 Paramos sobre radiação, mas na última década eita dos anos, dois desenvolventos importantes ocorreram na maior nivel na Unidade Unida, na Assemblea General. E eu gostaria de convidá-lo a vocês, esses dois desenvolventos, porque eu acredito que é extremamente importante para qualquer manejador con a radiação. Uma da questão é se o radiação é atributa a dosas. O segundo, mesmo se non é atributable, o risco ou não é atributable. O terceiro, se alguém impute, nós estamos operando a planta, marxamos a nós, marxamos a nós, significa que o funcionário disse, eu tenho a câncer, isto é para vocês, é correo que é o que nós esperemos para isto. E a quarta é a radiação duex a generación de electricidade. Estas são as quarta xe que a Unidade Unida se considera, discussa e aprova nos últimos dois anos. Let's start by the first one, the attribution of the radiation effect. With this there is a conundrum and I will present you the dilemma that we have and the thesis that was presented and that was finally. Approve. The conundrum is the following. I told you that the radiation protection paradigm consists in postulate a risk a very low level of incremental dose that the low level of incremental dose produce a low but finite level of incremental risk. The famous 5% procedure. Ok, I tell you what has been happening. People that have computers and they like to use computers they said ok, let's do the following exercise. We have a discharge from the nuclear power plant. I can measure that discharge and with a good computer I can do a modeling. Let's see, for instance, I take a bottle with radioactive material I go here to the sea and I drop it. Then I have all the data about the sea movement of current I have a good computer and I calculate how this move and how this arrive to Brazil, for instance. Going to the South Atlantic very little arrive but something arrive. Then I calculate the dose that this very little arrive produce and then I multiply that dose by all the Brasilia because all the Brasilia would make source a relatively high collective dose. Well, this is what has been done with this computer. You calculate on this, a big modeling. Imagine that if this group of people are, for instance, the two billions inhabitants of China you can get a very interesting collective dose. Then you take this collective dose you multiply the collective dose 5% procedure and you convert this in bodies. Well, you have collective dose expressing people per sever 5% of risk per sever you multiply all that and give you a number of people who in theory have died. This exercise, I tell you, has not been done only by the greens and the media but very respectable institutions the New York Academy of Sciences is one of the top academies they did this and they came to the conclusion that 985,000 really was more precise than the 217 people have died of cancer due to Chernobyl. My goodness, one million people. I tell you, if this is true what political authority will authorize the construction of the problem? If you say to them, you know, the risk is low but if there is an accident they will kill one million people. My goodness, no, no, in that case let's continue to use oil this was done by a very academy by the way and there of course the media who want to sell these papers came out in Fukushima this is a Canadian newspaper but it can be a paper Fukushima will call will kill 500,000 people no, one million, 500,000 ok, what was our reaction to that? The conventional report from scientists from us is oh no this calculation cannot be done you cannot do this but you know, my aunt Maria member of the public said why not? Why we should not do this calculation? and there is an implicit but silent answer that nobody said well, you know, the 5% per se but it's really not real and then if we give that answer the following conundrum and dilemma appear if the 5% per se is not real then why we need radiation protection? Why we are trying to protect the people along those? Let's close the regulatory bodies or the protection of laboratories and etc or if the 5% is real then why attribution of real fatalities to this position is wrong? this was the dilemma and nobody want to take this bull and try to solve this dilemma we push for that and was solved at the United Nations level but let me say that the agency ICRP etc. were escaping to the dilemma no wanted to face it ok the thesis for solving that dilemma was the following health effects cannot be objectively attributed to low radiation exposure actual harm cannot be attested following low radiation however, risk and there is a big difference can affect and you will see can be subjectively infer taking into account the knowledge that we have and we prudently can impose radiation protection standard as a matter of prudence, not as a matter of calculation well before starting why the United Nations said that it's important to present the glossary of one or two very critical terms one critical term is the term probability and the term probability in English this is important in English in all European languages particularly important in Spanish and Italian because we have only one word for the two concepts is not the problem in Russian, Chinese because they are completely different concepts but in Europe this is a very confusing problem the confusion between probability and probability both are coming from the same Latin root for this create problems probability is the ability to estimate by inference whatever you estimate by inference in this case radiation risk prospectively you believe that this may happen with the information that you have probability is the ability to demonstrate by evidence completely different things but we confuse these two probability to demonstrate by evidence of the actual exit of radiation effect in order to prove with V, no with V in order to prove the factual occurrence of effect these people which the expert should diagnose the effects in individuals who diagnose a radiopathologist if you have not a diagnostic you cannot prove anything even the fellows burn it can be burn for other reasons I tell you very easy to confuse burn from from burning from burn from radiation easy to estimate in population by a radiopathology the effect has been caused by radiation exposure this should be done through a process of probability have to be proved a process which is always retrospective you prove what has happened you cannot prove what will happen health effect therefore can only be proved unequivocally in individual by a science of pathology in population by the science of epidemiology no by calculations theoretical calculation with computers if you don't do this, this is not proved on the other hand potential risk may be inferred via probability risk cannot be demonstrated through probability because the outcome is always uncertain probability is an expert degree of belief that the effect may occur and the influence of risk is always prospective you look to the future and here as I mentioned yesterday we have a very big confusion all the technical people when we use the word probability we always associate that word to frequencies the reason is because we have been introduced to probability in the secondary school with books like Bernoulli all these people very good mathematical books but please remember that these people good scientists were gamblers they make all the theory of probability to get money, to gambling they were gambling in the roulette and etc and they made the theory for that and a gambler needs frequencies but you can use probability even if there are no frequencies and we use very wrongly on this for instance in nuclear safety we talk about the probability, the risk that the pressure vessel will be broken and people said 10 to minus 4 per year a frequency where is the frequency until now we don't have any single pressure vessel that has float the 10 to minus 4 is a judgment of X but it's a good judgment maybe we don't know taking into account some information it's not the frequency you cannot use that judgment then to say so many pressure vessel will explode because we don't know with low dose the same happen we present these numbers as a frequency they are not frequency nobody have seen effect of radiation at low dose we make a judgment with information that we have a high dose with some biological experience we make a judgment it's a judgment that I respect it's a judgment of very important people but it's a judgment it's very important this concept with a very difficult word counterfactuality which is very much used by history counterfactuality can be expressed in the following way can the premise even low dose radiation exposure cause health effect to give individual be explained in terms of this counterfactual premise if the radiation have not occurred the health effect will have not occurred well this is true for the deterministic effect if the radiation do not happen the effect will not happen but it's not true for the stochastic effect because if the radiation will not happen still the effect may happen due to other causes for that reason it's very important to make a clear distinction between these frequencies and probabilities which are judgments and as I mentioned to you before epidemiology has limits for their work and epidemiologies cannot see effect when this difference is very small we cannot prove anything and I can if possible to demonstrate if you are interested and I can give you that to see something in epidemiologies need to have such a big number of people because when the dose go down this is the equation given the limit of knowledge when the dose go down as the square the number go very very big up for seeing effects in low dose you will have to see millions and millions of people and you cannot see that for usually if you put that form in a log log those versus people number you have a line below which you cannot prove anything above which you can prove it Iroxima was above this line for you can prove that in Iroxima 800 people have got cancer due to radiation this can be proven not who the number 800 but not who but below that you cannot prove anything for solid cancer you put numbers there a dose of 1 millisiever you will need a study of 1,000 million people impossible to be done the biggest study that was done in the world was Iroxima involved 100,000 people you cannot do any study of 1,000 million people impossible for in summary for attributing effects a low, a high dose you have the pathologies they can attribute effect on people below this level which I said to you is the order of 1,000 millisiever you have epidemiology which can attribute effect in groups and below the 100 millisiever here you can judge individual diagnosis possible there collective estimate here plausible there just plausible probable is there with individual attribution collectively probable is there not probable but probable not probable but probable and therefore you can infer and it's a ethical decision whether you put standards or not but nobody can accuse you that killing people if you don't put standards they can accuse you to be an ethical not solid some say you believe that could be a risk and you don't do anything well the good new is that the general assembly union nation solved that problem this was in 2012 the assembly approved in 2013 you have to read the report it's a very big report but I will tell you the main main thing that the union nation has said increases in the incidence of health effects in populations can not be attributed to chronic exposure to radiation at the levels which are typical of the global average background level of radiation therefore when the radiation levels are in the order of the millisiever which is the maximum maximum or you may have in nuclear activities you cannot attribute effect of radiation even in accidents these were the doses in Fukushima these were most of the doses in Chernobyl you cannot attribute effect to this level of radiation and again I repeat these have been blessed by the highest level of the union nation now second, this is even more important adó demostrate in animal studies an increase in the incidence of hereditary effect in human populations cannot at present be attributed to radiation exposure there are no possibility to attribute hereditary effect to radiation exposure unless tomorrow somebody discover market or something like that at this moment that is nearly impossible nobody can do it now, if that is the case what we do with the risk well this question is very difficult very arguable we discuss this issue in his publication 99 a very complicated publication and the issue is even more because it is discussing an annex and nobody read the annexes ICRP what it did we are not going to detail because we are going to lose a lot of time but if you are interested we can go ICRP did was to study with the conclusion that we have in the numbers now what was the probability that really there was not effect and came to the conclusion that this probability was low and therefore for ethical reasons the community have to protect people against an effect that probably is not there is an ethical decision you can discuss it whether it is correct or not correct many people said that isn't correct and I can accept that but was a decision taken by a group of people not by science now with that in hand can we impute harm well as I said attribution is different than imputation attribution is demonstrated that something is being caused by something else health for traditional abortion to have to demonstrate imputation means ascribing to someone that he has caused some bad thing to something else and you can do something like that even if you don't have too many proof you what you need is a good lawyer and this is where the difference have to be made scientists can attribute lawyers are there to impute if a nuclear employer produce harm that is attributable to a nuclear worker the nuclear worker can impute the nuclear employer in court or if a nuclear operator produce attributable radiation effect to the public in that case the public can impute the nuclear operator this not always work like this sometime politics make a role for instance in America those who work in the web impute the government all of them and the government wanted to make too much noise about the nuclear worker for imputation and science is something that is not necessarily the same the latest news with very very new information is this radiation impact due to generation of electricity this happened in the United Nations really to following a request of my country the other one as well by the way who said the following we are calculating the radiation produced by nuclear and making a lot of noise about that what about the other sources of energy why we don't study that some people said no about the other source but at the end they accepted and a big study was launched all the sources of energy were studied except hydro then I will explain why but all of them were studied were studied to see how much radiation they produce the report which is in your web is in the web has been just printed by unscare the report contains other information as well I mean the information this is in annex B of the report annex A, C and D contains also very good information for other subject but B is the one contains the information we passed to you unscare study all these sources nuclear, coal, natural gas olambio fuel geothermal wind and solar all of them were studied nuclear power and coal were studied in more detail because there are data the others they contain very little data but extrapolation can be done the life cycle of all were studied for nuclear as you know include uranium mining milling operation and reprocessing for coal include coal mining operation of coal fire power plant both modern and old there is a very big difference between modern plant and old plant and deposit of coal ash the metric use was the collective dose in the full impact in doses of the plant you know the collective dose is the summation of all these doses due to reserve plant as I mentioned you before and the collective dose over time was assessed for taking into account the releases that remain over times in populations of the future as well the full impact was assessed of radiation we are not talking of fact the global public ration impact the first surprise was to learn that among the various sources of energy the source that delivers the highest radiation exposure to people is non nuclear is coal coal produce more radiation to people than nuclear what is the reason because coal contains radium and when you burn coal part of this radium go to them the ashes of coal are very rich in radium what people do with the ashes of coal throw it away there is not the waste management program of coal ashes the coal cycle contribute more than half of the total dose of the people and the nuclear fuel contribute less than one fifth big difference for coal is high nuclear is low as far as radiation is concerned the contribution of coal come primary from radon and radium and it is interesting that in the nuclear case the main contribution also coming from natural nuclear not from artificial it is coming from mining and from natural nuclear the great culprit as I said is radium which as I mentioned to many of you is a very nasty radionuclide for which there is very big epidemiological these are the radium girls as I mentioned before painting with radium and getting cancer and radon radon which go to your lung is clearly a cancer originals producing lung cancer of the remaining technologies geothermal energy and combustion of gas nersas contributor geothermal energy problem is much bigger but we have very few data on geothermal energy because the only country relying on that is Iceland for that very few data now people can say this is a big impact because people use a lot of coal for less analyzed impact per unit of electricity produced the same happened if you do it per unit of electricity produced coal is the highest significantly higher than the other technologies based on this collect limited information we believe that the doses from geothermal power are also very big the few data that we have show that they are very big now what happened with the workers well the biggest occupational impact is from coal mining for also coal is the main generation of occupational forces but the second and biggest surprise of this United Nations report is coming from the following analysis we have analyzed how much radiation people incur when we install a given amount of power say a country decide to put 1000 megawatt well there will be radiation to get materials for 1000 megawatt of electricity of nuclear for coal and the surprise was that the two sources that contributes much more and much more are solar and wind this was a shock because everybody convinced that solar and wind are fantastic for nature this was a shock and this is coming from the fact that both solar and wind need rare earth metals and rare earth metals are called rare because they are very rare and to get these metals you have to mine so much that you produce a lot of radium and radon which expose people and this generate an ethical problem that I will mention rare earth for solar need tellurium tellurium is three times as rare as gold very rare for you have to mine a lot to get this tellurium without tellurium you don't have solar cells wind generators yes they also need they need neodymium believe it or not this is a metal very rare and who talk about neodymium the magnets in this tubing do not work if they don't have neodymium in all of them and to get neodymium you need a lot of mining operation as well now the ethical problem is that in this case is not the same people who receive the radiation for I have an awesome friend he told me yes yes this is true but we will continue to put with meals and solar because we don't have here mines for neodymium we buy the neodymium from China from Canada and the effect is there not on us this is very nasty logic but this is the logic that is going on the United Nations can not do that the United Nations can not say no no the impact is very little because it is an impact from the Chinese not of the rest of the world in summary according to the United Nations the radiation impact both total and nuclear is larger to coal than to nuclear both to the public occupation the largest occupation impact due to the construction of plant is in the solar power cycle followed by the wind power cycle this is really a shock has been a shock in the United Nations and still is not well known for that reason we have agreed here to have one of the exercise on this problem this group working on this what about accidents well as I mentioned to you in accidents there has not been comparative assessment related to electricity generation and scare have not authority to do this but what you have to ask is what you want to prevent losses of human life is your problem in that case the problem is coal and hydro coal and hydro are the killers of people in accidents and I will show you or environmental consequences environmental consequences gas and oil or socio-economics and political impact in that case is not clear why I said deads deads because you know the coal mines are killing thousands of people every year or public accident hydraulic dams only in China in the banquiao dam 26 people were killed in the moment and 105 5,000 were then this last year as I said people have to evacuated from the ordeal dam in US 180,000 people would have died for killing people dams hydro is the worst for environmental impact you remember the deep water horizon platform in US in 2010 big disaster nuclear accidents yes they produce as we said political and economical catastrophe political social and economic catastrophe ok thank you for this you can send me questions or after in the at the end of the day we can discuss this because this is very important for the future of nuclear and now I will switch to give you a big briefing of the accident with a little more detail of what I have done until now or let's go to the