Thank you for your very enlightening message which raises a key point in the governance of the rehabilitation.
First of all I have to say that in such complex situations as a post-accident one the multiplicity of views, not to say the cacophony, is quite inevitable. There is a time between the very early phase of the accident and the recovery phase when people have a grip again on the situation during which all types of "voices" can be heard. This is a very destabilizing factor especially when the voices seek to make use of the situation. It was already the case in Chernobyl and this is again true for Fukushima.
Who should be the radiological advisers? In my view there is nothing like a "good" adviser for this type of situation. There are various type of advisers with their knowledge, convictions, visions and the way to go is I believe to develop a common-expertise (we called it co-expertise in Belarus) with all those who are willing to cooperate to improve the situation: scientists, experts, authorities, professionals, NPOs, and of course those who are affected. I do not think there is a standard model for this co-expertise. Experience shows that for dealing with complex situations the pluralism of views is the best approach. No one can cope alone with this complexity. And the most effective partners in a co-expertise are those who are the owners of the problems i.e. those who are living in the affected areas. The scientists, the experts can bring their knowledge, experience and advice to help the process and make it successful but they are generally not the driving force.
As you are probably aware of, in the Fukushima Dialogue Meeting that took place by the end of last November, there was a group of "foreigners" coming from Belarus, France and Norway who presented their experience. They acted also as a kind of "advisory group" in the dialogue. The idea is to have a second dialogue meeting next February in a city or a village to discuss more concretely about what could be done to improve the living conditions in this city or village. Today, it is difficult to make any concrete proposal other than offering representatives of your group (the "Ethos In Fukushima" group) to participate to this February dialogue in order to make your mind about the interest or not to develop your own actions in some other places. The goal of the second Dialogue Meeting will be to demonstrate to the participants that it is possible to share knowledge and information to establish a first diagnostic of the situations in the selected place and to reflect and deliberate together, with the help of the "advisory group" on possible ways to improve the situation. Then it will be the responsibility of each party to engage itself in concrete actions of rehabilitation, each one bringing its expertise at the service of the common good to create a partnership. The way to organize the process and to lead it cannot be decided in advance. It is also something to be discussed by the participants to the dialogue taking into account the local and national constraints.
This is what I think and suggest at this stage.
All the best.
Jacques Lochard さんから。２月のICRP ダイアログ＝ミーティング出席の打診
投稿者 buvery 時刻: 11:14