Algorithm of decision-making on social and medical protection in emergency situation

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The aim of the study. The development of decision-making algorithm for decisions on the social and medical protection of people in emergency situations based on risk analysis. 

Material and methods. The problems and conceptual provisions of risk assessment and decision-making, based on its results, are described concerning the social and medical protection of personnel of hazardous industries and the population in the event of an emergency situation (ES) in which the level of exposure to hazardous factors may exceed the established safety standards. The object of risk assessment and analysis are stochastic (probabilistic) effects of exposure to ES hazard factors. Their main features, which create complex problems in risk assessment and making decisions on protective measures, is the non-specific effects of the hazardous factors’ impact on human health and their possible latency.

Results. The first step before decisions on the protective measures should be to identify a high-risk group among people affected by ES, based on the risk assessment. Three variants of decision-making for the high-risk group are considered: 1) financial compensation for risk, 2) medical measures for protecting health and 3) compensation for the realized damage to health. The requirements of the risk assessment methodology are formulated.

Discussion. It is shown that the first option can not provide optimal and justified protection of the health and well-being of people in ES. Decisions on this protection are proposed to be based on a combination of options 2) and 3). The choice of the optimal combination depends on the specific situation and development of emergencies, on the success of implementing engineering and organizational protective measures aimed at preventing "doses" of exposure to people of hazardous factors of the emergency above the established safety limits and on the effectiveness and timeliness of medical protection.

Conclusion. The choice of the option of making an effective decision on social and medical protection should be based on the detailed risk assessment from the exposure to hazardous factors, including risk assessment in economic indicators. 

About the authors

Vladimir Yu. Soloviev

A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre

Author for correspondence.
Email: soloviev.fmbc@gmail.com

MD, Ph.D., DSci., Head of the Laboratory of technogenic risk analysis of the A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre, Moscow, 123182, Russian Federation.

e-mail: soloviev.fmbc@gmail.com

Russian Federation

V. F. Demin

A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre; National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

V. I. Krasnyuk

A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Rakhmanin Yu.A., Demin V.F., Ivanov S.I. General approach to the assessment, comparison and normalization of the risk to human health from various sources of harm. Vestnik RAMN. 2006;4: 5-8. (in Russian).
  2. Demin V.F., Zakharchenko I.E. The risk of exposure to ionizing radiation and other harmful factors on human health: assessment methods and practical application. Radiacionnaya biologiya. Radioehkologiya. 2012; 52 (1): 77-89. (in Russian).
  3. Demin V.F., Biryukov A.P., Zabelin M.V., Soloviev V.Yu. Problems of identifying dose - effect dependence for ionizing radiation. Med. radiol. i radiac. bezopasnost’. 2018; 63 (3): 25–33. (in Russian).
  4. Trboevich V.M. Criteria of risk in EU countries. Problemy analiza riska. 2004; 1(2): 106 – 115. (in Russian).
  5. Hrupachev A.G., Hadartsev A.A. Professional risk. Theory and practice of calculation. Tula, Publishing house TulGU; 2011. (in Russian).
  6. Hallenbeck W.H. Quantitative risk assessment for environmental and occupational health. 2nd ed. Lewis publishers.INC.; 1993.
  7. Guidelines for risk assessment to public health under the influence of chemicals that polluted the environment. The Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare. Р 2.1.10.1920-04. M: 2004. (in Russian).
  8. Bykov A.A., Faleev M.I. To the problem of assessing socio-economic damage using the risk price indicator. Problemy analiza riska. 2005; 2(2): 114 – 131 (in Russian).
  9. Handbook of Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials. Ed. by Bengt Fadeel. Pan Standford Publishing; 2014.
  10. Bryant P.A, Croft J and Cole P. Integration of Risks from Multiple Hazards into a Holistic. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2017; 173 (1-3): 4-13.
  11. Marjolein B.A. and Ortwin Renn. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research. 2011; 14: 431-449.
  12. Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident. Safety Series No 75-INSAG-1. IAEA, Vienna; 1986.
  13. Belyaev S.T., Demin V.F., Osmachkin V.S. Chernobyl accident: a critical analysis of the consequences and conducted protective measures. Atomnaya ehnergiya. 1997; 83(6): 393 – 401 (in Russian).
  14. International Chernobyl Project. Assessment of radiological consequences and protective measures. Izdat. M.; 1991. (in Russian).
  15. Safety and prevention of emergencies. Catalog-Directory. Institute of Risk and Safety. M., 1998. (in Russian).
  16. Callen J., McKenna T. Saving Lives and Preventing Injuries From Unjustified Protective Actions–Method for Developing a Comprehensive Public Protective Action Strategy for a Severe NPP Emergency. Health Physics. 2018; 114(5): 511-526.
  17. Arrangements for the Termination of a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. General Safety Guide. IAEA, Vienna; 2018.
  18. Commission staff working paper. Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management. EC; Brussels, 21.12.2010, SEC (2010) 1626; 2010.
  19. Atsuyuki Suzuki. Managing the Fukushima Challenge. Risk analysis. 2015; 34(7):1240-1256.
  20. Jason Reinhardt, Che Xi; Wenhao Liu, Petar Manchev, and M Elisabeth Paté Cornell. Asteroid Risk Assessment: A Probabilistic Approach. Risk analysis. 2016; 36(2): 244-261.
  21. Namkyung Oh. Dimensions of strategic intervention for risk reduction and mitigation: a case study of the MV Sewol incident. Journal of Risk Research. 2017; 20 (12): 1516-1533.
  22. Faleev M.I. Complex safety of the population and territories from emergency situations. Risk analysis problems. 2018; 15(1): 4,5. (in Russian).
  23. Antsiferova A.A., Demin V.A., Demin V.F., Soloviev V.Yu. Concept of technogenic risk’ management. Gygiena and Sanitaria. 2017; 96 (8): 780-785 (in Russian).
  24. Soloviev V.Yu., Bushmanov A.Yu., Semenov V.G., Kotchetkov O.A., Torubarov F.S. The conceptual approach to identification of risk groups among atomic industry workers. Med. Radiol. and Radiat. Safety. 2009; 54 (6): 16-23 (in Russian).
  25. Soloviev V.Yu. The concept of allocation of groups of the elevated risk among personnel of factories with dangerous working conditions. Health Risk Analysis. 2013; 3: 27-33 (in Russian). .
  26. Algasin A.I., Demin V.F., Gordeev K.I., Loborev V.M., Kiselev V.I., Shoikhet Ya.N. Radiation impact of nuclear weapon testsat the Semipalatinsk test on the population of the Altai region. In the proceed. of the IAEA symposium on environmental impact of radioactive releases, Vienna, Austria, 8-12 May 1995. IAEA-SM-339/82: 435 - 447.
  27. Shoikhet Ya.N., Kiselev V.I., Loborev V.M., Sudakov V.V., Algasin A.I., Demin V.F., Lagutin A.A. The 29 August, 1949. Nuclear Test. Radioactive impact on the Altai region population. Institute of Regional Medico-Ecological Problems. Barnaul, 1998.
  28. Wakeford R., Antell B.A., Leigh W.J. A review of probability of causation and its use in a compensation scheme for nuclear industry in the United Kingdom. Health Physics, January 1998; 74 (1): 1-9.
  29. Krasnyuk V.I., Golikov V.Ya., Meskih N.E., Filyushkin I.V., Chesalin P.V. Manual of medical care of persons exposed to radiation at the Chernobyl accident. 1998; M.: RMAPE. (in Russian).
  30. Methodical recommendations for the economic assessment of risks to public health under the influence of environmental factors. MR 5.1.0029-11. Rospotrebnadzor; 2011 (in Russian).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Soloviev V.Y., Demin V.F., Krasnyuk V.I.


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.