Google Earth image showing 5-km, 15-km, and 30-km zones around example city (Eau Claire, WI)
|
|
CommunicationAnother primary concern in the event of major radiation release is getting timely, relatable, and consistent information to the public. Radiation releases are considered "dread events" which can create public responses much greater than the actual event may warrant.
Due to lack of relevant understanding and exposure, the general public responds to even the possibility of minor releases in the same manor as actual large scale releases. This can be exasperated by the modern news cycle where any new information is quickly disseminated without proper context and sometimes without proper verification. Additionally the public does not deal with radiation concepts on a regular bases, creating a barrier to understanding. It became apparent after the Fukushima incident that explaining the exposure as scientific units (Sieverts) was meaningless to the general public (Fitzgerald et al., 2013, p. 232). The public was better able to understand when doses were compared to familiar events such as medical x-rays or international flights. There two keys to help break the communication barriers. First the information to be shared needs to be timely and consistent. A singular, central organization should be tasked with sharing public information. Multiple organizations sharing differing information opens the possibility for inconsistencies. Such inconsistencies create public distrust and hampers response efforts. It is also possible that consistent information from different agencies can be misinterpreted as inconsistent when not put in proper context. Information can also appear inconsistent when the public does not understand the information even when given by a single source. This brings us to our second key which is that information should be shared by two different experts working in a joint manner. First, a technical expert is needed to give the public a sense that trained and knowledge people are engaged in the situation. Second, a public health expert is needed to calm fears and give information in a relatable form. This expert can also give the public actions they can take to protect themselves and their family rather than letting the public act on their own in an information vacuum. |
Image from http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2012/05/mississippis_emergency_respond.html
|
Image from http://www.wkow.com/story/9285866/update-after-fema-plan-gays-mills-decides-to-relocate
|
Building Long Term Recovery PlansIn this final section we discuss known deficiencies in current plans. First and foremost current plans focus on immediate and intermediate safety concerns. Current plans include evacuations and safety precautions related to a radiation release. Fukushima showed we are woefully unprepared to handle the social economic consequences related to wide-area radiation releases.
While exposure to radiation is dangerous, the massive disruption to livelihood of such a large population can also have disastrous effects. Large amounts of personal wealth (property) can be wiped out when such large areas are made uninhabitable and and entire region's worth of people can find themselves unemployed. Areas that are directly unaffected by the event can find themselves flooded with refugees. Likewise there are no formal guidelines for how to balance population reentry risks versus socioeconomic risks from extended evacuation periods. Current plans do not adequately handle how to deal with these longterm situations. According to Fitzgerald et al. (2013) The EPA's 1992 Protective Action Guidelines (PAG) were to eventually include such recommendations. A draft was presented in 2009 and revised in 2011. Still the recommendation is murky and as a draft, there is no clear federal policy on how to handle such things as cleanup, costs and reentry. (p. 233) While some argue whether it is worth diverting resources toward such high-impact but rare events, we believe there may be a middle ground approach. 100 year floods, massive earthquakes, and events like Katrina are all rare, high-impact events. Rather than attempting to make specific longterm plans for each type of event, we believe developing a robust framework that could deal with situations common to all large scale events would be a viable, cost effective alternative. Primary concern would focus on either reviving a community or successful and planned dispersement into other areas. |