ArticleJournal of radiation research2016
A comparison of the dose from natural radionuclides and artificial radionuclides after the Fukushima nuclear accident.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- External exposure assessment in the Fukushima accident area for governmental policy planning in Japan: part 1. Methodologies for personal dosimetry applied after the accident.Journal of radiation research · 2023Review
- Short Telomere Length as a Biomarker Risk of Lung Cancer Development Induced by High Radon Levels: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Whole-Body Counter(WBC) and food radiocesium contamination surveys in Namie, Fukushima Prefecture.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident, the evacuees from Namie Town still cannot reside in the town, and some continue to live in temporary housing units. In this study, the radon activity concentrations were measured at temporary housing facilities, apartments and detached houses in Fukushima Prefecture in order to estimate the annual internal exposure dose of residents. A passive radon-thoron monitor (using a CR-39) and a pulse-type ionization chamber were used to evaluate the radon activity concentration. The average radon activity concentrations at temporary housing units, including a medical clinic, apartments and detached houses, were 5, 7 and 9 Bq m(-3), respectively. Assuming the residents lived in these facilities for one year, the average annual effective doses due to indoor radon in each housing type were evaluated as 0.18, 0.22 and 0.29 mSv, respectively. The average effective doses to all residents in Fukushima Prefecture due to natural and artificial sources were estimated using the results of the indoor radon measurements and published data. The average effective dose due to natural sources for the evacuees from Namie Town was estimated to be 1.9 mSv. In comparison, for the first year after the FDNPP accident, the average effective dose for the evacuees due to artificial sources from the accident was 5.0 mSv. Although residents' internal and external exposures due to natural radionuclides cannot be avoided, it might be possible to lower external exposure due to the artificial radionuclides by changing some behaviors of residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.