ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2016
Risk Analysis as Regulatory Science: Toward The Establishment of Standards.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk trade-off analysis of returning home and radiation exposure after a nuclear disaster using a happy life expectancy indicator.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Estimation of Dietary Intake of Radionuclides and Effectiveness of Regulation after the Fukushima Accident and in Virtual Nuclear Power Plant Accident Scenarios.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Importance of risk comparison for individual and societal decision-making after the Fukushima disaster.Journal of radiation research · 2018Review
- Effect of Radiological Countermeasures on Subjective Well-Being and Radiation Anxiety after the 2011 Disaster: The Fukushima Health Management Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Article
- Additional risk of diabetes exceeds the increased risk of cancer caused by radiation exposure after the Fukushima disaster.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how to establish standards is essential for risk communication and also provides perspectives for further study. In this paper, the concept of risk analysis as regulatory science for the establishment of standards is demonstrated through examples of standards for evacuation and provisional regulation values in foods and drinking water. Moreover, academic needs for further studies related to standards are extracted. The concepts of the traditional 'Standard I', which has a paternalistic orientation, and 'Standard II', established through stakeholder consensus, are then systemized by introducing the current status of the new standards-related movement that developed after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, and the perspectives of the standards are discussed. Preparation of standards on the basis of stakeholder consensus through intensive risk dialogue before a potential nuclear power plant accident is suggested to be a promising approach to ensure a safe society and enhance subjective well-being.
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.