Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41805709›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Recognition of Japanese university students one year after the discharge of treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

Hitomi Matsunaga, Isamu Amir, Aizhan Zabirova, Yuya Kashiwazaki, Makiko Orita, Thierry Schneider, Masaharu Tsubokura, Noboru Takamura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Hitomi MatsunagaDepartment of Disaster Resilience and Science, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1933-2171
Isamu AmirDepartment of Radiation Health Management, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Hikarigaoka-1, Fukushima City, Fukushima, Japan.
Aizhan ZabirovaDepartment of Disaster Resilience and Science, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan.
Yuya KashiwazakiDepartment of Disaster Resilience and Science, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3057-6700
Makiko OritaDepartment of Disaster Resilience and Science, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan.
Thierry SchneiderFrench Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ASNR), BP 17, Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex, France.
Masaharu TsubokuraDepartment of Radiation Health Management, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Hikarigaoka-1, Fukushima City, Fukushima, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8027-202X
Noboru TakamuraDepartment of Disaster Resilience and Science, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5552-3234

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study clarified the perceptions of the Japanese university students regarding their acceptance of the discharge of treated water (DTW) into the Pacific Ocean approximately a year after the process began. Among the 1453 study participants, 1246 (85.7%) showed DTW acceptability, and 207 (14.3%) were unacceptable. Compared to non-acceptance group, majoring in science, experience collecting information or knowledge about DTW, the ability to explain the difference between contaminated water and treated water, the belief that the Japanese government provides accurate information about DTW, the belief that decision-making of the Japanese public is calm and rational about the DTW, and having no feel reluctant to consume kinds of seafood in Fukushima were independently associated with the acceptance group. Furthermore, the most common way to collect information about DTW was via television or newspapers. The paper suggested that effectively conveying information about DTW to the younger generation is best done passively, such as through TV, street flyers, or Internet advertisements. Participants who had received some kind of information about DTW were more likely to accept DTW than those who had not. The health and environmental effects of DTW from FDNPS are limited; therefore, this complex issue must be dealt with calmly.

Indexed as

Fukushima Nuclear AccidentStudentsAdultEast Asian PeopleFemaleHumansJapanMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41805709
PMCPMC12974853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.