ReviewJournal of radiation research2018
Importance of risk comparison for individual and societal decision-making after the Fukushima disaster.
Review in Journal of radiation research, 2018. 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.
- Estimating the impact of missed colorectal cancer diagnoses on life expectancy in Minamisoma City following the 2011 triple disaster.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
- Facilitating the Decision-Making Process After a Nuclear Accident: Case Studies in the Netherlands and Slovakia.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2021Article
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
Risk comparison is essential for effective societal and individual decision-making. After the Fukushima disaster, studies compared radiation and other disaster-related risks to determine the effective prioritizing of measures for response. Evaluating the value of risk comparison information can enable effective risk communication. In this review, the value of risk comparison after the Fukushima disaster for societal and individual decision-making is discussed while clarifying the concept of radiation risk assessment at low doses. The objectives of radiation risk assessment are explained within a regulatory science framework, including the historical adoption of the linear non-threshold theory. An example of risk comparison (i.e. radiation risk versus evacuation-related risk in nursing homes) is used to discuss the prioritization of pre-disaster measures. The effective communication of risk information by authorities is discussed with respect to group-based and face-to-face approaches. Furthermore, future perspectives regarding radiation risk comparisons are discussed.
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.