 Before we start today's program on radiological protection and emergency preparedness, I have a few administrative announcements. One important thing is that we had the six group projects assembled here at the beginning of this week, and you all collected the information from here, and I kept two books here, two books which is meant for a radiological, I mean group, it's for the group three project. So if anybody by mistake take and please give it to me, I'll collect it later from you. Thanks for that. That's one thing. Thank you. Then another thing is we are going to have a site visit, the nuclear power plant visit on next week Thursday. It's going to be about two and a half hours journey from here. I will give you more specific details one or two days before. Approximately we would start around 6.30 in the morning, and we would be arriving at the nuclear power station premises around 9.30, 9.30 we start information center. They have a nice information center, they will explain how the nuclear power plant works and many models and things like that I guess. That is for about two hours a presentation and a visit to the information center. Then about 12.30, around 12.30 we will be taken to the nuclear power plant, and we will see the power plant per se, but you know it's a BWR plant. Most of the BWR plants are having radioactivity. Even the turbine hall you cannot see in a BWR plant, they have radiation. So as a visitor we have no access to radiologically controlled areas. So they would just show us from outside the controlled room and some facilities just outside. But you will have a feel of seeing a nuclear power plant. But I come to the important point is that I have been negotiating with the plant for a visit of all the 39 people present in the school, but the NPP has a strict regulation. They can allow only a maximum of 30 people. But the information center visiting the places no problem, all of us can visit, but going into the NPP, they have some security regulations, they can allow only a 30s. So it's very difficult for me to choose which 30 out of these 39 I have. I cannot follow any guidelines, but so what I need your help is that I'm going to circulate a paper. If you are very much interested, please sign on this. Suppose you had seen a plant, for me it's not a great deal. I had seen many nuclear power plants. I lived in a nuclear power plant for 30 years, so it's not important for me. But some of you have come all the way from tens of thousands of miles. I do not know that. So if you are very keen on that, please sign. I don't want those people to lose an opportunity to see how an operating nuclear power plant looks like. I hope you appreciate the concern and the situation in which we are working. I look forward to your cooperation. Let's sign on this at the end. But we have 30 people can go. So with that, we will start the class now. Now it is on radiological protection. The first session, morning, we have Abel Gonzalez, you had seen him yesterday, started a very interesting speaker and has a lot of knowledge and wisdom, I would say, because of his age and experience. He has a lot of wisdom in the area in which he is working. And he is an academician with, I don't know, maybe more than my age of experience he has. And I am quite older than 50 years, but his experience is much more than that. And he represents several international institutes in the world related to radiological protection. And he's been to IAEA, ICRP, he was vice chairman or something, and many international organizations which deal with radiological protection, you can name, he would be a member of that. So we are very fortunate to have him here in ICTP. And I'm sure you are going to have a very interesting and enlightening lecture about radiological protection, a very key area that he's going to bring. And he's also going to talk in a different dimension about the radiological protection. So without talking much about him, he will explain about himself later. I will hand over the dice to him. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, good morning. How are you? Hi. You were a nice dinner yesterday, I understand. I apologize that I could not be with you, but there was trouble and I was very tired. You know, you can recognize that in Italy people eat well. This is, well, we are here to walk with you on the issue of radiation with my friends, Rafael Martinis, sitting there. Rafael is one of the best experts that I know in how to deal with emergencies with radiation, and therefore profit from his experience after today because he really has a lot of experience. In addition, he's a fantastic friend, you know. You know, what is the difference of a friend and a relative? When you're in trouble, you never go to a relative. You go to a friend. And that is what I have done with Martin with Rafael many times. OK, well, we are going to talk about this issue in this course, which is a course intended to the formation of managers. And therefore, let's first of all ask ourselves, why? Why we are talking about this in this course? Well, because radiation, we like it or not, is the nemesis of nuclear energy. It's a big problem of nuclear energy. The management of nuclear energy will be much more simple should radiation not be there. It will be completely different. The reason why we have so many problems with nuclear is radiation. Therefore, you, as a future nuclear manager, need to understand radiation. And that is the feeling of this presentation, the reason. I will have, as a content, as a first part, I will talk on traditional issues, the issues that normally you talk in courses like this. The scientific framework that we have for this, the health effect of radiation that people are always interested and radiation protection. But I have introduced, after talking a second part, which get to you to new issues, issues that normally are not there. You will not find in books because they are really very new issues. One very new issue is on whether or not we can attribute the effect to radiation. And that is a very controversial point in low doses. The second is whether we can still infer risk or not. And that is a big difference between attributing something or inferring. Attributing is objective, inferring is objective. Then we will talk about inputability, whether, if you can attribute risk, a good lawyer can impute or not. This is an essential issue for nuclear energy. Because in the current situation, the companies never know what will happen. I mean, if somebody has a good lawyer, they can band wrap the company. For that is a very important issue which is open, this is not solved. And the third one, I will talk on radiation in other sources of energy. This is really, very, very new. It was approved just a few months ago by the UN General Assembly. Therefore, you are going to have the traditional thing that you will find usually in normal courses plus very, very new issues. Well, let's start with the first part, the traditional issues. I will talk about the scientific framework, international system, quantities, levels, the effects, biological effect, deterministic effect, stochastic effect, and protection, the basic recommendation, what we call risk-efficient protection in practice, international standard. What is a long, long program, the one that they have in front of you. What is the international framework? It's important that you understand the international framework for this and let's start showing to you how the international system works, for good or for bad. The international system, first of all, deals with science, which is called epistemology of radiation, metal, validity and scope of what we know. And we need an international consensus on this because if somebody says something, somebody says something else, then when you know the science, you need a model of what we call a paradigm. Under what model do you protect people? You need to assume a model usually on the basis of ethical rules. You don't want that people be killed, you don't want that people be harmed. Then one that you have the science and the model, well, you need a normative standard. If not, everything is blah, blah, blah. You need a global radiation safety regime. Well, this has been achieved internationally in the following way. The science is concentrated, believe it or not, at the top level of the United Nations. The General Assembly take this on board not because the politicians and assembly are interested in your health. The reason is because the science was very important to see the impact of nuclear weapons. And for that reason, they created the only scientific committee, the only, in the General Assembly is called UNSCARE, United Nations Scientific Committee on the effect of atomic radiation. Since the year 55, this committee every year submitted a report to the assembly on the science, levels and effects of radiation. The model for reasons that nobody understand well has been in the hand of a non-governmental organization from the year 1928. It's called ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection. It was originally created by the doctors that were very afraid of radiation. They were being burned in the 20s. And they created this organization to give a paradigm on how to protect themselves. And the standard, the normative, is in the hand of the agency. The International Atomic Energy Agency is the only body in the United Nations with the statutory power to impose standards. Therefore, you have UNSCARE, as I said, is a committee of the General Assembly, assess level and effect, has 21 member states, others provide relevant data, meetings in Vienna, UNEP arranges the secretariat. The secretariat is in Vienna. If you go to Vienna, you can see it's a different building than the agency. It's in the other extreme. ICRP is a charity established in 1928 to advance the biological protection to the public, providing recommendations and guidance. And then you have the agency, as I said, is the only organ in the United Nations with the statutory responsibilities. What are the functions of the agency? This is important for you to know, because people normally are confused of all this. As I mentioned just in the discussion, the agency has only two functions in this field. To establish a standard and to provide for the application. Establish a standard means to approve a standard. We'll Catherine explain to you yesterday. And to provide for the application are all these services that the agency offers and that you can use. The agency also facilitates international conventions. But the agency is not part of the conventions. There are agreements among countries. There are contracts among countries. And the agency is there to help. Provide coffee in the meetings, water, paper to write, a building. That is what the agency do. Now, the first thing for reaching an international agreement is agreement on the quantities. I mean, if you do not have an agreement on what emitter means, you cannot build a building. There was an agreement on what means emitter. For radiation protection, you need an agreement on the quantities that you are going to use. This agreement is very complicated and has caused a lot of problems. I personally believe that these are necessarily complicated. But it's there. It has been approved by everybody. First of all, there is a confusion between radioactivity and radiation. For many of you, this is insuperity. Well, it is not. You will see top people confusing radioactivity and radiation. Typical cases when somebody decided to irradiate food for preservation. People immediately said, no, no, no. I don't want this to be irradiated. I don't want this to be irradiated because then I will be contaminated. This is a typical case. Therefore, there are these problems between radioactivity and radiation. Therefore, let's start clarifying that. Radioactivity is the property of atoms of some element to emit energy as radiation. Radioactivity is the source of radiation. It's measured in beckons. One beckon is one radiation per second. All over the world. But there is one country that do not measure all the activity in beckons, but in a different unit called the QD. You will say, well, I don't care. I mean, we have 192 countries. There is one that do that. It's a problem. The small problem is that this country is the United States of America, which is equal to the other. But you know, it's a little different. For this, create serious problems. Let me give you an example. In Japan, the Japanese people were measured in radioactivity in Fukushima, in beckons. And people were sufficiently confused with that. And then the American planes arrived, started to measure radioactivity, informed the people in QDs. These confused the Japanese for hours. How much is a beckon? A beckon is a very low amount of radioactivity. One kilo of bananas has 100 beckons of radioactivity. 100. So a beckon is very small. Why the banana? Because bananas, as you know, contain a lot of potassium. This is the reason why you feel very badly. If you eat a banana, you get better. Well, potassium is radioactive. One kilo, 100 beckons. In fact, we have a lot of radioactivity in our body. A person, 70 kiloperson, has about 5,000 beckons of radioactivity in our body. And maybe this is the reason why we took a lot of banana. But it's a radioactivity that is so important that if we get this radioactivity out of our body, it will collapse. For one beckon, it's really very small. The beckon, in addition, decay. Something that people forget when we talk about radioactive waste and people, oh my goodness, these waste will go there for 30 years, 40 years. I normally, as you know, in this moment, everywhere, we are changing these low consumption lamps. And we put the new leds that Chinese produce in Laimard. Well, you know that these lamps contain mercury, which is really very serious pollutant. What people do with the lamps, throw it away. This is it. And the mercury do not decay. Radioactivity decay. For example, one beckon, I'm sorry, one beckon, a hundred beckons of iodine, one of the more complicated radionuclease in nuclear, became six beckons after one once. Decay and decay quickly. Now, what is radiation in that case? Radiation is, as I said to you, energy. Energy transmitted in finite packages that the fish is called quanta just to confuse us. And the effect in radiation, of radiation in matter, is measured with the quantity that we have called dose, coming from the medical tradition, which is energy per unit mass absorbed. This is the dose. OK. This has been the basic agreement. The problem is that radiation, let me say a little bit, I'm missing one slide here. Ah, yeah, it was in bad order. Radiation, depending on the energy that you convey, can be produced in many different forms, from the electromagnetic, radio waves, telephones. Everybody asked me, the radiation about telephone is bad. The visible light up to the radiation that we are interested, the nuclear radiation. All the radiations are the same physically, but there is a big, big change in a given amount of energy that is approximately here. Above this energy, below this energy, radiation is non-ionizing. And above this energy, radiation is ionizing. Well, we know that ionization produced problem in our body, and you will see why. And people said, OK, in that case, non-ionizing radiation is good. But frankly, thinking we don't know. I personally believe that it is not so good. The doctors usually tell to you, don't have a CT, we have an MRI, because the MRI is with no ionizing radiation. Well, when you go to have an MRI, all the hydrogen atoms in your body start to oscillate like that, whether this is produced in fact or not, nobody knows. With radiation, we know the effect that it produced, and we will talk about that. Ionization means that radiation has enough energy to take electrons out of the atoms in your body, for it changing the atoms in your body. Therefore, you have radioactivity measured in beckons, radiation in person, radioactivity that are going inside the person or outside. And those, there is the amount of radiation of energy absorbed by tissue per unit mass. It's measured in joules per gray, which are units of energy. The joule per kilo in the solar energy mass is termed gray, all around the world, except in one country, where it's measured in air per gram and termed rough. And again, that country is the United States. Or only this is already a big source of confusion. OK, therefore, you have a person here can get radioactivity inside, because have an irradiated from inside, can get radiation from outside, and he get absorbed those measured in gray or rough. Finish the problem? No, unfortunately, it's not finished. Because the harm do not depend only of the energy absorbed per gram or per mass, but depend also of the type of radiation. Why? Because different radiations have different penetrations. Alphas, you can talk with the paper, you stop the alphas. Betas go a little more. Gammas penetrate everything. Therefore, you say, OK, in that case, alpha is not a problem. It's true, it's not a problem. If the alpha is outside, now if the alpha is inside, ah, it's a big problem. Therefore, to consider this, the absorbed those have to be weighted. With factors, we depend on the type of radiation. The weighting factors that you can see there is usually one for electrons or protons, but for alphas it's 20. For alphas, 20 times more dangerous because of the properties of the alpha. And the result of the weighting absorbed those with this weighting factor is called an equivalent dose. For in every part of our body, in every organ, we can measure this equivalent dose, weighted, weighted absorbent dose. The quantity used, the unit used for this absorbent equivalent dose is the siever all around the world, except in one country, which is used at the REM. The country, yes, is in the United States. The history is finished here. No. Why? Because in addition, that different radiation produce different harms in an organ. Different organs produce different harm because every organ has different radiosensitivity to radiation. For we need to weight this again, this equivalent dose, by a tissue weighting factor. Here there are the tissues weighting factor, in parentheses are the old numbers, which you can see give a little idea of how sensitivity is a tissue to radiation. For instance, stomach and colon and lung is very sensitive, but final is very, the sensitivity is very little. And this is important for what we are going to see. The result of equivalent dose, weighted by a tissue factor, is called an effective dose. Big problem, the effective dose is measured in the same unit that the equivalent dose. First problem, therefore, is when you as appeared in newspapers, that the people receive so many sievers. First question, is sievers equivalent dose or effective dose? Believe it or not, this was a serious problem in Japan because in a press conference, the prime minister was asked about the doses due to Iovine. People are always concerned with Iovine. And the prime minister said, well, I am informed that the doses are not so high around 100 millisieverts. And one fellow in the media, because the media now is very well informed, better than the science sometimes, he said, prime minister, is 100 millisieverts of equivalent dose or effective dose? The prime minister have not a clue. All the people around the prime minister have not a clue. And they lose credibility in one second. And when you lose credibility, forget it. You don't recover so much. And the difference is dramatic because 100 millisieverts of equivalent dose in thyroid is not so bad. But 100 millisieverts of effective dose means that the thyroid have received an enormous dose. Because as you see, the weight in factor of thyroid is very small. OK. In summary, what you have to know. Activity inside, fluency of particles outside, absorb dose to people, weighting equivalent dose in the organ, weighting effective dose in the body. The good news is that there are convention factors to convert activity in equivalent dose and effective dose or amount of radiation in equivalent dose and effective dose. And these factors has been calculated for standard people and are in international standards. But it's important that you as a manager, you know this structure. Otherwise, you can get very big confusion. People normally talk about dose. You have to say, what dose? This absorb dose, equivalent dose, effective dose, are all different quantities. Why we have created such a complicated system? I don't know. History. History. You build a house by pieces and the house we gave them in chaos. This should be changed? Yes, in my opinion, yes. We wrote a report after Fukushima and we said this is the need that somebody shake the coconut tree of the system. Because it's very complicated and very confusing. The unit of the dose is the siever. Opposite to the becker, the siever is a very big amount. One siever is a lot of dose. For that reason, we normally talk of millisievers, a millesima of sievers. What is a millisiever? One, order of magnitude. One year of natural radiation is around 1 to 10 millisievers, depending on what you live. It can be much higher. If you are from Kerala, in India, you will receive much more than this. Or other places, you will see. One computer tomography, you probably have one in your life, I don't know. You get 10 millisievers with a computer tomography. You are right. It's the unit of effective dose. Very good comment. Very good comment. It's the unit of effective dose. What you are talking here are the effective dose. One chest fluoroscopy around 1 millisiever. One chest radiography with good equipment, 0.1. Good equipment of dental radiography, very low dose. They all have equipment for the disaster, by the way. But the new equipment is not like that. OK, let's talk about the global levels of radiation exposure. First of all, what are the sources? The sources are natural, cosmic rate, terrestrial radiation of this on Earth, inhalation of a gaze ray, then we will talk about that. Or artificial, created by men. Medical, military, that we always forget about this. Nuclear power, big problem. Occupational workers with radiation and accidents. Natural, well, radiation is everywhere. Cosmic rays in our bodies, in the soils. Cosmic rays are produced in some place in the universe. Nobody know where. There are several theories. Stardust explode. But what we know is our Earth is bombarded with cosmic rays. They arrive in the high atmosphere, they interact with the atmosphere. Fortune atmosphere is there, otherwise they will kill us. And there is disintegrate in a lot of particles. Depending where you live, you get more or less cosmic rays. If you live in La Paz, which is the capital of Bolivia, you get a lot. La Paz, the Spanish have the good idea of found a capital of 4,000 meters. If you fly a lot, like me, you get a lot of cosmic rays. If you live in the Antarctic, you get more than if you live in the equator because the cosmic, by the magnetic field of the Earth, go to the Antarctic. For instance, if you live in the United States, depending where you live, you have different level of cosmic rays. Here in Miami, in Florida, nothing. Here in the mountains, a lot. Then you have the radioactivity in Earth. There are several nuclides. And again, depending where you live, you get different, for instance. If your home is near a mountain, well, you get radioactivity from the bottom and also from the mountain. Again, the example of US depends where you live. If you live in Florida, very low because there are very low radioactive material in soil, if you live here in the mountains, much bigger. On Earth, there is one nuclide, particularly nasty, radium and which decay to radon. Radon is gas, but it's a noble gas. For in principle, if you know a radon, it doesn't get in your body. Go out. But while it's in your lung, radon decay. And what we call the dotters of radon, the decay products, are very dangerous for your lung. These nasty nuclides, we will talk about them. For radon, which is coming from the uranium with decay to radion to radon, go into your homes and irradiate you from your home. Depend where you live, again. If you live here in Europe, in the North, particularly the homes are like this, radon go from the gaps in the keller, go up from the plumbies. This home has very good windows for there is no ventilation and radon accumulate. If you live in my country, you have no problem because our windows are so bad that, you know, air is entering from everywhere and et cetera. For the homes are very well ventilated and we don't have a lot of radon. In addition, we don't have too much in the soil. But here in Europe, it's a serious problem, serious problem, particularly in the North. In US, also it's a problem. In these areas where there is a lot of uranium, you have radon. Again, in Miami, they have no radon. I can imagine that you try to move to Miami now, you know, because there is no radon, no D, no that. In addition, you can speak Spanish fluently in Miami without any problem. I mean, you can make a problem if you only manage English, you can have problem. In England, it's very interesting. England has very low radiation except in this part, in Cornwell. Well, the Cornish people will be furious that they said that they are English, you know, because they believe that they are Cornish, not English. But here in Cornwell, the level of radon is very, very high, enormously high, for big difference in England. And in all Europe, there are big changes, you know. Depend where you live. If you live in the North of Spain, in the massive central, not far from here in France, in Austin, in Finland, the natural radiation can be very high, more than 10. If you live in England, it's very low, less than 1. For the depend where you live, change a lot. All over the world, change a lot. For I try to summarize this changing in the following way. The value of natural radiation go from 1 to 100, approximately. You cannot have less than 1. Even if you live in a remote island in the Pacific, in the Middle Pacific, you will have a little more than 1 of radiation. Few people in few areas get more than 100. Many people in many areas, around 10. The majority of people around the world, the average is 2.4. This gives you a feeling of the radiation that we receive. This is important. There are areas with very high level of natural radiation. For instance, one beautiful city in Iran, Ramsar, near the Caspian, have levels up to 260 millisieverts. Why? Because they have water coming from the Travertine, water full of radium. And they have used this water to build their homes, to make concrete. For the homes are really big irradiators. Not all Ramsar, but the big part of Ramsar. Then in Kerala, in India, the south of Kerala, Kerala is beautiful. Kerala means coco, and Kerala coconut. And Kerala is a forest of coconuts, a beautiful area. But in the soil, there are thorium in the part of Kerala. Due to that, the radiation is relatively high. It can be around 30, the maximum 35. The average is 3.8. And there are areas in China, in Brazil. Brazil, the beaches, we go there, we have beautiful beaches, but they contain a lot of thorium. Well, then we have the medical sources. These change very much, depending on the procedure that you, a bothered city is 10, up to the dentals that are very low. And on geography is 7, gastrointestinal is 6. Depend the procedure, go between very little up to 10. And the military. Well, we forget about the military activity. And I don't want to make a joke that we used to make in Argentina with the five powers, the five power, recognized power of nuclear weapons that had made thousands of nuclear weapons explosion. And we were very concerned on India and Pakistan. And we used to say that these five powers are like five prostitutes, which are very concerned because they saw a nun with miniscule. And anyway, these powers has produced a lot of explosions in the atmosphere, sending radioactive material all over the world, radioactive material that we still have in our bodies. If you measure yourself in the whole body counter, you will see cesium in your bodies coming from a nuclear explosion. Moreover, if you're in the North Hemisphere, you will have more cesium than if you're in the South Hemisphere. Because the radioactivity put in the Amnozias do not mix the Hemisphere. And since in the North Hemisphere were much more explosion than in the South. In the South were only the French and the British in Australia. But in the North, the Americans and the Russians and boom, boom, boom, one after the other, thousands of explosions. You can see here, the problem, particularly in the 60s, only in the 62, I believe that was, there were more than 100 explosions in the atmosphere. The yellow is an explosion underground, which of course is not distributed material, but you have a lot of radioactivity. And the sooner or later, you go to the Amnozias, to the medium as well. And the dose, due to that, were moving on the earth. In the 60s, it was a very big peak. Depends on where you live it, and now it's a little lower. Occupational workers. Of course, everybody said, well, the real problem is this side of it. This is a nuclear operator, nuclear operator with a mask, with protection, with a special suit. My goodness, this fellow is in real danger. The reality is a little different. A part of this fellow, you have medical doctors, and you have pilots, and they still were there. Well, believe it or not, something very few people know, the people who receive the high dose due to his work are pilots, due to cosmic. And you cannot stop those, because you cannot shield the plane. You cannot fly low. The only thing that you can do is to remove the crews from one position to the other, but the crew doesn't want that because they lose money. Argentine Ireland is one very serious affected Ireland, because we fly the South Polo. Also fly to the North. And we try that the crews were changed from the South Polo to the North. The crews, no, no, no. I want to go via the South Polo, because I go to Australia, I go to New Zealand, I get more money. It's very nice. Complicated. And the doctors, particularly the interventional doctors, get also very high dose. It's not the work of a nuclear power plant, the more exposed person are pilots. Pilots and stewards, by the way, are civil nuclear power plants, which is our concern. The reason that you are here, the reason of all the paraphernalia of international standards and regime, basically zero. Radiation for nuclear power is basically zero. For that is the problem that we have, a complete different perception. In summary, look, the pipe of radiation in the world is a natural carry the more part of human exposure. Rocks, radon, the one that we have in the human body that we needed, cosmic rays. The artificial is only 18% in the world. And of this artificial, the majority is medical, the rest is basically nothing. The perception of people is exactly the opposite. You can check in your home with your relatives, you said to them this, they said, no, you're lying. It's not true. People, the people who really know this said, ah. But what about accidents? You are not saying the full truth. Because in addition to the normal operations, you have accidents. Well, this afternoon we are going to talk about accidents. Even if you put accidents into the picture, the thing doesn't change. There were two accidents, you know? Yes, please. Well, it's impossible to distinguish. And that is a problem of which we can talk about. For instance, in my country, we have a very serious problem trying to distinguish uranium coming from a factory and uranium coming from nature. You can't do it. There are very complicated chemical processes of the equilibrium with radium, et cetera, but just to make it simple. In my country, a problem like this, trying to distinguish, it costs $1 million. And many times people use this. No, no, no, this uranium is not coming. It was not put by God there. It was put by the field fabrication plant. Well, in Chernobyl, there were 28 heads, workers. We will talk in the afternoon only, 138 with radiation acute syndrome. There were 7,000 non-lethal pediatric cancer because people would not protect themselves again iodine. And it's so simple to protect. The mothers didn't know that it was an accident. But they were given milk with contaminated iodine to the children. There were 7,000 cases of thyroid cancer in children. Fortunetal thyroid cancer is not lethal. But I don't want my children to have thyroid cancer. Not that I'm diminishing the problem. The dose to the public was very low. During all the period, it was less that they would receive if they have a tomography for very low. But it caused a political, social, and economic catastrophe. No radiation, but really social economic catastrophe. Nobody believed in this data, but it was a more study accident. I was the head of the group who did that. And we convey all that to a very big conference that was chair. You can have this in the web, in the agency. Here you have all the information about Chernobyl. They come from a chair by Angela Merkel. People forget that. Angela Merkel, at that time, was minister of environment of the governor of court. My recall of her is it cannot be better. She's the only politician that I met who knows what she's talking about. She's really very good. She's a doctor in quantum, quantum chemistry. Extremely cultivated person. She speak Russian, French, German, of course, English, whatever language that they want. Therefore, my recall of her at that time was super. Then politics changed people. Fukushima, low radiation doses. Extremely low. We will see this is known as well. No health effect, of course, but serious psychological effect. Again, political, social, and economic catastrophe, and a legal nightmare for the Japanese government. No radiation, not effect, but big drama. Again, this was very deeply studied. I was the head of the group of the agency that studied the consequences. And we produce a very big report that you can find in the web. I am here with Prime Minister Abe. And the report has six volumes. And you can get in the web one volume dedicated to the concept. My takeaway point from this first part, remember, activity backers, losing silver, one silver, family silver, background, 2.4, up to above 100, medical, very high, nuclear, very low. Keep that inside. Another thing that I would like to recall is that while the current pipe is like this in the world, natural, governing, medical, and then all others, there is a big change in the contribution of medical in the world. I have here the data from US, but all countries is going the same direction. Medical is increasing a lot. And it's taking over natural. The reason are CTs, everybody want to have a CT, everybody want to have a photo of inside. Also the introduction of digital radiography, this is very interesting, you know. We introduce, we invented digital radiography to reduce doses. But what has happened? Like with the photos, you know, you remember when you have to have a photo with the old system, with the films. Before having a photo you thought twice because you will ruin the film. Now what happened with the digital photography? You take one photo, take another one, another one, and then you select one. You delete the others. Well, the doctors are doing exactly the same with you, with digital radiography. They take several, they select one. As a result, the dose of the people have increased, not decreased. Well, let's move to health effects. The biological basis. We have to start with a more sophisticated invention in the history of humanity, the cell. The cell is really a fantastic machine. This is a picture of the cell. You know that inside the cell in the nucleus you have the chromosomes. And you know that the chromosomes is a condensation of a molecule, very long molecule, called a DNA, which contain a computer code. That computer code contains all the instructions that make you a person and operate like a person. It's a code like in a computer. In the computer you have two times, zeros and one, in the DNA there are four. That is the only difference, but it's a code. There are sub-programs, like in a computer, and one sub-program is called a gene. The gene is a sub-program in that code. Well, when radiation interacts with your body, and interacts with the cell and with the nucleus of the cell, obviously interacts with this chromosome. And by interacting with the chromosomes interact with the DNA and can, by ionizing the molecules in the DNA, have made change in the DNA. For instance, the DNA, as you know, is a double code. It's double just to get, like in a computer, in a computer many times, things are double, to get one as a model to repair if something goes wrong. In the body it's the same, we can talk. And the DNA can be broken. Some of the molecules can be broken. These changes are called by us, just to complicate your life. Mutation. For people don't understand this. You said to the people, there was a mutation. People understand, oh my God, this is a Martian, we have a person with three legs. No, a mutation is a change in the code. In a computer you would say a change in the code, but we said mutation, just to confuse people. Mutation. That's the word, this is the word. Well, I will show it to you how mutation works. What radiation is coming, interact, and produce these changes in the DNA. It's a pity that it's not working. I will check then why not. Well, mutation usually is simple, but the mutation can be complicated. Therefore, what the two alternatives that you have is when radiation hits a cell nucleus, really two things may happen. That there is no change. No change at all because the ionization will produce. Or that there is a DNA mutation. The probability is low, but may have a DNA mutation. Now, if a DNA mutation occurred, and this will be more or less proportional to the dose, because higher dose, more energy for more mutations. If this happened, you have the following alternative. One is the mutation will be repaired. And this is very common, because the cell has a mechanism, like the computer, had a mechanism to repair damage, which is extraordinarily efficient. That the mechanism doesn't work, or the mutation is so big that cannot be repaired. If this happened, you have a mutated cell. A cell that is not the same that the others. It's a computer with a different information. Now, what happened if the mutation is not repaired? You have a mutated NEA. Well, if this happened with this mutation, which is very big, you know, the two parts of the DNA has been damaged. For even if the cell can have a system for repair, how we can repair it? The cell tried to repair it, but repaired wrongly, and produce what we call chromosomal aberration that we can see in the microscope. The chromosome became different. If this happened, the two things that may happen, the first thing is that the cell died. Due to this change, it's like any computer. You make a change in the program, and the computer died, doesn't work anymore. Well, if this happened with your cell, it's not about you, because in your body, every day, there are cells dying. And other cells will come, but that is not about you. Now, if the radiation is so high that many cells died in one organ, the organ collapsed. And if the organ is important, you will die. The second outcome is that the cell survived, is not dead, survived, but it's a different cell, a mutated cell. For it's like if in your computer, there was a change in the program, and the computer continued to work. For you to know that there was a change in the program. And well, maybe the computer will work better with this change, or the computer can work worse. And you will not even realize it. Let's move to the cell death problem. As I said, there is an unviable cell, will be replaced, but if many occur, deterministic effects occur, and these are covered by the science of radiopathology. We call the deterministic effect because they are deterministic to occur if many cells have died. Deterministic effects can be tissue reactions, burns, organ failure, or death. The occurrence of the deterministic effect in the exposed individual, you can do it in any individual, you can diagnose one individual, is done by radiopathologists. For the first thing that they want to put in your mind is for your work in the future, it's important that you know, or have at hand, a good radiopathologist. And I tell you the following, there are very few, very few in the world. For your country, if you want to build something important for nuclear, build a center with one or two at least good radiopathology. In Argentina, we have a good experience on that, in the Institute of Burned People. And I recommend you to look in the same in your country. In the Institute, in the hospital with three burned people, you can have there a good element for building a good radiopathology. But there are very few in the world, like I tell you. When cells are dead, you can have simple effects like this one, more complicated, more complicated or really think that the fellow have radiation here at the beginning, the doctor said, now this is nothing, for now this one in the radiopathology, few days after it was red, and few days after you have this. And effect like this, you know, a person completely burned, for radiation can be very complicated in high doses. But very few people really, very few accidents involved in high doses. Since 1994, there were 400 accidents, 3,000 persons were injured, 100 fatalities, including the 28 billion turnover in the forest. I mean, imagine all the history of radiation, 120 fatalities is not a big, big number, but the radiation can be very dangerous in this case. The second outcome, as I said, the cells survive by mutated. For the cell which produce all the information that you make what you are as chemical products, this process is altered for producing different things that cell, maybe positive for you, maybe negative. These negative things we call a stochastic effect. Again, a sentence that do not help to be understood, stochastic in Greek means at random. This effect occur at random. It may happen or may not happen. And they are studied by the science of radiopidemiology. An epidemiologist is not a pathologist. An epidemiologist is a statistical person. He look in a population. Here you have a population that was not exposed. Here you have a population that was exposed. And he see that there are more effective in the population, statistically. An epidemiologist, it's important that you understand, he cannot diagnose an effect in one individual. He cannot, he diagnose effect in one population. But it's important for you. There are very few epidemiologists in the world, radiopidemiologists. And in that, in my country, we have failed. We could not be good radiopidemiologists. In Argentina, there are no radiopidemiologists. We need to rely on outside people. What another lesson for you is in your country, remember, try to get a good center of radiopatology, a good center of radiopidemiology. What are the potential stochastic effect, these negative effects produced by the change in the cell? Cancer, an editable effect, an antenatal effect. The effect that have occurred because the person was irradiated while in utero. These are three things that we have studied very deeply. The prevalence of these effects in an exposed population, remember, can be estimated by radiopidemiologists. It's in a population, not in one individual. What epidemiologists do, they have a control group and an exposed group and compare both groups. This is what an epidemiologist do, basically. And that is not easy because you have the number of cancer in the exposed group which oscillate statistically. But the non-exposed group also have cancers. Cancer that were not produced by radiation. 25% of the people get cancer. This room, 25% of us will get cancer. Have good luck. But it's like that. And this number also oscillate. And the epidemiologists have to see this difference which is oscillating also. Not easy. And SCAER have reviewed many, many, many epidemiological data. The first one I mentioned yesterday, these radium girls. The girls that were painting dyes with radium and putting their pens in their mouth. This was the first big epidemiological study. These girls died, all of them, of cancer, of bones. Because the radium have the same chemistry as calcium and go to the bones. And many others, but obviously the main one was the cohort of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But cohort is a word that we use also to mean a group of people. I mean, we confuse people, you know? We go, why we don't say a group of people, no cohort. Cohort is a group of soldiers in the Roman army. Well, you have the map of Hiroshima. The red area was destroyed by the bomb. Well, the area of sufficient dose for deterministic effect was this area. First lesson that nobody will believe you. In Hiroshima, people died. Many people, 100,000 people died. Not because of radiation, because of a bomb explosion. The people in that circle would have died if they would not kill. But they were killed by the bomb first. But you know, in Hiroshima, many people, people living here, they were not killed by the bomb, not by the radiation, not by the deterministic effect, but they received radiation. For they were prone to have stochastic effects. And interesting, in Hiroshima, there are many mountains as you see around. There were people behind these mountains who were shielded by the mountain. For they do not receive radiation. For we have there an ideal situation for making a good epidemiological study. Have people exposed? People not exposed. But the people are exposed to very high doses. Well, this study was done in Japan with the so-called rare radiation effect research foundation. One, I had been there just a few weeks ago and there are new information. Really, what I'm presenting to you is the more updated information. This study includes 120,000 people for cancer and leukemia. People that were in utero at the time of the bomb, 3,600 for a lot of information. And children of the survivors, 70,000. For we can study cancers and leukemia, hereditary effect and antenatal effect with very big population. Let me show you the result. Cancer. Definitely, there was an increase in leukemia that now has gone down. After 10 years after the explosion has been an increase in solid cancers that still is there, this is crystal clear for high doses. Remember, it was a nuclear explosion. The doses were very high. At these high doses, the mortality was in the other 5%, 850 cancers over 7,000 cancers. These were in the small population, these were in the regular population. From here, you can get the conclusion. If with a nuclear weapon, with these very high levels of doses, you have only this amount of effect. Traditions should not be so risky. But it was a nuclear weapon. Remember, those were very, very, very high. And the difference between normal cancers and cancer of people with hereditary was relatively small in proportion. With these bases and scared estimate that the cancer risk in approximately 5% per seabed for higher dose. 5% per seabed. For it's a very low number, no? It's 5%, 4,000 milisieber. For it's 0.005% you have to put another 2,0 per milisieber. Very, very, very low risk. And a risk that this evidence only a high dose. What about the hereditary? Well, we observe this hereditary effect inanimate with reproduce a lot, like the fruit fly, for instance. But in the biggest study of Fukushima, we can be unable to see a single hereditary effect. For all the blah, blah, blah on Chernobyl and Fukushima, of hereditary effects after the nuclear are wrong, are invention of the media. In Hiroshima, there was not one single hereditary effect after the study as big as the one that they show. And the NATO, well, again, we have studied thousands of children who were exposed while in neutral. And we know that in this period of pregnancy, something should have happened with radiation because in this period of pregnancy, our computer here is being cable. All the cells are being connected. And if you affect the fetus at that time, you can affect the connection. This is the reason why pregnant women should not take coffee, should not do things that can affect this connection. And we suspected that something could be. For this was very heavily studied by studying the IQ of the children who were born after being irradiated in neutral. The IQ is a measure invented by doctors. If you take a group of children, say in one school, you measure the IQ following certain rules. A high IQ normally means that they are very good for mathematics, clever children. A low IQ normally means that they are good for playing football. And usually, the one playing football will get much more money than one playing mathematics. Probably Messi was in this part and he'll get in every one million euros per hour, or per week, or per day. And the doctors, just to confuse us again, they call to the children that are in this area retarded fraction. Well, they are not retarded children, I tell you. They are children that they are not good for mathematics, basically. Well, we measure this IQ following these rules. And what we discover is that these children in Fukushima, exposed to very high dose when they were in neutral, the IQ moved to the left, for the so-called retarded fraction was a little higher. But the doses at which this happened was 1,000 million silver, very high dose. At low doses, there were no effect of the children's irradiated in neutral. Again, this is very important, because women in particular are very concerned. And this has done a lot of damage. One of the biggest damage in Chernobyl, for those who know that in Fukushima, was that practically all pregnant women decided to abort because they were so afraid. What is convenient to know that radiation at low levels do not produce this antenatal effect. At high level, yes. Take away points. I will give you, there is a table that you have there that give you a good summary of low doses, nothing. Up to 100 millisiever, something appear. Above 1,000 millisiever, yes, appear the effect. High dose is above 1,000 millisiever, where you have the real effect of radiation. For this table show you that the real problem of radiation is in the top, not in the bottom. Sorry? Yes. Remember, radiation exposure at high acute level, yeah, this is a very good point. It's a mistake that them, it's a very common mistake in our profession. Every time that we use the word dose, normally what we meant is effective dose, but we don't say it. And that is, clearly this is a mistake. At high levels, it's very dangerous. At low chronic level, there are 10 millisiever, very, very low risk. And at the level of our operation, it's not a health issue. This is basically the conclusion that you have to have in mind. I try to put in a table, in a graph, what I have explained to you. First of all, at 1,000 millisiever start the tissue reaction. Clinical diagnosis, individual pathology, and the probability to get in this increase very quickly with dose. At around 7,000 millisiever, you will die. I know only one case in the world that got that dose and will save it. It was in Russia, in Chernobyl, because he was attended in one of the best hospitals in the world and with the best radiopathology. At that time there was Dr. Angelina Guzkova. But I'll scare the last also, that at 1,000 millisiever there is an increase of getting cancer of 5% per millisiever. Remember, this is logarithmic, logarithmic, logarithmic. Bilugia, and it's important to say bilugia, because this is a limit of pathological knowledge. A pathology doesn't know anything below this there. For when a doctor say, no, you are okay, blah, blah, blah. If you don't get 1,000 millisiever, a pathology can not see anything. Below this, there is an increased incidence of malignancies. We know that, and epidemiologists start to see this around 100 millisiever, about 100 millisiever. And the increase is more or less linear. Epidemiological assessment, therefore, is between 100, above 100, but below 100, we do not have any data. We have subjective inference, and this depends on the person who made the inference. About 1,000, yes, you have individual diagnostic lipatology. Please take this in mind, because it's important what is coming. Now, let's go quickly through radiation protection. The international recommendations are in this document of ICRP, all of them are in many different languages. I can get a copy in the language that you prefer, except in English. In English, you have to pay, but in all the other languages, free of charge. The basic paradigm is what you do here, because the doses that we are working are there, not in the top. For, if you expand this, here we don't know anything. Really, there is no data. You need to have a subjective inference. I tell you what ICRP has done, can be criticized. The paradigm ICRP took is the following. Above background, which you saw is very high. About background dose can be up to 100. And about background incidence, which is also very high, 25%, you said. Above that, ICRP said, for protection reason, for ethical reason of protection, you have to assume that an increment in dose may produce a nominal increment in probability. You cannot prove that, it's just an ethical approach. You can say, no, it's not ethical to do it. And the relationship between this and this is called a nominal risk factor. And the radiation protection is built about this paradigm, which has no basis in science. It's a subjective inference. Of course, it's not like that. I mean, there are reasons for it, but this is subjective inference. And the value of this is calculated every year for the whole population. It's in the order of 5%. Look, this risk includes an editable, when we know that there are not an editable effect. But since we don't know whether it may happen in big, big populations, we put a risk factor here. The whole and the adult. The whole is bigger than the adult because include children. The whole is for public, the adult is for workers. Radiation protection in practice have a basic dogma. Time, shielding, distance. But of course, this depends on the situation, not so easy. For instance, for medical doctors, you believe that a doctor can work like this, or you believe that the doctor can work like this, or it's not so easy to shield or to take distance. Under this situation, we created three exposure situations. Planet, emergency, and existing. Planet, when you can plan, and you can decide what to do. Existing, what is there? You found it. The people in India found Kerala. This was not by them, from Kerala. What I do now? I have people here, 30 minutes, but I evoke Kerala, certainly not. We will evoke La Paz, the capital of Bolivia, with two millions in evidence. Or emergency. By the way, we use the word existing, but really proper word in English is extant. Not existing. This was a big mistake because the Americans told me that extant never crosses North Atlantic. I mean, it's a word that you can understand in England, but not in America. And emergency, well, the emergency has happened. You have the emergency. You have to do something. Not that you plan it for the emergency. We have also three systems. One for patients, one for the patient, one for the public. Different subjects, really. The patient is getting benefit from radiation. The worker also, and he knows, the public doesn't know even that he's been irradiated. Three basic principles apply to all, justification, optimization of protection, restriction of individual doses. And the additional principle introduced by the agency is protection of future generations and the environment. The question of the environment is very cultural, you know? I always ask the environmental people, what do you mean by environment? If I have a mosquito in my room, that mosquito is environment. When I get a protected environment, if I have a mosquito in my room, I kill it. Or you want to protect the spice, the spice mosquito. It's a different thing. It's not well defined environment. Justification is a balance between good and bad. For instance, a nuclear power plant produce goods, electricity, produce bad. Releases. And your role is to make that installation will be justified if the good is bigger than the bad. Very difficult to balance. But justification is also justified for the evacuation of people. Was the evacuation justified in Japan? You know how many people died because they were evacuated? Serious problem. Very easy to say, no, it's a little radiation. Evacuate everybody. When you evacuate people die. For instance, this is the city of Ramsar. If evacuation in Japan was justified, why we don't evacuate Ramsar? Look, the people of Ramsar will believe that we are crazy. This is a beautiful city. They are having caviar there, which is very cheap. Optimization. Optimization means do the best under the prevailing circumstances. To make it short, if you plot the level of protection, as much protection you put, the harm will be lower, lower and lower. But the society at that point will be higher, higher and higher. And society at that point is a social harm. When you evacuate, you produce social harm. You kill people. Optimization tells you, try to balance these two type of things. If you put the two together, probably the one that give the minimum, the optimum, is the result of optimization. This is in few words what optimization means. And then restriction of individual doses for workers with his voluntary, it's all the words received at work that can be controlled. These are the standards in this moment. 50 million people, 20 of average. Optimization below, except for rescuers who can't receive high dose because they're rescuers. Nobody asked him to be a rescuer. Nobody asked somebody to be a firefighter. They know that they have more risk. They do it because they like it because they have a different ethical principle that does whatever. The female worker is especially protected because of the problem that we mentioned. The unborn, not only the unborn, not so the infant, because one typical case is the female worker getting contamination and passing to the child by giving milk, breast milk. Members of the public depend of their in a planned situation where you can restrict the planned additional dose or in an external situation or in intervention. The situation is what it is. In a planned situation, you will have natural background, you introduce an activity for each nuclear power plant and you know that the dose will increase, very little, but will increase and you got to apply restrictions. These restrictions are called in two different ways in the international standard. Dose limits and dose constraints. Why? Because the dose limit applied to the radiation from all controllable practices, all the thing that the authority control, they have to apply a limit to the radiation of all this. To be sure of that, every part have to be constrained and they apply a dose constraint to a given installation which is normally lower than the dose limit. The values in international standard is one millisiever per year for dose limit, remember that background is more than that, but this is the data about background. This is the regulatory limit optimization below the dose constraint is normally one third of the limit and the regular exception is one hundred of the limit. Now, in an emergency or existing situation, you don't have extra dose to control, what you have is an extra dose and you are yourself, should it be reduced? Well, if you can reduce it, it answer is yes, how much you have to avert the dose? This, the problem completely different. To have a reference level for this avert of dose, well, ICRP have recommend a number of levels for this situation going up to hundred millisiever per year. The international radiation safety standard have take all this philosophy included in the standard. They have a lot of experience, the agency, more than a hundred years of experience. There is a hierarchy of the standard you saw that yesterday and these hierarchies are supported by all international organizations include 10 safety principles, four of which come from the radiation protection area and the radiation protection standards are these two, the red one is the old one but is used in many countries. The new one has been approved and there are not very big changes in these two. Take a good point. Additional dose to members of public should not exceed one millisiever. Total dose to workers should not exceed 20 but the emergency can be higher and pregnant at the worst. Extant dose to members of public of seven and ten millisiever will justify intervention with special protective measures. If around one few millisiever intervention is unjustified. Second part on new issues, I will do that in the afternoon because I want that these new issues which are the more important, you concentrate well in these new issues and now, if it is 10 30, it's a good time for coffee, okay? Good. Any question before we go to coffee? Quick question. We have time in the afternoon but any quick question on this, yes please. Ah, that is a good question. Well, I will give you to you my personal experience. Well, the question has to do with something that we discussed yesterday. If iodine is a very big problem, if in Chernobyl it was the only big problem was children got milk with, for the iodine, the iodine go to the thyroid and you get out of cancer. In children, not in us, because the thyroid in our age, particularly my age, stopped to work basically too. But for the children, it's very active. For one technique, of which I'm sure Rafael will talk more, that is being used in Austria for instance, is to have pills of iodine, not relative iodine, that in theory if an accident happened, you have to give to the children, this iodine will go to the thyroid of the children and it will block it because the thyroid will be full of iodine. My personal opinion is that this technique, probably Rafael will say different, but my personal opinion is that this technique is a nonsense. I will explain you why. First, because the iodine have to be changed continuously because with time it changed the property. For it's a very big operation in Austria, not going to the school, again, this iodine. Second, this iodine is not innocuous. Being given a lot of iodine, you can have other risk. And third, because it's not necessary. The best way to stop the relative iodine go to the thyroid of the children is not to give contaminated meat to the children. It's much more easy. And in fact, in Chernobyl, this happened in countries where the people know what was happening. Even in countries that are not particularly well-organized like Poland. In Poland, the precipitation of iodine was very big. You know what the government did? Went to the radio and to say, mothers, please, during few days, don't give to your children fresh milk. Give condensate milk. That was all. In Poland, there is no one single case. In Japan, there was no one single case. Why? One is, stop the distribution of milk. It's much more easy than the pill. Now, if you're in a country with your government, do not tell you that there was an accident. This was happening in Belarus in particular, or the Soviet Union didn't inform. Then the mother didn't know anything and they continued to give milk to the children. But if the pill would have been there, would not have no effect because the government would not distribute the pill either. This is my personal opinion. For the first thing is if an accident occurs, the first thing that you have to be sure, milk should not be given to children. Pull them. Fresh milk. Fresh milk. That is a good point. That is a good point. I mean, you, by evacuating people that are in very, very low radiation area, you can even increase those of that people. You move that people to an area where the natural radiation is higher. Will only decay, but suppose an accident in an Indian plant and that the government decide to evacuate the people and suspend them to Kerala. They will receive my doses to be in Kerala that to be in the plant. For these are the problems with the issue of evacuation. First of all, as I mentioned yesterday, we said language issue. Evacuation is not the same as relocation, it's not the same as resettlement. Two different concepts. In Japan, the same word was used for the three. For people who didn't know whether they were going forever, they were going for one hour, they didn't know. And the, Rafael will talk about, I mean, evacuation is a possibility, but there are other possibilities before that have to be considered. The first thing is the more simple one, that is to shield. I mean, to shield yourself not home. Any other, yes, please. One thing to go back, but we're talking after now, but, to evacuate people in the same that the agency called evacuation, no. Because if you have something that you don't know what is going on, you evacuate the people until you know what is going on and they send it back. I tell you, yes, America and US evacuated 160,000 people last year because the dam was in problems in Nevada, the dam that lived in Nevada and California. They evacuated 160,000 people until they knew that the dam will not collapse. Then the people will put it back. Now, to take a decision to resettle people, oh my goodness, that's very serious. And depending on the circumstances, in Russia, as a time which I know, many people were happy to be resettled because they were given a new house but it was much better than the previous one. In both cases, it was a governmental house, for why not? But in Japan, the resettlement of people, the relocation of people is a drama, real drama. Imagine that you are living in a nice house in Buenos Aires and tomorrow somebody knock the door and say, I'm sorry, I have to move you to, I don't know. And you arrive there and then you say, a kind of shanty town, you know? Yes, if you have an ingest of milk contaminated with iodine, certainly the children, no doubt the children will be in serious risk of thyroid cancer. Therefore, the ingestion of milk with iodine could be really bad for children. But also depend on the country. In my country and in Russia, in Belarus, the cows are free. They are eating grass, completely free. Well, you have an accident, iodine go, the museum depositing the grass, the cows eat iodine from the grass, go to the milk of the cow and from the milk to your children. In Japan, the cows are not outside because they are not a space, they are not space for people because imagine they are less space for cows. For the cows are in homes. For the contamination of the cows, practically not existing either. In addition, the government stopped the distribution of milk. Well, this is a good question as well. Before Chernobyl, everybody was thinking about inhalation. The big lesson of Chernobyl is that the major amount of iodine came to milk. In Chernobyl, the doses due to milk were 85%. Only the rest was due to inhalation and a vegetable or something. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I will mention this in the afternoon. In Japan was catastrophic, the psychological problem. In a manner that even for us it's not so easy to understand. For instance, one big problem was the problem called the stigma. People feel stigmatized. Well, all of us, we know what the stigma means but when we use the word stigma, never, very rare, rare that we say somebody is stigmatized. Very rare. In Japan, there are six different words for stigma. We check and not even understand the small difference, you know? But something we have to do with the honor, with the proudness, with that has been destroyed, no, with the shame. For example, when I go to Fukushima, the taxi driver, he knows what I am going to do, the taxi driver said to me, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Like if he would have made the accident, you know? Well, in my country, a taxi driver would get a dime if there was an accident. We say it's a responsibility to the government, not to me. But in Japan, that was very serious, very serious. And you know that many victims of Fukushima are people who suicide. They suicide because they could not resist the feeling of stigma. That is a particular, very changed society. Not only, I mean, this obviously is how it links. But I believe that this deeper the problem. Not the problem, it's a, sorry. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not criticized in the Japanese culture, just the opposite. I believe that the country that has built such a society where there are no shanty towns, where the children go to school to study and not to with a gun. In that island that has nothing, the island has earthquakes, tsunamis, rocks. But in that island, they could build that society. This is a very big, very important culture that we have to learn a lot about culture. But it's a culture that impose very strict rules. And an ethics that you know, if you fail, in our cases, when we fail, it's not so important. In Japan, if you fail, it's something very important for the person. And this obviously have worked negatively. And I will talk of psychological effects are dramatic in Japan. In Chernobyl also there were psychological effects. Some are common. For instance, one psychological effect in both cases were the people start to drink. In Russia with vodka, in Japan with sake, but people start to drink. Or smoking, and creeps, or people are nervous. There are many effects. Some appear, but the issue of stigma, I believe was proper from Japan. I was in another accident in Goianya. There was an accident also of contamination. Well, you know, the Brazilians were sold the product of stigma very quickly. I remember that for instance, one product in Fukushima is the products. Nobody want to buy products from Fukushima. In Goianya was the same. Goianya was producing a lot of vegetables and fruits. And at the beginning nobody buy things from Goianya. You know how the Brazilians sold the product. In the boxes at Goianya they put a San Salvador or another name of the city. And in Japan this will never happen. It will never happen. And the people suffer a lot. Well, let's have a coffee or the wine will have no time. Yeah, just before breaking for coffee I have one request for time management because we are already 15 minutes late because we started 15 minutes late. Unless everybody comes here in time we cannot start the session. So I request and I appreciate if all of you come back exactly at 11.15 and we can start and finish in time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.