Simulated nuclear contamination scenario, solid cancer risk assessment, and support to decision

Lima, Sergio X.; Costa, Karolina P. S.; Lima, Zelmo R.; Rother, Fagner C.; Araujo, Olga M. O.; Vital, Helio C.; Brum, Tercio; Junior, Wilson F. R. S.; Amorim, Jose Carlos C.; Healy, Matthew J. F.; Andrade, Edson R.

doi:10.2478/nuka-2019-0005

Abstract

The detonation of an (hypothetical) improvised nuclear device (IND) can generate atmospheric release of radioactive material in the form of particles and dust that ultimately contaminate the soil. In this study, the detonation of an IND in an urban area was simulated, and its effects on humans were determined. The risk of solid cancer development due to radiation was calculated by taking into account prompt radiation and whole-body exposure of individuals near the detonation site up to 10 km. The excess relative risk (ERR) of developing solid cancer was evaluated by using the mathematical relationships from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) studies and those from the HotSpot code. The methodology consists of using output data obtained from simulations performed with the HotSpot health physics code plugging in such numbers into a specific given equation used by RERF to evaluate the resulting impact. Such a preliminary procedure is expected to facilitate the decision-making process significantly.

References

1. Lugar, R. G. (2005, June). The Lugar survey on proliferation threats and responses. Available from https://fas.org/irp/threat/lugar_survey.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Reed, B. C. (2014). The history and science of the Manhattan project. Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-40297-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Mian, Z., & Glaser, A. (2015). Nuclear weapons and fissile material stockpiles and production. In NPT Review Conference, 27 April – 22 May 2015. New York, USA: United Nations. Available from http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/IT050-Mian-Glaser-NPT-New-York.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Bunn, M., & Wier, A. (2006). Terrorist nuclear weapon construction: How difficult? Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci., 607(1), 133–149.10.1177/0002716206290260
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Potter, W. C., & Mukhatzhanova, G. (2010). Forecasting nuclear proliferation in the 21st century (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503627420
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Reed, B. C. (2011). Fission fizzles: Estimating the yield of a predetonated nuclear weapon. Am. J. Phys., 79(7), 769–773.10.1119/1.3569575
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Marka, J. C. (1993). Explosive properties of reactor-grade plutonium. Science and Global Security, 4(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/08929889308426394.10.1080/08929889308426394
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Garwin, R. L., & von Hippel, N. (2006). A technical analysis: Deconstructing North Korea’s October 9 nuclear test. Arm Control Association. Available from https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/tech.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Mazzetti, M. (2006, October 14). Preliminary samples hint at North Korean nuclear test. New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/world/asia/14nuke.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Zhao, L. -F., Xie, X. -B., Wang, W. -M., & Yao, Z. -X. (2008). Regional seismic characteristics of the 9 October 2006 North Korean nuclear test. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 98(6), 2571–2589. doi: 10.1785/0120080128.10.1785/0120080128
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Poeton, R. W., Glines, W. M., & McBaugh, D. (2009). Planning for the worst in Washington State: initial response planning for improvised nuclear device explosions. Health Phys., 96(1), 19–26.10.1097/01.HP.0000326329.89953.5c19066483
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Florig, H. K., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individuals’ decisions affecting radiation exposure after a nuclear explosion. Health Phys., 92(5), 475–483.10.1097/01.HP.0000255660.33000.a617429306
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Meit, M., Redlener, I., Briggs, T. W., Kwanisai, M., Culp, D., & Abramson, D. M. (2011). Rural and suburban population surge following detonation of an improvised nuclear device: a new model to estimate impact. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 5(Suppl. 1), S143–S150. https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2011.20.10.1001/dmp.2011.2021402807
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Greenberg, M. R., & Lowrie, K. W. (2009). Risk analysis. Risk Anal., 29(3), 315–316.10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01215.x19243533
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Thompson, D. E., Mabuchi, K., Ron, E., Soda, M., Tokunaga, M., Ochikubo, S., Sugimoto, S., Ikeda, T., Terasaki, M., Izumi, S., & Preston, D. L. (1994). Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II: Solid tumors, 1958–1987. Radiat. Res., 137(2s), S17–S67.10.2307/3578892
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Ron, E., Preston, D. L., Mabuchi, K., Thompson, D. E., & Soda, M. (1994). Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part IV: Comparison of cancer incidence and mortality. Radiat. Res., 137(2s), S98–S112.10.2307/3578894
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Mabuchi, K., Soda, M., Ron, E., Tokunaga, M., Ochikubo, S., Sugimoto, S., Ikeda, T., Terasaki, M., Preston, D. L., & Thompson, D. E. (1994). Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part I: Use of the tumor registries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for incidence studies. Radiat. Res., 137(2s), S1–S16.10.2307/3578891
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Homann, S. G. (2013). HotSpot Health Physics Codes Version 3.0 User’s Guide. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA, USA.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Jones, A., Thomson, D., Hort, M., & Devenish, B. (2007). The UK Met Office’s next-generation atmospheric dispersion model, Name III. In C. Borrego, & A. -L. Norman (Eds.), Air pollution modeling and its application XVII (pp. 580–589). Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-68854-1_62
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Shin, H., & Kim, J. (2009). Development of realistic RDD scenarios and their radiological consequence analyses. Appl. Radiat. Isot., 67(7/8), 1516–1520.10.1016/j.apradiso.2009.02.05419318261
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Saint Yves, T. L. A., Carbal, P. A. M., Brum, T., Rother, F. C., Alves, P. F. P. M., Lauria, D. C., & de Andrade E. R. (2012). Terrorist radiological dispersive device (RDD) scenario and cancer risk assessment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 18(5), 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.707926.10.1080/10807039.2012.707926
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Onishchenko, G. G. (2007). Radiological and medical consequences of the Chernobyl atomic power station accident in the Russian Federation. Gig. Sanit., 4, 6–13 (in Russian).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Glasstone, S., & Dolan, P. J. (1977). The effects of nuclear weapons. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense.10.21236/ADA087568
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Hendee, W. R. (1992). Estimation of radiation risks. BEIR V and its significance for medicine. JAMA, 268(5), 620–624.10.1001/jama.1992.03490050068028
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Preston, D. L., Kusumi, S., Tomonaga, M., Izumi, S., Ron, S., Kuramoto, A., Kamada, N., Dohy, H., Matsui, T., Nonaka, H., Thompson, D. E., Soda, M., & Mabuchi, K. (1994). Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part III. Leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950–1987. Radiat. Res., 137(2s), S68–S97.10.2307/3578893
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Charles, M. (2001). UNSCEAR Report 2000: sources and effects of ionizing radiation, United Nations Scientific Comittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. J. Radiol. Prot., 21(1), 83–86.10.1088/0952-4746/21/1/60911281539
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Socol, Y., & Dobrzynski, L. (2015). Atomic bomb survivors life-span study: Insufficient statistical power to select radiation carcinogenesis model. Dose-Response, 13(1), (17 pp.). DOI: 10.2203/doseresponse.14-034.Socol.10.2203/doseresponse.14-034.Socol
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Mettler, F. A. (2012). Medical effects and risks of exposure to ionising radiation. J. Radiol. Prot., 32(1), N9–N13.10.1088/0952-4746/32/1/N922395124
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. International Atomic Energy Agency. (1996). Methods for estimating the probability of cancer from occupational radiation exposure. Vienna: IAEA. (IAEA-TECDOC-870).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. National Research Council. (2006). Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2 (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11340.10.17226/11340
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Kendall, G. M., Muirhead, C. R., MacGibbon, B. H., O’Hagan, J. A., Goodill, A. A., Butland, B. K., Fell, T. P., Jackson, D. A., & Webb, M. A. (1992). Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation: first analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. BMJ, 304(6821), 220–225.10.1136/bmj.304.6821.220
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Wolbarst, A. B., Wiley, A. L., Nemhauser, J. B., Christensen, D. M., & Hendee, W. R. (2010). Medical response to a major radiologic emergency: A primer for medical and public health practitioners. Radiology, 254(3), 660–677. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090330.10.1148/radiol.0909033020177084
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Andresz, S., Morgan, J., Croüail, P., & Vermeersch, F. (2018). Conclusions and recommendations from the 17th Workshop of the European ALARA Network ‘ALARA in emergency exposure situations’. J. Radiol. Prot., 38(1), 434–439.10.1088/1361-6498/aaa86b29339579
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Simulated nuclear contamination scenario, solid cancer risk assessment, and support to decision

Abstract

Paradigm

My account