Methods of estimating cost of harm to humans caused by radiation accidents

«Radiation and Risk», 2019, vol. 28, No. 2, pp.75-86

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2019-28-2-75-86


Aron D.V. – Researcher. Contacts: 52 Bolshaya Tulskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 115191. Tel.: +7 (495) 276-20-00+466; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Dyakov S.V. – Deputy Head of Dep.
Zaryanov A.V. – Engineer.

Nuclear Safety Institute of the RAS, Moscow, Russia


The paper presents analysis of methods of cost estimating the harm to humans caused by radiation accidents. To evaluate the prevented harm to people of the Fukushima Prefecture evacuated from areas surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi NPP and lived in clean areas from 2011 till 2017 four models: were selected. Avoided collective doses to the evacuees necessary for cost estimating were calculated by researchers of IBRAE RAN (Moscow). The highest monetary equivalent of the harm was obtained with the parameter given in NUREG 1530 Rev.1. This parameter is based on the amount of money US population is willing to pay for reducing the risk of death. This parameter is used by various agencies to justify arrangements towards radiation impacts reduction. Values of cost estimates calculated with the use of other three models – the Russian radiation safety standards (NRB-99/2009), UK model COCO-2 and the method developed by researchers of Fukushima – are similar and about ten times lower than the estimate calculated with the US model. The analysis demonstrates that value of possible harm to members of the public will depend on GNI (gross national income) per capita in the state where possible radiation accident may occur. The health damage prevented due to temporary evacuation carried out in certain areas of Fukushima Prefecture proved to be significantly lower than the damage caused by the evacuation in these territories.

Key words
Economical loss, harm to human health, radiation exposure, collective dose, stochastic effects, radiation accident, evacuation, economic efficiency, Fukushima.


1. Aron D.V. Analiz posledstviy evakuatsii naseleniya pri avarii na AES “Fukusima-1” [Analysis of the impact evacuation during emergencies at Nuclear Power Plants “Fukushima-1”]. Ekonomika prirodopol’zovaniya – Nature Management, 2015, no. 3, pp. 122-131.

2. Aron D.V. Metody analiza effektivnosti dezaktivatsii territorii prefektury Fukusima (Yaponiya) [The efficiency analysis methods of decontamination of Fukushima Prefecture territory (Japan)]. Statistika i ekonomika – Statistics and Economics, 2017, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 114-124.

3. Aron D.V., Tikhomirov N.P., Tsuglevich V.N. Analiz effektivnosti dezaktivatsii territorii v prefekture Fukusima na primere munitsipaliteta Tamura [Analysis of decontamination effectiveness in Fukushima by the example of Tamura Municipality]. Ekonomika prirodopol’zovaniya – Nature Management, 2015, no. 3, pp. 113-121.

4. Radiation Safety Standard NRB-99/2009. SanPiN Moscow, Russian Ministry of Health, 2009. 225 p. (In Russian).

5. Ilyasov D.F. Podkhody k ekonomicheskomu obosnovaniyu normativov radiatsionnoy bezopasnosti pri avariynykh situatsiyakh [Approaches to the economic feasibility of radiation safety Standards in emergency situa-tions]. RISK: Resursy, Informatsiya, Snabzheniye, Konkurentsiya – RISK: Resources, Information, Supply, Competition, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 168-173.

6. Ilyasov D.F. Stoimostnaya otsenka ushcherba poter’ zdorov’ya naseleniya ot radiatsionnogo vozdeystviya [Valuation of human life losses caused by radiation exposure]. RISK: Resursy, Informatsiya, Snabzheniye, Konkurentsiya – RISK: Resources, Information, Supply, Competition, 2014, vol. 3, pp. 180-183.

7. RODOS. Model description of the late economics modelling. Rodos report RODOS(WG3)-TN(99)-62 (draft), May 30, 2000. 20 p. Available at: Volume3/4_3_3_Economics.pdf (Accessed 17 April 2018).

8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Reassessment of NRC's dollar per person-rem conversion factor policy. NUREG-1530, Rev. 1, ADAMS Accession No. ML15237A211. Washington D.C., 2015. Avail-able at: URL: (Accessed 5 March 2018).

9. ICRP, 2007. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103. Ann. ICRP, 2007, vol. 37, no. 2-4. 332 p.

10. Von Hippel F.N., Schoeppner M. Economic losses from a fire in a dense-packed U.S. spent fuel pool. Science & Global Security, 2017, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 80-92. DOI: 10.1080/08929882.2017.1318561.

11. Higgins N.A., Jones C., Munday M., Balmforth H., Holmes W., Pfuderer S., Mountford L., Harvey M., Charnock T. COCO-2: a model to assess the economic impact of an accident. Report, No. HPA-RPD-046. Chilton UK, Health Protection Agency, 2008.

12. Bosanquet N., Sikora K. The economics of cancer care in the UK. Lancet Oncol., 2004, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 568-574.

13. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Vol. II. New York, United Nation, 2011.

14. Ashley S.F., Vaughan G.J., Nuttall W.J., Thomas P.J., Higgins N.A. Predicting the cost of the consequences of a large nuclear accident in the UK. Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 2017, vol. 112, pp. 96-113.

15. Murakami M., Tsubokura M., Ono K., Nomura S., Oikawa T. Additional risk of diabetes exceeds the in-creased risk of cancer caused by radiation exposure after the Fukushima disaster. PLoS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. e0185259. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185259.

16. Kishimoto A., Oka T., Nakanishi J. The cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in Japan. Do chemical regulations cost too much? Chemosphere, 2003, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 291-299. DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00054-7.

17. Ivanov V.K., Kaidalov O.V., Kashcheeva P.V., Korelo A.M., Panfilov A.P., Vasilenko E.K. Otsenka individual’nykh radiatsionnykh riskov pri razlichnykh stsenariyakh professional’nogo khronicheskogo oblucheniya [Assessment of individual radiation risks for different occupational radiation exposure scenarios]. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2008, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 9-29.

Full-text article (in Russian)