The individual dose of any emergency responder should be monitored and recorded, and each responder should be informed about the exposure received. 

→In Fukushima, dosimeters were covered with lead to lower exposure. It should be clearly stated that the manager is responsible to prevent such a situation from occurring. Correct the sentence as follows.

Line　1204 ensuring that they have decent working and housing conditions. The individual dose of any emergency responder should be monitored and recorded, and each responder should be informed about the exposure received. In Fukushima, dosimeters were covered with lead to lower exposure. The managers of responders are responsible to prevent such misconduct.

福島では､線量計を鉛で覆って被曝量を低くみせることも行われた｡そのようなことが生じないように管理者が責任をもつことを明示すべき｡この点を追加｡

Line　1249 (119) In Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007, Para. 236), the Commission explained that ‘At doses higher than 100 mSv, there is an increased likelihood of deterministic effects and a statistically significant risk of cancer. 

→In LNT model, the risk of cancer increases linearly in all areas. " and a statistically significant risk of cancer " should be removed.

1249 (119) In Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007, Para. 236), the Commission explained that ‘At doses higher than 100 mSv, there is an increased likelihood of deterministic effects.

LNTであれば､全領域でがんのリスクは直線的に増加する｡”statistically significant risk of cancer”は除外すべき｡

Line　1261　appropriate and sustainable medical surveillance should be provided for responders with exposures >100 mSv during the emergency response. 

→The dose range should not be limited if it is based on LNT.　“with exposures >100 mSv during the emergency response. ” must be removed.

→Line　1261　should be “appropriate and sustainable medical surveillance should be provided for responders.” 

LNTにもとづくのであれば､線量範囲を限定するべきではない｡appropriate and sustainable medical surveillance should be provided for respondersとすべき｡

Line　1276　3.4. Protection of the public and the environment 

3.4.1. Protective actions for the early phase

Line　1293 response to emergencies involving natural and man-made hazards. However, evacuation can be inappropriate for certain populations, such as patients in hospitals and nursing homes, as well as elderly people, if it is not well planned (Tanigawa, 2012). 

→If evacuation is not to be carried out, hospitals and nursing homes in the areas where the nuclear power plants are located should be equipped with preventing the entry of radioactive materials from outside and stockpile at least one week's worth of fuel for electricity generation, water and food. These should also be incorporated into evacuation plans, subject to review by the regulatory committee and subject to a referendum. Add this point to the end of the sentence.

Line　1293 response to emergencies involving natural and man-made hazards. However, evacuation can be inappropriate for certain populations, such as patients in hospitals and nursing homes, as well as elderly people, if it is not well planned (Tanigawa, 2012). Hospitals and nursing homesin the areas where the nuclear power plants are located should be equipped with preventing the entry of radioactive materials from outside and stockpile at least one week's worth of fuel for electricity generation, water and food. These should also be incorporated into evacuation plans, subject to review by the regulatory committee and subject to a referendum.

preparedness に言及したことは評価する｡避難させないのであれば､原発立地地区のhospitals and nursing homesに､外部からの放射性物質の侵入を防御し､最低一週間分の電源､水や食料を備蓄させるようにすべき｡これらも､避難計画の一部に組み込み､規制委員会の審査対象､住民投票の対象とすべき｡

Line　1304 　(126) The Commission recommends that those authorities in charge of the emergency response, together with the evacuees and the authorities and professionals of the concerned communities, should be closely involved in the complex decision-making processes regarding returning to the evacuated area. This should be conducted in a transparent manner.

→福島では一方的に決定されてきた

Line　1351 problem, especially if large population groups are concerned. Therefore, national authorities should give careful consideration to the most effective way to ensure the 

→福島ではauthorities内部でも大混乱であったことは国会事故調に記述されている｡

Line　1360　3.4.1.4. Decontamination of people

前述のとおり

3.4.2. Protective actions for the intermediate phase

Line 1438 higher values. Higher radiological criteria may also be set to preserve local production, which may be deeply embedded in traditions or which may be essential to the economy of the entire community. Such decisions must be taken in close co-operation with the local stakeholders, as was the case in Norway with reindeer meat produced by the Sami population after the Chernobyl accident (Skuterud et al., 2005). 

→Cited paper (Skuterud et al., 2005) is on the high level of Cs contamination of reindeer in Norway, not on cooperation with local stakeholders. Appropriate references should be cited. Distribution of highly contaminated food should not be allowed for preserve local production. The impact on local economy should first be compensated by the company responsible for the accident. Including producers to decision making also reduces effectiveness because of conflicts of interest. This sentence should be deleted.

引用されているのは､NorwayにおけるreindeerのCsによる汚染度が高いことを示す論文であり､local stakeholderとの協力に関する内容ではない｡適切な文献を引用すべきである｡preserve local productionのために汚染度の高い食品の流通を許容すべきではない｡Local economyへの影響は､まず事故の責任企業が追うべきである｡さらに生産者を意思決定に加えると､利益相反が生じるため､実効性は低下する｡この文章は削除すべきである｡

Line 1438 higher values. Higher radiological criteria may also be set to preserve local production, which may be deeply embedded in traditions or which may be essential to the economy of the entire community. Such decisions must be taken in close co-operation with the local stakeholders, as was the case in Norway with reindeer meat produced by the Sami population after the Chernobyl accident (Skuterud et al., 2005).

3.4.2.4. Decontamination of the environment

Line　1477　outweigh the intended benefits. Therefore, development of the decontamination strategy should be carried out in close consultation with the affected population 

→福島では一方的

Line　1480　(147) As mentioned above (see Section 2.2.4), the economic activities of different  companies are affected by a nuclear accident. During the intermediate phase, companies located in the vicinity of the damaged nuclear installation may need to establish

→まずは責任電力会社が充分な補償を行うことが前提

Line　1562 　Environmental monitoring data coupled with realistic modelling can be used to predict future exposure to adults and children who intend to return to the affected area. 

→Miyazaki and Hayano(2017b)のことか?そうであれば､この論文にはEOCが表明されており､引用するのは控えるべき｡

Line　1569 addressing the health and well-being needs of the evacuees, should be available before their return. With this in place, individuals have a basic right to decide whether or not to return. 

→権利はもっているが､実際には避難を続けるにはコストがかかる｡そのコストは電力会社が負担することを明示｡

Line　1605　The decision on permanent relocation should be taken by the authorities on a case-by-case 

→個人が決定すべき｡その前提として､もとの場所の買い上げ､移転先の取得､移動などをカバーするなどの補償があるべき｡

permanent relocationは重要なprotection measureなので､Pub111同様に独立した節を設定して説明｡

Line　1640 　4. RECOVERY PROCESS 

Line　1753 conditions and those of their communities. Similarly, selecting a value that is too low can impair the societal conditions and economic activities of the areas, and be counterproductive. 

→What does "too low" mean? From the perspective of the disaster-affected residents, it is only natural for them to want to return to the original state.

too lowとはどの程度を意味するのか｡被災住民から見ると､原状復帰を望むのは当然｡

Line　1785　4.3.1.1. Decontamination including waste management

→状況によっては避難､放置､数年して低下した段階で帰還の方が低コストな場合も多い｡そもそも除染するかも要検討｡その際には除染作業､除染土の中間保存､最終処分のコストも考慮｡管理方法についても放射線管理区域に準じた扱いとすべき｡

Line　1811 　consequences of protective actions such as food bans and restrictions can include a build up of organic waste that is difficult to dispose of safely, from a biological perspective, regardless of the radiological hazard posed. 

→Disposal of food at risk is a lower priority than the increased risk associated with its ingestion. This sentence should be deleted.

リスクのある食物の廃棄は､それを摂取することによるリスクの増大よりも優先度が低い｡削除すべき｡

Line　1869 (193) During the long-term phase, foodstuff management should be addressed in broad terms, considering not only radiological protection factors, but also issues such as food supply and replacement for contaminated foods; waste management of contaminated foodstuffs; and societal, environmental, and economic factors characterising the situation in affected areas. 

→これらによって生じた損害は原発企業が負担すべきである｡

4.3.1.5. Health surveillance

Line　1930 　In this regard, a long-term thyroid health monitoring programme should only be conducted for those individuals exposed in utero or during childhood or adolescence with 100–500 mGy absorbed dose to the thyroid. 

→This sentence cites Togawa et al. (2018) that summarize IARC report(IARC 2018). Since there are different expressions from the original, the original should be cited. "First, the Expert Group recommendations against populating thyroid screening after a nuclear accident, and second, it recommendations that consideration be given to offering a long-term thyroid monitoring program for higher-risk individuals (ie, because exposed in utero or during childhood or adolescence to a thyroid dose of ≥ 100 – 500 mGy) after a nuclear accident."

However, the IARC (2018) report stresses that "Lastly, the Expert Group would like to stress that this report is not an evaluation of the thyroid health monitoring activities that were implemented after the past nuclear accidents, and does not include any recommendations related to thyroid health monitoring activities currently in progress, in particular the Fukushima Health Management Survey. (IARC　2018, p.16)" , thus its recommendation should not be included in this draft. This statement should be deleted.

Line　1930 　In this regard, a long-term thyroid health monitoring programme should only be conducted for those individuals exposed in utero or during childhood or adolescence with 100–500 mGy absorbed dose to the thyroid.

ここではIARCの報告書ではなく､その概要を紹介したTogawa et al.(2018)を要約している｡原文と異なる表現があるので､原文を引用すべきである｡"First, the Expert Group recommends against population thyroid screening after a nuclear accident, and second, it recommends that consideration be given to offering a long-term thyroid monitoring programme for higher-risk individuals (ie, those exposed in utero or during childhood or adolescence to a thyroid dose of ≥100–500 mGy) after a nuclear accident."

なお､Togawa et al.(2018)ではなく､報告書IARC(2018)を引用すべきである｡報告書は”現在進行中の福島での健康調査へのrecommendationを含んでいない”と強調しているので[18]､今回の改訂にも含めるべきではない｡よって､この文は削除すべきである｡

Line　1940　4.3.2. The co-expertise process

　As mentioned above, “co-expertise process“ has not been empirically validated, so this section must be deleted.

前述のとおり有効性が示されていないので削除｡

Line　1946 (205) To achieve such involvement and co-operation in the context of the post-accident situation, the Commission 

　この文章の最後にある文献はLochard, 2013というICRPの当事者および､Ando, 2018という同プロジェクトのリーダによるものでありエビデンスのレベルは低い｡さらに､当事者の責任を住民に完全に転嫁する手法であり､public向けの対策とすべきではない｡削除すべきである｡

Line　2001　4.3.2.2. Radiological protection culture

The term has already been used several times, but it is not defined. The term “culture” came into use after the Chernobyl accident to indicate there were no problems with the nuclear facilities, but it is thought that there were human problems such as operation and maintenance. The use of the term “culture” here is probably intended to exempt the responsible company from liability. I partly agree with the idea of encouraging the self-help of disaster victims, but we should not exempt those responsible for the accident from responsibility. This section should be deleted.

4.3.2.2. Radiological protection culture €i02001 

(212) The co-expertise process facilitates the emergence of a radiological protection 2002 culture among local communities. This culture should be practical (to help people to address 2003 their daily life concerns), and comprise a set of knowledge, skills, and resources enabling 2004 people to: 2005 • interpret the results of measurements – ambient dose rates, internal and external 2006 doses, contamination of products; 2007 • orient themselves in relation to radioactivity in everyday life by understanding where, 2008 when, and how they are exposed; 2009 • build their own benchmarks about radioactivity; 2010 • collect relevant information to make informed decisions about their protection and to 2011 take actions (self-help protection); and 2012 • judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of the protective actions they 2013 implemented themselves and those implemented by the authorities. 2014 

(213) The development of a radiological protection culture is based on a learning process 2015 dedicated to the practice of radiological protection for local communities to improve their 2016 daily lives. Thus, scientific knowledge underpinning radiological protection is mobilised at 2017 the service of this learning process. 2018 

(214) Combined with the co-expertise process, a radiological protection culture enables 2019 people to restore their autonomy regarding decisions, which was seriously impaired at the 2020 

time of the accident. It contributes to reconnect people and develop solidarity between them, 2021 and allows people to look to the future with confidence. 

　すでに何度か使われている言葉だが定義されていない｡cultureという言葉は､チェルノブイリ事故の後に使われるようになった｡原子力施設には問題がなかったが､操作､保守など人的な面での問題があったことにしようとする意図があると考えられる｡ここでcultureという言葉を使うのも､責任企業を免責するためであろう｡被災者の自律を促すことには賛成するが､事故の責任者を免責すべきではない｡このセクションは削除すべきである｡

Line　2040　5. EMERGENCY AND RECOVERY PREPAREDNESS

Line　2053 (219) Planning for the emergency response needs to involve the responsibilities of

→As mentioned above, the inclusion of evacuation plans in the regulation review and referendum should be added at the end of the paragraph.

 前述のように､避難計画を原子力規制委員会の審査および住民投票の対象とすることを最後に追加すべき｡

　

6. CONCLUSIONS

Line　2086 legitimate fear of all those affected regarding the deleterious health effects of radiation exposure, 

→Explain what “illegitimate fear” is. There should be no such thing, so the adjective legitimate is deleted.

Line　2086 legitimate fear of all those affected regarding the deleterious health effects of radiation exposure, 

illegitimate fearとは何かを説明すべき｡そのようなものはないはずなので､legitimateという形容詞は削除

Line　2095  reduce the risk of cancer and hereditary effects in the future to as low as reasonably achievable 

→reasonableの意味､誰にとって｡

Line　2102 the recovery process can also be a source of negative consequences and additional complexity. 

→negative consequencesの具体例は?

Line　2104 developed taking into account the experience gained from previous nuclear accidents, and the most advanced  scientific knowledge on the health effects of radiation and the general 

→If the draft does not improved, only the issues in the early stages of the accident were considered for Fukushima. Also, as noted above, this draft is based on the 2007 recommendation and it disregards recent studies that detected significant effects below 100 mSv, thus the draft does not taking into account the most advanced scientific knowledge on the health effects. If published with this content, it has been modified as follows to clarify these. It should not be left as it is, but should be revised by understanding the issues in the middle and long term after the Fukushima accident and by incorporating recent knowledge of radiation epidemiology.

このままの内容であれば､福島については事故初期の課題しか考慮していない｡また､前述のように､このドラフトは2007年勧告に基づき､100mSv以下で影響があることを示す研究を無視しているため､the most advanced  scientific knowledge on the health effectsではない｡この内容で公開するならば､これらを明示するために次のように修正｡このままではなく､福島事故後中期､長期の課題を把握し､最近の放射線疫学の知見を取り入れて改訂すべきである｡

Line　2104 developed taking into account the experience gained from previous nuclear accidents: especially emergency situation in Fukushima, and the most advanced scientific knowledge on the health effects of radiation and the general before 2007.

2117 Table 6.1.

              As mentioned above, the reason why Public and Respondents are the same reference level in emergency exposure situations should be explained. Changes in the reference level from Pub 103, 109, and 111 and its expression should be explained. Change should be minimum without reason, for example, “<100mSv” should be expressed as “1-100mSv” as in the previous publications.

In Table 6.1, for Public under Existing exposure situation, “The long term goal is to reduce exposures to the order of 1mSv per year”, meaning of “order” must be clarified. According to my Japanese English experience, “order” is equivalent with the number of digits, digit 1 includes 0-9. “Order” must be removed as previous publication.

The evidence supporting LNT has become more robust (NCRP 2018). The reference level for the Public under emergency situation and existing exposure should be lowered to 1-20 mSv and 1-5mSv/y, respectively.

前述のように､Emergency exposure situationで､PublicとRespondersが同基準である理由が不明であり､説明すべき｡この他､Pub 103, 109,111のreference levelから変更した理由を説明すべき｡

LNTを支持するエビデンスはさらに強固になった｡Publicについては､2007勧告の緊急時20-100mSv,現存被曝時1-20mSvのそれぞれ下限である1-20mSv, 0-1mSvにすべきである｡

2125  section 2.3.3.3  should be section 2.3.3

Line　2119　Previously, the Commission recommended the selection of reference levels in the band of 1–20 and 20–100 mSv or mSv per year for existing and emergency exposure situations, respectively

→Should be "20-100 mSv and 1-20 mSv per year for emergency exposure and existing situations, respectively” in the order of the columns in the table.

表の列の順番にあわせて”20–100 mSv and 1–20 mSv per year for emergency exposure and existing situations, respectively”とすべき｡

Line　2119　-2122 Foot note is important. Move them to the body (Para 226). Reasons for change form the previous publication must be explained.

Line　2119　-2122は重要なので本文(Para 226)に入れるべき｡範囲を変更した理由についても説明｡

Line　2130 (227) Finally, the Commission emphasises the crucial importance of involving stakeholders in implementation of the optimisation process. Experience from Chernobyl and Fukushima has shown that radiological protection experts and professionals engaged in the emergency response and recovery process should, beyond mastering the scientific basis of radiological protection and its practical implementation, 

→In Fukushima, experts gave incorrect information: such as the nuclear reactors would not explode, radiation exposure 100 mSv or less would have no effect, and that 100 μSv/h or less would have no effect on health. First of all, the draft should be revised that the expert must master the scientific basis of radiological protection such as  LNT.

Line　2130 should be 

(227) Finally, the Commission emphasises the crucial importance of involving stakeholders in implementation of the optimisation process. Experience from Chernobyl and Fukushima where experts gave serious incorrect information , such as the nuclear reactors would not explode, radiation exposure 100 mSv or less would have no effect, and that 100 μSv/h or less would have no effect on health deteriorated trust in experts. Radiological protection experts and professionals engaged in the emergency response and recovery process should must master the scientific basis of radiological protection such as LNT., beyond mastering the scientific basis of radiological protection and its practical implementation,

福島では専門家が原子炉は爆発しない､100mSv以下では影響がない､100マイクロシーベルト/hまでは健康への影響がないといった誤った情報を伝達し､信頼を喪失した｡まずは､専門家がthe scientific basis of radiological protection をmasterすること､LNTを理解することが前提であると修正すべき｡

Line　2138 　 Experts and professionals should also share the information they possess 

→”Experts and professionals should also share the information they possess” is typical paternalism, thus inconsistent with “co-expertise” which was emphasized in the draft. In the case of Fukushima, many Experts and professionals lacked basic knowledge, such as denying LNT. Experts and professionals should be modified to learn humbly.

”Experts and professionals”からの伝達という､パターナリズム｡本文で強調していたco-expertiseの思想と反する｡福島の場合､住民の同意を得ないデータを用いた論文が書かれ､さらに専門家への信頼が失墜した｡専門家は倫理

ANNEX A&B.　共通

After ANNEX A and B, compare Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of radiation protection measures and policy. 

CHERNOBYLとFukushimaの政策の比較を行うべき｡次の表参照｡

本文で説明されているHealth consequenceなどがまったく紹介されていない｡福島では途中経過となるが数値も含めて紹介すべき｡

Soil contamination (Cs)Bq/m2	Estimated annual radiation exposure (mSv)	Definition of contaminated zone	Estimated annual radiation exposure (mSv)	Definition of Regions
37,000-185,000	0.5-1.0 (mSv)	Radiation Monitoring zone	1mSv	Long term goal for decontamination ( )
185,000-555,000	1.0-5.0(mSv)	Right to Relocation zone	=20mSv
555,000>	>5.0(mSv)	Mandatory Relocation zone

出所)吉田由布子(2015)”福島とチェルノブイリー 原発事故後の政策の比較”

http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/files/20150702.pdf

ANNEX A. CHERNOBYL

If ICRP recommends “co-expertise”, papers by third parties that empirically examined effectiveness of ETHOS must be cited.  

“co-expertise”を強調するのであればChernobylでの類似活動で第三者による論文を紹介すべき｡

(A 32) There was no early notification of the public about the actual radiological situation following the Chernobyl accident. On the contrary, the results of measurements of exposure rate, deposition density of various radionuclides, etc. were classified 

→"On the contrary"ではなく､Moreoverでは?　

福島でもメルトダウンの隠蔽､1080人だけの甲状腺スクリーニングなど､同様のことが行われた｡

(A 32) There was no early notification of the public about the actual radiological situation following the Chernobyl accident. Moreover On the contrary, the results of measurements of exposure rate, deposition density of various radionuclides, etc. were classified 

ANNEX B. FUKUSHIMA

Chernobylでの記述は(A 32) There was no early notification of the public about the actual radiological situation following the Chernobyl accident. On the contrary, the results of measurements of exposure rate, deposition density of various radionuclides, etc. were classified 

→"On the contrary"ではなく､Moreoverでは?　

福島でもメルトダウンの隠蔽､1080人だけの甲状腺スクリーニングなど､同様のことが行われた｡

Line　2902 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, owned by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), 

→owned and operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), 

Line　2909　the increased temperature of each reactor led to melting of the nuclear fuel and a series of explosions in the reactor buildings of Units 1, 3, and 4. As a result of these explosions, a large quantity of radioactive material was released into the atmosphere, and was deposited on land and in the ocean. 

→You should clearly explain where radio active comes from. 

 これではradio activeがどこから来たのかがわからない｡

Line　2909　the increased temperature of each reactor led to melting of the nuclear fuel, it caused damage to containment vessel and/or evaporated water steam caused damage to containment boundary. These damages lead leakage of hydrogen and radio active materials into reactor buildings. As a result of series of explosions in the reactor buildings of Units 1, 3, and 4, a large quantity of radioactive material was released into the atmosphere, and was deposited on land and in the ocean. 

led to melting of the nuclear fuelのあとに下記を追加, melted fuel caused damage to containment vessel and/or evaporated water steam caused damage to containment boundary. These damages lead leakage of hydrogen and radio active materials into reactor buildings. 

Line　3042 From the results for 1080 children under 15 years of age, no age, no children exceeded the screening level of 0.2 μSv h-1, which corresponds to a thyroid dose of 100 mSv for 1-year-old infants (NERHQ, 2011a). 

Line　3042 From the results for 1080 children under 15 years of age, no age, no children exceeded the screening level of 0.2 μSv h-1, which corresponds to a thyroid dose of 100 mSv for 1-year-old infants (NERHQ, 2011a). In Chernobyl, screening was conducted for 350,000 children after the accident. Compared with 

→チェルノブイリでは35万人測定した｡日本では極めて少ないことを明記｡

Line　3061  　(B 20) As part of the preliminary survey of the Fukushima Health Management Survey, internal exposure was measured by whole-body counting and 

→FHMSが開始されたのは2011年8月以降であり[19]､¹³¹I､¹³⁴Iなど半減期の短い核種による内部被ばくは測定されていないことを明記｡

Line　3179　Fig. B.3.　本文中に説明がないので削除｡

Line　3300 Naito, W., Uesaka, M., Kurosawa, T., et al., 2017. Measuring and assessing individual

も削除

　なお､Naito et al.(2017)は38名の測定結果だが､これよりもサンプルサイズが大きいNaito et al.(2016)の公開データを再分析した｡個人別に1時間毎の空間線量率と個人線量率の関係を確認したところ､負の相関がある者が142名中26名いた｡測定器を装着していないなどの問題があると考えられる｡空間線量率-個人線量率変換研究には問題があることに注意すべきである(濱岡豊(2019)｡

Line　3024　B.4.5. The ICRP Dialogue Initiative in Fukushima

Line　3229　B.4.6. The co-expertise process and self-help protective actions

引用されているのは当事者による論文であり､自己評価バイアスがある｡そもそも前述のようにauthorityによる一方的な基準設定が強調されており､co-expertiseの論拠とならない｡co-expertiseの根拠とするならば､第三者による論文を紹介すべき｡

Line　3244　B.4.7. Health surveillance

Line　3251　 (B 42) The first and second rounds of the thyroid ultrasound examinations were  completed in March 2014 and 2016, respectively. Children will continue to have ultrasound  examinations biennially until they reach 20 years of age, and every 5 years thereafter.  Childhood thyroid cancer cases found in Fukushima Prefecture are unlikely to be the result of  radiation exposure after the accident. The comprehensive medical check-ups started in July  2011. The survey of pregnant women and nursing mothers involved a questionnaire, sent out  to all mothers who were given a maternal and child health handbook between 1 August 2010  and 31 July 2011. This survey is updated every year to take account of new data, particularly  on pregnancy and births. The mental health and lifestyle survey was conducted twice, in  January 2012 and January 2013, with questionnaires covering physiological and mental 3260 conditions, lifestyle changes, experiences of the earthquake and tsunami, and radiation-3261 related issues to provide adequate mental care and lifestyle support for evacuees (FMU, 2016).

→The source of the third sentence “Childhood thyroid cancer cases found in Fukushima Prefecture are unlikely to be the result of radiation exposure after the accident.“ is not indicated. I believe (FMU, 2016) at the end of the paragraph is a source. 

At the reference as shown below, URL is listed for FMU 2016, however the link was broken as of 2019/9/18. 

Line 3274 FMU, 2016. Report of the Fukushima Health Management Survey, Fukushima Medical University, revised version (April 25, 2016), http://fmu-global.jp/wp-3275/content/uploads/bnr_report_h26_e1.png.

According to the archived data at archive.org, it was an icon for the report not the report itself as its file extension “.png” indicates. Updated version of the report (FMU 2018) describes ”Summary of the Results of Initial Screening” that is to say, results of the 2^nd round is not reported. Moreover, although the report states "Accordingly it can be concluded that thyroid cancers found thus far through the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination program cannot be attributed to radiation discharged due to the accident.", it concludes "However unlikely, the possibility of the radiation effects cannot be completely denied at this point in time." This paragraph should be corrected.

 The ground for denying the effects of radiation is the "There are no significant regional differences in detection rates". For the first round, FMU researchers reported no regional differences in thyroid cancer detection rates (Suzuki et al. 2016; Ohira et al. 2016). However, these 59 municipalities are classified into 4 or 3 regions, and there is criticism that both municipalities with high and low radiation exposure are in the same region (Hamaoka 2016, 2017). On the other hand, Tsuda et al. (2016) found significant differences between regions. Although these papers did not utilized exposure level as regressor, Kato (2019) showed a positive and significant correlation between external exposure in the Fukushima basic survey and sum of the first and second round thyroid cancer incidence. 

Akiba et al. (2017) focused on nodule and found that the percentage was higher in the evacuation area than in the non-evacuation area. Thus, no conclusion has been reached as to whether exposure had any effect.

Since it is also important to raise the number of thyroid cancers, Line 3251 (B 42) should be modified as follows:.

Line　3251　 (B 42) The first and second rounds of the thyroid ultrasound examinations were completed in March 2014 and 2016. Children will continue to have ultrasound examinations biennially until they reach 20 years of age, and every 5 years thereafter. For the 1st and 2nd round, 116 and 71 thyroid cancers includes suspicious cases were detected among 300,473 and 270,540, respectively. For the 1^st round results some academic papers reported insignificant differences among regions (Suzuki et al. 2016; Ohira et al. 2016) and others reported statistically significant difference among regions (Tsuda et al. 2016). However, 59 municipalities are classified into 4, 3, and 9 regions, and there is criticism that both municipalities with high and low radiation exposure are grouped in the same region (Hamaoka 2016, 2017).These papers do not utilize dose information, Kato (2019) related external dose and thyroid cancer detected in the 1^st and the second round and detected positive and significant correlation. Thyroid nodule is a preliminary stage of thyroid cancer and radiation cause thyroid nodule. Hamaoka (2013) found positive and significant correlation between WHO estimated thyroid dose and incidents of thyroid nodule in the first round. Akiba et al.(2017) examined relative risk of thyroid nodule between non-evacuated and evacuated area. For the 1^st round, relative risk was insignificant, on the contrary, statistically significant higher risk was detected for the evacuated area in the 2^nd stage. It is too early to conclude relationship between radiation and thyroid cancer detected in Fukushima.

この文章の"unlikely to"の根拠となる文献が不明である｡出典を文章に明示すべきである｡パラグラフの最後にある､FMU2016だと思われるが､引用文献欄に示されているURLはリンク切れであり確認できなかった｡archive.orgによると報告書ではなくアイコンであった｡現在も公開されている改訂版(Dec. 2018)[20]で報告されているのは” Summary of the Results of Initial Screening”､つまり1巡目の結果についてであり､2巡目の結果については報告されていない｡

さらに報告書では､" Accordingly it can be concluded that thyroid cancers found thus far through the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination program cannot be attributed to radiation discharged due to the accident. "とあるものの､"However unlikely, the possibility of the radiation effects cannot be completely denied at this point in time. "とある｡このパラグラフの記述を修正すべきである｡

なお､放射線の影響を否定する根拠として､" there are no significant regional differences in detection rates"がある｡1巡目についてFMUの研究者は甲状腺がんの発見率に地域差がないことを報告している (Ohira et al. 2016; Suzuki et al. 2016)｡ただし､これらは59市区町村を4地域もしくは3地域に分類しており､同一地域に被曝量の高い市町村と低い市町村が混在しているという批判もある(Hamaoka 2016, 2017)｡一方､Tsuda et al.(2016)では地域間で有意差が見いだされている｡これらは被曝量を分析に用いていないが､Kato(2019)では､福島基本調査での外部被曝量と1巡目と2巡目のthyroid cancer incidentsには､正で有意な相関があることが示されている｡Akiba et al.(2017)はnoduleに注目し非避難区域よりも避難区域の方が割合が高いとしている｡ このように被曝影響の有無については結論がでていない｡

　甲状腺がんの数をあげることにも重要な意味があるので､Line　3251　(B 42) を次のように修正すべきである｡

GLOSSARY 

Add the following terms.

ALARA

LNT

Tolerability

下記を追加

プロジェクトメンバーのCOI明示

Declare Conflict of Interest of TG 

ReferenceにURL明示

以上

参照文献

 Akiba et al. (2017), "Thyroid Nodule Prevalence among Young Residents in the Evacuation Area after Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Results of Preliminary Analysis Using the Official Data," Journal of Radiation and Cancer Research, 8 (4).

AMERICAN_NUCLEAR_SOCIETY (2012), Fukushima Daiichi: Ans Committee Report.

Ando, Ryoko (2016), "Measuring, Discussing, and Living Together: Lessons from 4 Years in Suetsugi," Annals of the ICRP, 45 (1 Suppl), 75-83.

---- (2018), "Trust-What Connects Science to Daily Life," Health physics, 115 (5), 581-89.

Hamaoka, Yutaka (2017), "Re: "Comprehensive Survey Results of Childhood Thyroid Ultrasound Examinations in Fukushima in the First Four Years after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident" by Suzuki Et Al. (Thyroid 2016;26:843-851)," Thyroid, 27 (8), 1105-06.

Hamaoka, Yutaka (2016), "Comment on " Comparison of Childhood Thyroid Cancer in Fukushima"," Medicine, Correspondence Blog, http://journals.lww.com/md-journal/Blog/MedicineCorrespondenceBlog/pages/post.aspx?PostID=39.

IARC (2018), Thyroid Health Monitoring after Nuclear Accidents. : https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Technical-Publications/Thyroid-Health-Monitoring-After-Nuclear-Accidents-2018

ICRP (2007), The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4 accessed 2019/8/5.

---- (2006), "Icrp 101 Part2:The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the Process," Ann ICRP, 31 (3).

---- (2019), "Icrp Publication 1xx:Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident: Update of Icrp Publications 109 and 111," http://www.icrp.org/docs/TG93%20Draft%20Report%20for%20Public%20Consultation%202019-06-17.pdf.

---- (2009a), Icrp Publication 109: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations for the Protection of People in Emergency Exposure Situations.

---- (2009b), Icrp Publication 111: Application of the Commission’s Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-Term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency.

ICRP_TG84 (2012), Report of Icrp Task Group 84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Power Plant Accident in Japan Vis-à-Vis the Icrp System of Radiological Protection: http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP%20TG84%20Summary%20Report.pdf accessed 2019/8/11.

Kato, Toshiko (2019), "Re: Associations between Childhood Thyroid Cancer and External Radiation Dose after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident," Epidemiology, 30 (2), e9-e11.

Kimura, Aya H. (2018), "Fukushima Ethos: Post-Disaster Risk Communication, Affect, and Shifting Risks," Science as Culture, 27 (1), 98-117.

Leuraud et al. (2015), "Ionising Radiation and Risk of Death from Leukaemia and Lymphoma in Radiation-Monitored Workers (Inworks): An International Cohort Study," The Lancet Haematology, 2 (7), e276–e81.

Lochard et al. (2019), "An Overview of the Dialogue Meetings Initiated by Icrp in Japan after the Fukushima Accident," Radioprotection, 54 (2), 87-101.

Miyazaki, M. and R. Hayano (2017a), "Individual External Dose Monitoring of All Citizens of Date City by Passive Dosimeter 5 to 51 Months after the Fukushima Npp Accident (Series): 1. Comparison of Individual Dose with Ambient Dose Rate Monitored by Aircraft Surveys," J Radiol Prot, 37 (1), 1-12.

---- (2017b), "Individual External Dose Monitoring of All Citizens of Date City by Passive Dosimeter 5 to 51 Months after the Fukushima Npp Accident (Series): Ii. Prediction of Lifetime Additional Effective Dose and Evaluating the Effect of Decontamination on Individual Dose," J Radiol Prot, 37 (3), 623-34.

Murakami et al. (2018), "Effect of Radiological Countermeasures on Subjective Well-Being and Radiation Anxiety after the 2011 Disaster: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," Int J Environ Res Public Health, 15 (1).

NAIIC (2012), The Official Report of  the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/en/report/ Accessed 2019/8/12 

Naito et al. (2017), "Measuring and Assessing Individual External Doses During the Rehabilitation Phase in Iitate Village after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident," J Radiol Prot, 37 (3), 606-22.

Naito et al. (2016), "Relationship between Individual External Doses, Ambient Dose Rates and Individuals' Activity-Patterns in Affected Areas in Fukushima Following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident," PLoS One, 11 (8), e0158879.

NCRP (2015), Commentary No. 24 – Health Effects of Low Doses of Radiation: Perspectives on Integrating Radiation Biology and Epidemiology: NCRP.

NCRP (2018), Commentary No. 27  – Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear-Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection: NCRP.

Ohira et al. (2016), "Comparison of Childhood Thyroid Cancer Prevalence among 3 Areas Based on External Radiation Dose after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," Medicine (Baltimore), 95 (35), e4472.

Richardson et al. (2015), "Risk of Cancer from Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Inworks)," BMJ, 351, h5359.

Suzuki et al. (2016), "Comprehensive Survey Results of Childhood Thyroid Ultrasound Examinations in Fukushima in the First Four Years after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident," Thyroid, 26 (6), 843-51.

Togawa et al. (2018), "Long-Term Strategies for Thyroid Health Monitoring after Nuclear Accidents: Recommendations from an Expert Group Convened by Iarc," The Lancet Oncology, 19 (10), 1280-83.

Tsuda et al. (2016), "Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014," Epidemiology, 27 (3), 316-22.

Kikkawa (2018) “Preparing for Social Crisis: Assumption, Rcording, and Warning”, Kagaku [in Japanese] , 88 (10), 980-86. (吉川肇子 (2018), "社会の危機に備える : 「想定」「記録」「警戒」," 科学, 88 (10), 980-86.)

Kurokawa and Tanimoto (2019) ,”A Radiation Exposure Evaluation Paper without Integrity” Kagaku [in Japanese], 89 (4), 318-40. (黒川眞一, 谷本溶 (2019), "インテグリティの失われた被曝評価論文：宮崎早野第2論文批判," 科学(岩波書店), 89 (4), 318-40.)

Hamaoka (2019) “Limitations in Personal Dosimetry Research: A Critical Review.” Kagaku [in Japanese], 89 (4), 341-59.　[濱岡豊 (2019), "個人線量測定論文の諸問題 : 批判的レビュー (特集 ゆがむ被曝評価)," 科学, 89 (4), 341-59.]

---

[1] line 196 "While Publications and 111 were intended to deal with all exposure situations resulting from a nuclear accident or a radiation emergency, this publication focuses on the protection of people and the environment in the case of a large nuclear accident."

[2] Line 190 “(5) The purpose of this publication is to integrate in a single document both the Chernobyl and Fukushima experience with respect to the radiological protection of all affected individuals and the environment.”

[3] (Para 3) “difficulties related to the quantification of exposures; interpretation of potential radiation-induced health effects; ad-hoc protection of responders; societal impacts of the evacuation of people; recognising the importance of psychological consequences; and challenges related to the rehabilitation of living conditions in contaminated areas.”

[4] 文科省｢福島県内の学校の校舎・校庭等の利用判断における暫定的考え方について(平成23年4月19日)｣

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/saigaijohou/syousai/1305173.htm

[5] " Lastly, the Expert Group would like to stress that this report is not an evaluation of the thyroid health monitoring activities that were implemented after the past nuclear accidents, and does not include any recommendations related to thyroid health monitoring activities currently in progress, in particular the Fukushima Health Management Survey. (IARC(2018), p.16)"

[6] 原子力災害対策本部 ｢ステップ2の完了を受けた警戒区域及び避難指示区域の見直しに関する基本的考え方及び今後の検討課題について(案)｣　http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/genshiryoku/dai23/23_06_gensai.pdf

[7]例えば､サンフィールド二本松ゴルフ倶楽部が､ゴルフ場内に飛散した放射性物質の除去と損害賠償を東電に求めた訴訟で､東電は事故によって飛散した放射性物質は「無主物」､つまり同社には責任がないと主張した｡

[8] "Specifically, the ‘lines’ related to evacuation and compensation cannot be resolved by

independent measurement by the residents, because the measured results are not used

as the basis for administrative actions. (Ando, p.83)"

[9] Lochard, J., T. Schneider, R. Ando, O. Niwa, C. Clement, J. F. Lecomte, and J. I. Tada (2019), "An Overview of the Dialogue Meetings Initiated by Icrp in Japan after the Fukushima Accident," Radioprotection, 54 (2), 87-101.

[10] 例えば､Miyazaki and Hayano(2017a), Miyazaki and Hayano(2017b)は､伊達市で行われた5万人以上のガラスバッジでの測定データを用いているが､利用承諾していない者のデータが含まれていた｡

[11] "Some studies explicitly found risk in the dose range of 100 mGy or less (e.g., the atomic-bomb survivor studies, the INWORKS, and the pooled radiation and thyroid cancer analysis). Several studies also performed explicit dose-threshold analyses and found the estimates of dose thresholds to be compatible with zero dose (i.e., no threshold). (NCRP, 2015, p.139)"

[12] 林縁から20メートルの範囲のみを除染｡それによる空間線量率の低下は､24%程度｡http://josen.env.go.jp/plaza/decontamination/qa_02.html

[13] 事故処理費用は 50 兆~70 兆円になる恐れ https://www.jcer.or.jp/jcer_download_log.php?post_id=29100&file_post_id=29105

[14] 例えば　CEREBRAD, Cognitive and Cerebrovascular Effects Induced by Low Dose Ionizing Radiation　http://www.cerebrad-fp7.eu

[15] 東京電力福島原子力発電所事故調査委員会 (2012), 国会事故調　調査報告書: http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/pdf/naiic_honpen.pdf Accessed 2019/8/12.　P.610

[16] 2011年3月11日21時15分発信の異常事態連絡では､2号基炉心損傷開始22時20分､RPV(原子炉圧力容器) 破損23時50分と予想されている｡　https://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000122668.pdf

[17]福島第一原子力発電所事故に係る通報・報告に関する第三者検証委員会

「検証結果報告書」http://www.tepco.co.jp/press/release/2016/pdf/160616j0301.pdf

[18] " Lastly, the Expert Group would like to stress that this report is not an evaluation of the thyroid health monitoring activities that were implemented after the past nuclear accidents, and does not include any recommendations related to thyroid health monitoring activities currently in progress, in particular the Fukushima Health Management Survey. (IARC(2018), p.16)"

[19] https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/ps-wbc-kensa-kekka.html

[20]  http://kenko-kanri.jp/en/pdf/report_e.pdf