ArticleJournal of radiation research2016
A report that Fukushima residents are concerned about radiation from Land, Food and Radon.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimation of Ambient Dose Equivalent Rate Distribution Map Using Walking Survey Technique in Hirosaki City, Aomori, Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Diversity of Concerns in Recovery after a Nuclear Accident: A Perspective from Fukushima.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Review
- Characteristics of radiocesium contaminations in mushrooms after the Fukushima nuclear accident: evaluation of the food monitoring data from March 2011 to March 2016.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
- Japanese Food Data Challenge the Claimed Link between Fukushima's Releases and Recently Observed Thyroid Cancer Increase in Japan.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Mushrooms: from nutrition to mycoremediation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurred on 11 March 2011, which caused the leakage of radioactive materials into the environment. In this study, we report public concerns about radiation in Fukushima and Tokyo almost one year after the nuclear disaster. We examined the public concerns by analyzing the data from 1022 participants, 555 in Fukushima and 467 in Tokyo. They were asked whether they were concerned about radiation from some of six different types of sources, which could be answered in a binary way, 'yes' or 'no'. We found not only similarities, but also significant differences in the degrees of concerns between Fukushima residents and Tokyo ones. Fukushima residents more concerned about radiation from land, food and radon in larger rate than that of Tokyo ones, while Tokyo residents were concerned about radiation from medical care. Residents in neither location were concerned about radiation from space. Our results suggested that careful risk communication should be undertaken, adaptively organized depending on location and other factors, e.g. comprehension about radiation, presence of the experience of evacuation, and also age and gender of the people.
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.