slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Nuclear Safety: International Consensus PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Nuclear Safety: International Consensus

Nuclear Safety: International Consensus

130 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Nuclear Safety: International Consensus

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Gobierno de Chile: Comisión Nacional de EnergíaSeminario Evaluación de la Opción Nuclear para ChileHotel Hyatt, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile; Enero 28, 2010 Nuclear Safety: International Consensus Abel J. González Representante: Comité de las Naciones Unidas para el Estudio de los Efectos de las Radiaciones Atómicas Vicepresidente de la Comisión Internacional de Protección Radiológica Miembro de la Comisión de Estándares de Seguridad del OIEA Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear de Argentina Av. Del Libertador 8250; (1429)Buenos Aires,Argentina+54 1163231758;

  2. The International System: consensus on Radiation Health Effects Protection Paradigm Nuclear Safety Regime Chile within the System Content

  3. How the international system works? 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  4. Epistemology of radiationMethod, validity and scope of the scientific knowledge on radiation Radiation Protection Paradigm Conceptual model for keeping people protected Global Nuclear Safety Regime Establishing international safety standards and providing for their global application 20 August, 2014 4

  5. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) deals with the epistemology 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  6. WNU-Ankara 2008 20 August, 2014 6

  7. International Estimates of the Levels of Radiation Exposure

  8. Natural Cosmic rays Terrestrial Inhalation [radon] Artificial Medical Military Nuclear Power Occupational Accidents Sources

  9. Radiation Dose Amount ofradiation energy absorbed by tissue per unit mass Measured in Sieverts Radioactivity (bequerels)

  10. The unit of dose is the Sievert [Sv](0.001 Sv = 1 milliSievert [mSv]) How much is a mSv? 1 radiography = 1 mSv; 1CT = 50 mSv 1 year of natural radiation = 1 – 10 mSv Releases from NPP <<0.1 mSv 10

  11. annual dose mSv/year Natural Background ~100 ~ 10 ~ 2.4 ~ 1 Few people In few areas  VERY HIGH Many people In many areas  TYPICALLY HIGH Majority of people around the world  AVERAGE MINIMUM

  12. OSU, Stillwater, OK, USA, February 2008 12

  13. Medical sources

  14. Computerized tomography (CT) procedures by year (millions) Annual growth > 10%/yr U.S. population < 1%/yr

  15. Military activities

  16. Nuclear weapons tests

  17. Doses due to atmospheric nuclear testing

  18. Occupational exposures

  19. Man-made sources Natural sources

  20. Civil nuclear power

  21. Global average levels Source: UNSCEAR 2000 Report

  22. Annual per caput dose (mSv)

  23. Annual per caput dose (mSv) for USA

  24. In summary:Medical uses rather than nuclear power is responsible of increased radiation levels

  25. What are the health effects attribuatble to radiation exposure? 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  26. Overall UNSCEAR conclusion 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  27. Limit of epidemiological knowledge  Limit of pathological knowledge  Likelihood of radiation effects Certainty (100%) Deterministic effects Stochastic effects Burns, sickness & death Biology Inference Epidemiology Statistical estimation: populations Pathology Clinical diagnosis: individuals Increasing risk of cancer 5% ~1000 Dose (mSv) ~100 Radiation protection region 28

  28. Plausibility of stochastic effects, p average 2.4 mSv typical 10 mSv high 100 mSv Radiation protection region increment ofp risk factor Background incidence increment ofD Dose, D backgroundannual dose 20 August, 2014 29

  29. Likelihood of Health Effect Certainty (100%) epidemiology pathology Dose (mSv) Risk estimation Collective attribution Individual attribution 20 August, 2014 30

  30. The International Protection Paradigm 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile 20 August, 2014 31

  31. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) deals with the paradigm 32 20 August, 2014 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  32. ICRP Basic Principles Justification of any endeavor or action that entails a change in the level of radiation exposure. Optimizationof radiation protection and safety. Restriction of individual doses attributable to a given situation and also of the probability of incurring doses. 33

  33. Are these principles necessary and sufficient from the point of view of ethics?

  34. Teleological (consequence) Utilitarian (utility) Deontological (duty) Doctrines on Ethics Areatic (virtue)

  35. Teleological Mind the ends, which justify the means Utilitarian Do the greatest good for the greatest number of people Deontological Not do unto others what they should not do unto you Ethical Aphorisms Areatic be virtuous, wise and prudent, aim at humanity

  36. Justification of Actions Optimization of Protection Individual Restrictions Protection Principles Prudence (commitment & environment)

  37. Justification = Teleology Optimization = Utility Limitation = Deontology Ethics of Protection Prudence = Areatic

  38. The ends or consequences of a protective action should determine its morality, namely whether such act is good or evil Any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm Teleology & Justification

  39. The morality of protective actions should be judged against its contribution to the overall utility, namely to the best welfare among all people. The level of radiation protection should be the best under the prevailing circumstances, maximizing the margin of benefit over harm. Utility & Optimization

  40. The morality of protection should be judged by the goodness or rightness caused by the protective actions on specific individuals, and not only by their overall consequences or utility. Inequitable protection options should be prevented by restricting individual doses (dose limits, constraints and reference levels) Deontology & Individual Protection

  41. The focal point for judging the moral of protective actions should be their virtuosity rather than their consequences, utility or duty. Protection should be provided to both, present and future generations and their environment, against scientifically plausible radiation harm even if it is uncertain. Areatism & Precaution • The focal point for judging the moral of protective actions should be their virtuosity and not only their consequences, utility or duty.

  42. Justification = Teleology Optimization = Utility Limitation = Deontology Ethics of Protection Prudence = Areatic

  43. Ethical Matrix Done Being done

  44. Objectives of radiation protection of the environment • to maintain biological diversity, • to ensure the conservation of species, and • to protect the health and status of natural habitats, communities, and ecosystems

  45. ICRP Recommendations Published by Elsivier Volume 37, Issue 1-3, 2008 2008 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection

  46. The International Nuclear Safety Regime 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  47. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for the global regime 48 20 August, 2014 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  48. The IAEA is the only organ within the UN system with specific statutory responsibilities on radiation protection and safety 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile

  49. IAEA Functions • Verifying Peaceful Uses • Developing & Transferring Technology • Providing for Protection and Safety 2010 Seminar, Santiago, Chile