IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE WITH THE POPULATION AFTER A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT.

Human behaviour is primarily driven by perceptions and this is particularly important in the aftermath of a nuclear accident. One of the main lessons we can draw from the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents is that once the acute phase of the accident is over, it is important to engage in dialogue with the affected population. Science-based government measures, imposed from above, give rise to much opposition. Examples of this are the aversion of having to live in a contaminated territory, the reluctance of consumers to buy even slightly contaminated food and the opposition of most evacuees to return to their old homes. The continuing controversy within the scientific community about low-dose risks, which results in conflicting messages to the population, is also not very helpful. A way to deal with these problems is by empowering the affected population by establishing a kind of formal consultation structure funded by the authorities but operated by the local community. This will give the population the feeling of having some control over the situation. Such a participatory approach is very demanding for the authorities, but is likely to change the state of mind of the affected people from victims to survivors.

Mitigation of a radon-rich Belgian dwelling using active subslab depressurization.

In a radon prone area in Belgium, a dwelling with high indoor radon concentrations was identified through a passive measurement. Next, a continuous, active radon monitoring device was installed for one month. A 20-a retrospective radon assessment was also performed. The house was subsequently mitigated through active subslab depressurization with a radial fan. Afterwards the dwelling was actively monitored for several more months to observe the effects of the mitigation and to study the effect of reducing the fan power. Dose evaluations were made to evaluate the health benefit of the mitigation. It was seen that the results of the three measuring techniques before mitigation all yielded between 1700 and 2000 Bq/m3. Clear diurnal radon variations showed up only after mitigation. After mitigation, the average radon concentration fell to less than 200 Bq/m3. The yearly average dose was reduced from potentially 45 mSv/y to less than 4.5 mSv/y through mitigation. Reducing fan power to 50% did not clearly influence the amount of radon entering into the dwelling.