ArticlePloS one2025
What the public wants to know about the recycling of contaminated soil.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident of March 11, 2011, the Japanese government implemented a soil decontamination program as part of disaster area recovery. This resulted in approximately 14 million cubic meters of contaminated soil being stored in an interim facility in Fukushima. Management of the soil has included radioactivity measurement, separation and screening. When recycled the soil may be used in public works projects, but the public objected to soil recycling demonstration projects planned for the Tokyo metropolitan area, and the use of recycled soil in their communities. This study seeks to understand key factors associated with the public's desire for more information about soil recycling. We conducted a nationwide survey and received 5257 responses from people between the ages of 18 and 89 living in the country's 47 prefectures and eight geographic regions. The results showed that approximately 60% of residents did not want recycled soil to be relocated near where they live. A large number (75.9%, n = 3991) of respondents had never received information on radiation and its health effects, while 66.1% (3473) of respondents wanted more information about recycled soil. Those who wanted more information about soil recycling prioritized learning of its health effects, effects on food and water, environmental effects, radioactivity levels and monitoring methods, and intergenerational health effects. A binary logistic regression analysis clarified several independent factors related to wanting more information, including interest in the recovery of the area surrounding the FDNPP, receipt of information on radiation and its health effects, and the belief that the FDNPP accident will result in intergenerational health effects. The study results provide a greater understanding of the public's information needs and can help to improve communication and understanding related to this controversial topic.
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.