Journal of Radiation Protection and Research

The Korean Association for Radiation Protection (대한방사선방어학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Panel Session toward Improved Communication and Engagement with the Public after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Study Reports and Discussion with Specialists from Relevant Fields

  • Yoshida, Hiroko (Radioisotope Research and Education Center, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tohoku University) ;
  • Kuroda, Yujiro (Center for Integrated Science and Humanities, Fukushima Medical University) ;
  • Kono, Takahiko (Sector of Fukushima Research and Development, Japan Atomic Energy Agency) ;
  • Naito, Wataru (Research Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology) ;
  • Sakoda, Akihiro (Ningyo-toge Environmental Engineering Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
  • Received : 2020.12.19
  • Accepted : 2021.03.23
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: From 2018 to 2020, the Expert Study on Public Understanding after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident (the Expert Study Group) identified and analyzed activities designed to promote public understanding of science and radiation since the Fukushima accident, and held discussions on how to achieve public understanding in the situation where public confidence has been lost, and how experts should prepare for dealing with the public. This panel session was held at the 53rd meeting of the Japan Health Physics Society on June 30, 2020. Materials and Methods: First, three subgroup (SG) leaders reported their research methods and results. Then, two designated speakers, who participated as observers of the Expert Study Group, commented on the activities. Next, the five speakers held a panel discussion. Finally, the rapporteur summarized. Results and Discussion: SG leaders presented reports from researchers and practitioners in health physics and environmental risks who provided information after the Fukushima accident. During the discussion, experts in sociology and ethics discussed the issues, focusing on the overall goals of the three groups, local (personal) and mass communication, and ethical values. Many of the activities instituted by the experts after the accident were aimed at public understanding of science (that is, to provide knowledge to residents), but by taking into account interactions with residents and their ethical norms, the experts shifted to supporting the residents' decision-making through public engagement. The need to consider both content and channels is well known in the field of health communication, and overlaps with the above discussion. Conclusion: How to implement and promote the public engagement in society was discussed in both the floor and designated discussions. Cooperation between local communities and organizations that have already gained trust is also necessary in order to develop relationships with local residents in normal times, to establish an information transmission system, and to make it work effectively.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This paper, which was already published in Japanese Journal of Health Physics, an academic journal of the Japan Health Physics Society, was translated with permission of Japanese Journal of Health Physics and added an explanation for international readers. This work was supported by the Program of the Network-type Joint Usage/Research Center for Radiation Disaster Medical Science.

References

  1. Murakami M, Sato A, Matsui S, Goto A, Kumagai A, Tsubokura M, et al. Communicating with residents about risks following the Fukushima nuclear accident. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2017;29(2_suppl):74S-89S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539516681841
  2. Perko T. Risk communication in the case of the Fukushima accident: Impact of communication and lessons to be learned. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2016;12:683-686. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1832
  3. Shimura T, Yamaguchi I, Terada H, Robert Svendsen E, Kunugita N. Public health activities for mitigation of radiation exposures and risk communication challenges after the Fukushima nuclear accident. J Radiat Res. 2015;56:422-429. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrv013
  4. Takamura N, Taira Y, Yoshida K, Nakashima-Hashiguchi K, Orita M, Yamashita S. Communicating radiation risk to the population of Fukushima. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016;171:23-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw184
  5. Sato A, Honda K, Ono K, Kanda R, Hayashi TI, Takeda Y, et al. Reviews on common objectives and evaluation indicators for risk communication activities from 2011 to 2017. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9730. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9730
  6. Naito W, Uesaka M, Kuroda Y, Kono T, Sakoda A, Yoshida H. Examples of practical activities related to public understanding of radiation risk following the Fukushima nuclear accident. Radioprotection. 2020;55:297-307. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020086
  7. Kuroda Y, Koyama Y, Yoshida H, Naito W. Preparation of an" information booklet for returnees"-Building trust through collaboration with local communities. Radioprotection. 2020;55:309-315. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020081
  8. Lazo T. Involving stakeholders in radiological protection decision making: recovery history and lessons from the people of Fukushima. Ann ICRP. 2016;45(2_suppl):105-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645316666700
  9. Lochard J, Ando R, Takagi H, Endo S, Momma M, Miyazaki M, et al. The post-nuclear accident co-expertise experience of the Suetsugi community in Fukushima Prefecture. Radioprotection. 2020;55:225-235. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020062
  10. Goto A, Rudd RE, Lai AY, Yoshida K, Suzuki Y, Halstead DD, et al. Leveraging public health nurses for disaster risk communication in Fukushima City: a qualitative analysis of nurses' written records of parenting counseling and peer discussions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-129
  11. Muto K, Yamamoto I, Nagasu M, Tanaka M, Wada K. Japanese citizens' behavioral changes and preparedness against COVID-19: an online survey during the early phase of the pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0234292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234292
  12. Yamashita S. Fukushima nuclear power plant accident and comprehensive health risk management-global radiocontamination and information disaster. Trop Med Health. 2014;42(2 Suppl):S93-S107. https://doi.org/10.2149/tmh.2014-S14
  13. Ishikawa H, Nomura K, Sato M, Yano E. Developing a measure of communicative and critical health literacy: a pilot study of Japanese office workers. Health Promot Int. 2008;23:269-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan017
  14. Hoffmann T, Ladner Y. Assessing the suitability of written stroke materials: an evaluation of the interrater reliability of the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) checklist. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19:417-422. https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1905-417
  15. Brown A, Franken P, Bonner S, Dolezal N, Moross J. Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima. J Radiol Prot. 2016;36:S82-S101. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/S82
  16. Naito W, Uesaka M, Yamada C, Kurosawa T, Yasutaka T, Ishii H. Relationship between individual external doses, ambient dose rates and individuals' activity-patterns in affected areas in Fukushima following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0158879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158879
  17. Yoshida-Ohuchi H, Kanagami T, Satoh Y, Hosoda M, Naitoh Y, Kameyama M. Indoor radiocaesium contamination in residential houses within evacuation areas after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26412. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26412
  18. Yasutaka T, Kanai Y, Kurihara M, Kobayashi T, Kondoh A, Takahashi T, et al. Dialogue, radiation measurements and other collaborative practices by experts and residents in the former evacuation areas of Fukushima: a case study in Yamakiya District, Kawamata Town star. Radioprotection. 2020;55:215-224. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020061
  19. Ohtsuru A, Tanigawa K, Kumagai A, Niwa O, Takamura N, Midorikawa S, et al. Nuclear disasters and health: lessons learned, challenges, and proposals. Lancet. 2015;386:489-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60994-1
  20. Fujigaki Y. Lessons from Fukushima for Responsible Innovation: How to Construct a New Relationship Between Science and Society? In: Lechevalier S, editors. Innovation beyond technology. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 223-239.
  21. Cho KW. Ethical foundations of the radiological protection system. Ann ICRP. 2016;45(1_suppl):297-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645316631207
  22. Cohen E, Cornwell L. A question of ethics: developing information system ethics. J Bus Ethics. 1989;8:431-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381809
  23. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15:259-267. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
  24. Kobayashi T, Takebayashi Y, Murakami M. Disaster-zone research: participants should benefit too. Nature. 2020;579:193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00696-z
  25. Maitre M, Crouail P, Schneider T, Kuroda Y, Miyazaki M, Tanigawa K, et al. Living conditions and health status of populations living in territories impacted by nuclear accidents: some lessons for developing health surveillance programme. Environ Int. 2021;147:106294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106294
  26. Covello VT. Risk communication, radiation, and radiological emergencies: strategies, tools, and techniques. Health Phys. 2011;101:511-530. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182299549