More specific comments included the observation that the relaxation of the criteria for food consumption should be considered as a preferable alternative to relocation when overall health, social and economic effects are taken into account. Continuing restrictions on the consumption of domestically produced food in the contaminated areas of concern imply, for some people, a serious deterioration in the quality of life. This may be remedied only by relocation to areas where an attempt can be made to resume the previous way of life if feasible. The relatively low cut-off levels adopted for food stuff restrictions may have exacerbated these problems. The study also found that the international confusion and misunderstanding about the appropriate level for such restrictions made matters much more difficult for the authorities.
Clearer guidance is obviously necessary for the future.
Among more detailed findings in the report was a recommendation to improve the quality and quantity of information to the public. In particular, factors that may influence the acceptability to the local population of continuing to live in settlements in the contaminated areas of concern should be further identified and analyzed. More realistic and comprehensive information should be provided to the public on comparitive levels of dose and risk. These risks should be compared with risks experienced in everyday life and with risks from other environmental contaminants such as radon and industrial pollutant emissions commonly found near large cities.