PURPOSE:Over the last decade or so, ethical and societal aspects of radiological protection have received increasing attention. This is also reflected in the publications of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The current paper aims at identifying relevant ethical and societal topics which should receive attention in the context of radiological protection for offspring and next generations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We present a non-comprehensive review of the subject, based on presentation made at an ICRP workshop in Budapest in 2022. We first discuss the ethical values promoted by ICRP, and the application of these values in cases of (potential) pre-conceptual and prenatal radiation exposures. We then consider experience gained after the Fukushima accident indicating particular societal concerns about the health effects of such exposures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:Beneficence/non-maleficence, prudence, justice and dignity, the "core values" of the system of radiological protection have special roles to play when heritable and/or in utero effects are to be considered. Prudence, in particular, must be taken account of in view of the fact that solid scientific data in humans are largely lacking in this area, and it is necessary to rely on insights from animal experiments as well as theoretical considerations. As regards societal considerations, the perception of risk among (potentially) affected populations needs to be taken seriously. Accountability, transparency, and inclusivity, the "procedural values" promoted by ICRP for the practical implementation of the system of radiological protection play a central role in overcoming skepticism and creating trust. Stakeholder involvement should emphasize cooperation and dialogue, which allows for the joint evaluation of an exposure situation by experts and affected people.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the methodology used to estimate radiation genetic risks and quantify the risk of hereditary effects as outlined in the ICRP Publication 103. It aims to highlight the historical background and development of the doubling dose method for estimating radiation-related genetic risks and its continued use in radiological protection frameworks. RESULTS:This article emphasizes the complexity associated with quantifying the risk of hereditary effects caused by radiation exposure and highlights the need for further clarification and explanation of the calculation method. As scientific knowledge in radiation sciences and human genetics continues to advance in relation to a number of factors including stability of disease frequency, selection pressures, and epigenetic changes, the characterization and quantification of genetic effects still remains a major issue for the radiological protection system of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. CONCLUSION:Further research and advancements in this field are crucial for enhancing our understanding and addressing the complexities involved in assessing and managing the risks associated with hereditary effects of radiation.

The experiences of Chernobyl and Fukushima are rich in lessons regarding the concerns and also the role of the young generations who decided to stay and live in the affected territories after the nuclear accidents. If the major concern at the time of the accident and in the following years is the protection against radioactivity, over time the issue of the future of the affected areas and the quality of life of their inhabitants take precedence. The article presents first a series of observations collected during the ETHOS project and the CORE programme in Belarus between 1996 and 2008 in the territories affected by the Chernobyl accident. Then, it presents testimonies and opinions heard during the 24th Fukushima Dialogue, held in November 2022, devoted to the role of the younger generation in the recovery process. Despite quite contrasting radiological situations, the concerns of young adults in both countries, more than 10 yr after the accidents, show similarities that are highlighted in this article, particularly their motivation to participate to the elaboration of a common vision for the future of the affected areas and to get involved in the recovery process.

The 24th Fukushima Dialogue, a stakeholder meeting to discuss the future of the recovery phase in Fukushima Prefecture among the younger generation, was held in the town of Naraha in the Futaba district of the Fukushima Prefecture, in November 2022. Following a series of presentations, participants to the meeting aged 18 to 35 discussed the current challenges of the reconstruction activities in the Fukushima Prefecture and what is needed to improve the situation. The Dialogue revealed that the younger generation has difficulty in grasping what is meant by reconstruction and readily distinguishes between the “large” reconstruction of authorities and the “small” one of individuals. It also revealed that the Fukushima accident had a strong impact on the sense of belonging of its inhabitants to the region and that they now aspire to build a new identity by regaining control of their lives, even if it is sometimes a painful process. Finally, the Dialogue brought to light that the younger generation is willing and ready to engage in the decision-making process related to the recovery phase in the Fukushima Prefecture.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has embarked on a review and revision of the system of Radiological Protection that will update the 2007 general recommendations in ICRP Publication 103. This is the beginning of a process that will take several years, involving open and transparent engagement with organisations and individuals around the world. While the system is robust and has performed well, it must adapt to address changes in science and society to remain fit for purpose. The aim of this paper is to encourage discussions on which areas of the system might gain the greatest benefit from review, and to initiate collaborative efforts. Increased clarity and consistency are high priorities. The better the system is understood, the more effectively it can be applied, resulting in improved protection and increased harmonisation. Many areas are identified for potential review including: classification of effects, with particular focus on tissue reactions; reformulation of detriment, potentially including non-cancer diseases; re-evaluation of the relationship between detriment and effective dose, and the possibility of defining detriments for males and females of different ages; individual variation in the response to radiation exposure; heritable effects; and effects and risks in nonhuman biota and ecosystems. Some of the basic concepts are also being considered, including the framework for bringing together protection of people and the environment, incremental improvements to the fundamental principles of justification and optimisation, a broader approach to protection of individuals, and clarification of the exposure situations introduced in 2007. In addition, ICRP is considering identifying where explicit incorporation of the ethical basis of the system would be beneficial, how to better reflect the importance of communications and stakeholder involvement, and further advice on education and training. ICRP invites responses on these and other areas relating to the review of the System of Radiological Protection.

La Commission internationale de protection radiologique (CIPR) a initié un examen et une révision du système de radioprotection afin de mettre à jour les recommandations générales de 2007 dans la Publication 103 de la CIPR. Il s’agit du début d’un processus de plusieurs années qui nécessite une collaboration ouverte et transparente avec les organismes et les personnes du monde entier. Bien que le système soit robuste et efficace, il convient de l’adapter à l’évolution des connaissances scientifiques et de la société afin de demeurer adapté aux besoins. Le présent document vise à encourager les discussions sur les domaines du système qui pourraient bénéficier le plus d’un examen, et à engager des initiatives de collaboration. Le renforcement de la clarté et de la cohérence constitue une priorité. Plus le degré de compréhension du système est élevé, plus il est possible de l’appliquer efficacement, ce qui se traduit par une amélioration de la protection et une harmonisation accrue. De nombreux domaines pourraient faire l’objet d’un examen, notamment : la classification des effets, avec un accent particulier sur les réactions tissulaires ; la reformulation du détriment radiologique, qui pourrait inclure les maladies non cancéreuses ; la réévaluation de la relation entre le détriment et la dose efficace, et la possibilité de définir des détriments pour les hommes et les femmes et différentes classes d’âge ; la variation de la réponse individuelle à l’exposition aux rayonnements ; les effets héréditaires ; les effets et risques pour le biote non humain et les écosystèmes. Certains des concepts de base sont également examinés, notamment le cadre permettant de réunir la protection des personnes et de l’environnement, les améliorations progressives des principes fondamentaux de justification et d’optimisation, une approche plus large de la protection des personnes et la clarification des situations d’exposition introduites en 2007. En outre, la CIPR envisage de déterminer dans quels cas l’incorporation explicite des fondements éthiques dans le système présenterait un avantage, comment mieux refléter l’importance des échanges et de l’implication des parties prenantes, et de donner des conseils supplémentaires sur l’éducation et la formation. La CIPR invite à répondre à ces questions et à d’autres liées à l’examen du système de radioprotection.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has embarked on a review and revision of the system of Radiological Protection that will update the 2007 general recommendations in ICRP Publication 103. This is the beginning of a process that will take several years, involving open and transparent engagement with organisations and individuals around the world. While the system is robust and has performed well, it must adapt to address changes in science and society to remain fit for purpose. The aim of this paper is to encourage discussions on which areas of the system might gain the greatest benefit from review, and to initiate collaborative efforts. Increased clarity and consistency are high priorities. The better the system is understood, the more effectively it can be applied, resulting in improved protection and increased harmonisation. Many areas are identified for potential review including: classification of effects, with particular focus on tissue reactions; reformulation of detriment, potentially including non-cancer diseases; re-evaluation of the relationship between detriment and effective dose, and the possibility of defining detriments for males and females of different ages; individual variation in the response to radiation exposure; heritable effects; and effects and risks in non-human biota and ecosystems. Some of the basic concepts are also being considered, including the framework for bringing together protection of people and the environment, incremental improvements to the fundamental principles of justification and optimisation, a broader approach to protection of individuals, and clarification of the exposure situations introduced in 2007. In addition, ICRP is considering identifying where explicit incorporation of the ethical basis of the system would be beneficial, how to better reflect the importance of communications and stakeholder involvement, and further advice on education and training. ICRP invites responses on these and other areas relating to the review of the System of Radiological Protection.

Lessons from the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident emphasize the difficulties for restoring the socio-economic activities in the affected areas. Among them, a series of radioligical protection challenges were noted, in particular concerning the protection of employees, the securing of the production and the guarantee provided to consumers of the radiological monitoring of products to restore their confidence. Based on case studies reporting the experience of employers deploying their activities in affected areas, an analysis of these radiological protection challenges has been performed. Characterizing the radiological situation was not always straightforward for the managers. With the help of radiological protection experts, protective actions have been identified and specific efforts have been devoted to provide information to employees and their families helping them to make their own judgement about the radiological situation. Respecting the decisions of employees and developing a radiological protection culture among them have proved to be efficient for restoring the business activities. Continuing or restoring the production not always manageable. It requires to develop dedicated radiological monitoring processes to ensure the radiological protection of workers and the quality of the production. Re-establishing the link with the consumers and organising the vigilance on the long-term were necessary for companies to maintain their production or develop new ones. Deploying a socio-economic programme for ensuring the community resilience in affected areas requires the adoption of governance mechanisms respecting ethical values to ensure the overall objective of protecting people and the environment against the risks of ionizing radiation and contributing to provide decent living and working conditions to the affected communities. It is of primary importance to rely on the involvement of local communities in the elaboration and deployment of the socio-economic activities with due considerations for ensuring the integrity of the communities, and respecting their choices.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MAIN POINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The article presents the different stages of the co-expertise process, which took place in the community of Suetsugi located about 30 km South from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, to improve radiological protection and the living conditions of the residents. The originality of the process lies in the fact that it was initiated and led by residents of the community with the help of local leaders and volunteer experts. It was also followed regularly by some members of the ICRP. The first part of the article recalls the general characteristics of the co-expertise process for post-nuclear accident management. The second part presents the different stages of the process that took place in the community of Suetsugi. The third part draws some lessons from the experience, which has significantly contributed to enriching the formalisation of the co-expertise process in particular with regard to the recovery of social trust and the role and attitude of experts during the recovery phase after a nuclear accident.

Chinese Society for Radiation Protection Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety, Germany National Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, France Health Canada Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission American Academy of Health Physics Society for Radiological Protection, UK Radiation Effects Association, Japan International Radiation Protection Association American Association of Physicists in Medicine Dutch Society for Radiation Protection National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection, Italy Canadian Radiation Protection Association Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Centre d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire, France Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, Belgium Société Française de Radioprotection, France Medical Physics Association, Italy Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, Italy Danish Society for Medical Physics Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA International Organisation for Medical Physics Society for Radiation Protection, Israel EURAMED Nordic Society for Radiation Protection Nordic Nuclear Safety Research South African Association of Physicists in Medicine and Biology National Centre for Radiation Protection, Delft University, Netherlands Spanish Radiation Protection Society East Tennessee Chapter of the Health Physics Society, USA Spanish Society of Medical Physics Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, UK Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority ENUSA Industria Avanzandas, Spain Australasian Radiation Protection Association South Pacific Environmental Radioactivity Association RP Alba Limited

In its recommendations for the protection of people living in long-term contaminated territories after a nuclear accident, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) emphasizes the effectiveness of directly involving the affected population and local professionals in the management of the situation, and the responsibility of authorities at both national and local levels to create the conditions and provide the means favouring the involvement and empowerment of the population. In this perspective, ICRP initiated in the fall 2011 a dialogue between representatives of the Fukushima Prefecture, local professionals, local communities and representatives of Belarusian, Norwegian and French organisations to find ways to respond to the challenges of the long-term rehabilitation of the living conditions in the territories affected by the Fukushima nuclear power plant. After a first series of twelve “ICRP Dialogue” meetings between 2011 and 2015 closed by an international workshop, a group of local stakeholders took over and organized a new series of eight “Fukushima Dialogue” meetings between 2016 and 2018. The article gives an overview of the dialogue meetings initiated by ICRP in Japan after the Fukushima nuclear accident.

In this report, the Commission describes its framework for protection of the environment and how it should be applied within the Commission’s system of protection. The report expands upon its objectives in relation to protection of the environment, in so far as it relates to the protection of animals and plants (biota) in their natural environment, and how these can be met by the use of Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs); their Derived Consideration Reference Levels (DCRLs), which relate radiation effects to doses over and above their normal local background natural radiation levels; and different potential pathways of exposure. The report explains the different types of exposure situations to which its recommendations apply; the key principles that are relevant to protection of the environment; and hence how reference values based on the use of DCRLs can be used to inform on the appropriate level of effort relevant to different exposure situations. Further recommendations are made with regard to how the Commission’s recommendations can be implemented to satisfy different forms of environmental protection objectives, which may require the use of representative organisms specific to a site, and how these may be compared with the reference values. Additional information is also given with regard to, in particular, communication with other interested parties and stakeholders. Issues that may arise in relation to compliance are also discussed, and the final chapter discusses the overall implications of the Commission’s work in this area to date. Appendices A and B provide some numerical information relating to the RAPs. Annex C considers various existing types of environmental protection legislation currently in place in relation to large industrial sites and practices, and the various ways in which wildlife are protected from various threats arising from such sites.

Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency. ICRP is a registered charity that relies on the sale of publications to help support its ongoing work. However, the cost-free release of this publication is a gesture to aid the Japanese people in recovering from the recent earthquake, tsunami, and accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Our thoughts are with those in Japan dealing with the aftermath of these tragic events, and we regret that the recommendations of ICRP Publication 111 need to be put into active use so soon after having been published. This special free release of ICRP Publication 111 is dedicated to those in Japan who have lost so very much. Aims and Scope The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is the primary body in protection against ionising radiation. ICRP is a registered charity and is thus an independent non-governmental organisation created by the 1928 International Congress of Radiology to advance for the public benefit the science of radiological protection. The ICRP provides recommendations and guidance on protection against the risks associated with ionising radiation, from artificial sources widely used in medicine, general industry and nuclear enterprises, and from naturally occurring sources. These reports and recommendations are published approximately four times each year on behalf of the ICRP as the journal Annals of the ICRP. Each issue provides in-depth coverage of a specific subject area. Subscribers to the journal receive each new report as soon as it appears so that they are kept up to date on the latest developments in this important field. While many subscribers prefer to acquire a complete set of ICRP reports and recommendations, single issues of the journal are also available separately for those individuals and organizations needing a single report covering their own field of interest. Please order through your bookseller, subscription agent, or direct from the publisher. ICRP is composed of a Main Commission, a Scientific Secretariat, and five standing Committees on: radiation effects, doses from radiation exposure, protection in medicine, the application of ICRP recommendations, and protection of the environment. The Main Commission consists of a Chair and twelve other members. Committees typically comprise 10–15 members. Biologists and medical doctors dominate the current membership; physicists are also well represented. ICRP uses Working Parties to develop ideas and Task Groups to prepare its reports. A Task Group …

The radiation protection community has only recently started the important work of preparedness for long-term post-accidental management of radioactively contaminated areas, like for instance the EC projects STRATEGY, FARMING and EURANOS and the French authorities' CODIRPA and PAREX programmes. There are, however, different views concerning how long a long-term management might last. Based on the Norwegian and former Soviet Union experience after the Chernobyl accident, it is clear that a nuclear accident can entail decades of necessary management and rehabilitation of living conditions. The time period is dependent on a number of factors, e.g. amount of fallout, type of radionuclides, land use of contaminated area, number and density of people affected and available techniques and resources for implementing countermeasures. This paper discusses the management strategy implemented in Norway after the Chernobyl accident, the need for changing strategy over time and the important involvement of affected groups. Careful planning and reflections should be undertaken before actions are taken in the recovery phase, keeping in mind the possibility of decades with problems.