Assessing radiation risk perception by means of a European stakeholder survey.

It is increasingly recognised that stakeholder views can be essential for ascertaining the credibility of those entrusted with protection of the public and workers against radiation risks, the robustness of the approaches to protection and the relevance of research underpinning radiation protection (RP). The CONCERT European Joint Programme of RP research included consideration of stakeholder views. These were evaluated by means of a publicly available survey, translated into 15 languages, to encourage responses from a wide range of European countries. The survey ran in 2017 and received some 1961 responses from many countries, although response rates varied widely between countries. The survey respondents were largely highly educated, with many having a professional connection to RP or the use of radiation in medicine or industry. Survey results indicated a high level of scientific/technical knowledge relevant to RP and indicated a general trust of most actors involved in the RP field, perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of the sampled population. Most expressed a reasonable level of satisfaction with the information available to them on radiation risk, but there is clearly room for improvement. Additionally, the survey identified potential training needs amongst the groups who responded. It is concluded that, while the survey results are limited by the non-representativeness of the respondents by comparison with the population of the European Union as a whole, it has been successful in gaining insights into areas where communication could be improved, where professional training gaps are present and where research could help to build wider trust in RP.

Facilitating the Decision-Making Process After a Nuclear Accident: Case Studies in the Netherlands and Slovakia.

Nuclear accidents do not occur frequently, but their biological, psychosocial, and/or economic consequences may be severe. Hence, a thorough preparation for nuclear emergencies is needed to provide appropriate actions. During the transition phase of an accident, it is vital to include stakeholders in the decision-making process in order to gain support for the recovery strategy to be implemented as well as to share different perspectives, knowledge, and views on the decision problem. Because nuclear accidents are complex, involving many relevant factors that range from technical aspects such as health effects and costs to nontechnical issues such as social acceptance, a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) may facilitate the decision-making process. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of MCDA in the transition phase of a nuclear accident. To this end, an MCDA tool, which uses the weighted sum of a set of normalized criteria, was explored in exercises carried out in panel meetings with a selected set of (largely) governmental stakeholders. The panel meetings were performed in the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic. The exercises were based on a fictitious case study that affected the urban environment of a small city. Prior to the meetings, a set of 8 possible recovery strategies was identified. The use of the MCDA tool showed that it facilitated the decision-making process because it allowed for a structured and transparent approach in which stakeholders with diverse backgrounds can express their opinions and perspectives and reach consensus on the most appropriate recovery strategy. As such, it could be applied to a broader field of research involving any chemical release that necessitates an extended recovery strategy. Future research is needed in order to incorporate psychosocial effects of a nuclear accident as well as a broader group of stakeholders in exercises. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:376-387. © 2020 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection.

Reflecting a change in funding strategies for European research projects, and a commitment to the idea of responsible research and innovation in radiological protection (RP), a collective of research institutes and universities have developed a prospective Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in radiological protection. This is the first time such a research agenda has been proposed. This paper identifies six research lines of interest and concern: (1) Effects of social, psychological and economic aspects on RP behaviour; (2) Holistic approaches to the governance of radiological risks; (3) Responsible research and innovation in RP; (4) Stakeholder engagement and participatory processes in RP research, development, policy and practice; (5) Risk communication; and (6) RP cultures. These topics were developed through broad stakeholder consultation, in conjunction with activities carried out in the framework of various projects and initiatives (EU H2020 CONCERT programme, the EU FP7 projects OPERRA, PREPARE and EAGLE, the 2015-2018 RICOMET series of conferences, and the 2014 and 2016 International Symposia on Ethics of Environmental Health); as well as through dialogues with members of the European radiation protection research communities. The six research lines open opportunities to integrate a range of key social and ethical considerations into RP, thereby expanding research opportunities and programmes and fostering collaborative approaches to research and innovation.

Better use of European (regional) resources.

In case of an accidental release of radioactivity and subsequent contamination of the food chain, many samples need to be collected and analysed, and this is far from being a simple issue. The determination of contamination levels requires accredited laboratories, approved and certified procedures and methods, transparency and above all prompt results, as stakeholders in general cannot afford waiting. Adequate decisions require fixed norms, stable in time, and accepted internationally. Moreover, an effective policy relies on traceability of products as well. There are huge requirements of harmonisation of procedures, traceability of data, database management, priority settings etc. Accredited laboratories tend to make use of reliable techniques but these have been optimised for low radiation levels and high accuracy for routine analyses, often in the framework of radiological surveillance of the territory, drinking waters or the food chain. It is obvious that such procedures, although very accurate and sensitive, are not suited for urgent decisions in crisis situations. Similarly, accredited analysis methodologies may start from large quantities of product in order to decrease limits of detection; however, this involves sometimes long times for drying or chemical treatment, introducing important delays. Furthermore, large quantities of samples would simply result in the saturation of the analytical capabilities of one country. Adequate actions and informed decisions during a nuclear accident will require an analytical infrastructure that individual countries do not have; hence there is a clear need to establish regional collaboration and co-operation. This paper includes an example of such collaborative work and mutual assistance, and also touches on how sharing tools for decision making, analytical resources, sample collection procedures and analysis would promote trust, reliablity in the results, a common approach toward minimizing the effects of a radiological disaster and above all unity. Last but not least, this paper also poses a challenge: Nuclear accident management implies that all responsible parties have to guarantee that decision support systems have access to data and information in the best available and consistent manner. This will not be achieved in an independent and isolated manner.