JDR Vol.10 No.sp pp. 716-727
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2015.p0716


Public Health Concerns on Radiation Exposure After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident

Reiko Kanda*, Satsuki Tsuji*, Hidenori Yonehara**, and Masami Torikoshi***

*National Institute of Radiological Sciences
4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan

**The Secretariat of Nuclear Regulation Authority
1-9-9 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8450, Japan

***Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma University
3-39-22 Showa-Machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan

December 21, 2014
April 15, 2015
September 1, 2015
nuclear accidents, media, public concern

This study analyzes data from telephone consultations made with a research institution during approximately one year following the March 11, 2011, Fukushima, Japan, Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Data was correlated with newspaper and online media coverage. During the analysis, many calls for consultation concerned aspects of daily life such as food, clothing, and housing and to radiation exposure during the accident. As the year of study went on, the proportion of consultation on daily life changed to more technical topics, such as dose measurement, scientific knowledge, natural radiation, and Russia’s Chernobyl accident. The topic of “children” raised the greatest number of consultations over the entire period; 20–40% of callers inquiring about soil, dose measurement and internal exposure asked also about children. Media reports on the topics consulted on were few except for those on dose measurement. The proportion of consultations on children and dose measurement may have been raised due to media reports circulating at about the same time. We concluded that it is important in postaccident risk communication that information related to daily living – especially protective measures that could be taken – and to effects on children be provided efficiently and at an appropriate timing.

Cite this article as:
R. Kanda, S. Tsuji, H. Yonehara, and M. Torikoshi, “Public Health Concerns on Radiation Exposure After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.10, No.sp, pp. 716-727, 2015.
Data files:
  1. [1]  G. Wachinger, O. Renn, C. Begg, and C. Kuhlicke, “The risk perception paradox – implications for governance and communication of natural hazards,” Risk Analysis, Vol.33, pp. 1049-1065, 2013.
  2. [2]  C. Scarcella, L. Antonelli, G. Orizio, C. Rossmann, L. Ziegler, L. Meyer, L. Garcia-Jimenez, J. C. Losada, J. Correia, J. Soares, L. Covolo, E. Lirangi, and U. Gelatti, “Crisis Communication in the Area of Risk Management: The CriCoRM Project,” Journal of Public Health Research, 2013,
  3. [3]  M. E. Keim and E. Noji, “Emergent use of social media: a new age of opportunity for disaster resilience,” American Journal of Disaster Medicine, Vol.6, pp. 47-54, 2011.
  4. [4]  D. E. Alexander, “Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management,” Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol.20, pp. 717-733, 2014.
  5. [5]  J. B.Houston, J. Hawthorne, M. F. Perreault, E. H. Park, M. Goldstein Hode, M. R. Halliwell, S. E. Turner McGowen, R. Davis, S. Vaid, J. A. McElderry, and S. A. Griffith, “Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research,” Disasters, Vol.39, pp. 1-22, 2015.
  6. [6]  M. Kivimaki and R. Kalimo, “Risk perception among nuclear power plant personnel: a survey,” Risk Analysis, Vol.13, pp. 421-424, 1999.
  7. [7]  K. L. Purvis-Roberts, C. A. Werner, and I. Frank, “Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: a comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public,” Risk Analysis, Vol.27, pp. 291-302, 2007.
  8. [8]  T. Perko, “Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol.133, pp. 86-91, 2014.
  9. [9]  R. Kanda, “Risk communication in the field of radiation,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.9, No.sp, pp. 608-618, 2014.
  10. [10]  S. Yamashita, “K. Sinclair Keynote Address – The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident and comprehensive health risk management,” Health Physics, Vol.106, pp. 166-180, 2014.
  11. [11]  E. J. Bromet, J. M. Havenaa, and L. T. Guey, “A 25 year retrospective review of the psychological consequences of the Chernobyl accident,” Clinical Oncology, Vol.23, pp. 297-305, 2011.
  12. [12]  J. D. Boice Jr., “Radiation epidemiology: a perspective on Fukushima,” Journal of Radiological Protection , Vol 32, N33-N40, 2012.
  13. [13]  S. Hunt, L. J. Frewer, and R. Sheperd, “Public trust in sources of information about radiation risks in the U.K.,” Journal of Risk Research, Vol.2, pp. 167-180, 1999.
  14. [14]  R. R. Kasperson, O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Browan, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, and S. Rtick, “The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework,” Risk Analysis, Vol.8, pp. 177-187, 1988.
  15. [15]  National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS), “Telephone consultations on radiation exposure. Report on tabulated results from the year following the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster,” Chiba, NIRS, 2014.
  16. [16]  R. Kanda, S. Tsuji, and H. Yonehara, “Text mining analysis of radiological information from newspapers as compared with social media on the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.9, No.sp, pp. 690-698, 2014.
  17. [17]  A. Sugimoto, S. Nomura, M. Tsubokura, T. Matsumura, K. Muto, M. Sato, and S. Gilmour, “The relationship between media consumption and health-related anxieties after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster,” PLOS ONE, Vol.8, e6533, 2013.
  18. [18]  H. Hosono, Y. Kumagai, and T. Sekizaki, “Consumer awareness and attitude on radiocesium food contamination following Fukushima incident,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.8, No.sp, pp. 762-772, 2013.
  19. [19]  P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichitenstein, “Facts and fears: societal perception of risk,” Advanced in Consumer Research, Vol.8, pp. 497-502, 1981.
  20. [20]  V. Covello, P. M. Sandman, and P. Slovic, “Risk communication, risk statics, and risk comparisons: a manual for plant managers,” Chemical Manufacturers Association, 1988.
  21. [21]  J. E. Uscinski, “When does the public’s issue agenda affect the media’s issue agenda (and vice-versa)? Developing a framework for media-public influence,” Social Science Quarterly, Vol.90, pp. 796-815, 2009.
  22. [22]  H. Kishikawa, R. Murayama, A. Fujinaga, N. Nakaune, and I. Uchiyama, “Characteristics of information-gathering about radiation risk after the Great East Japan Earthquake,” Proc. of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society of Risk Analysis Japan, B-5-2, 2013 (in Japanese).
  23. [23]  K. Sano and M Kikuchi, “Investigation on risk uneasiness and the information needs related to the radioactivity,” Proc. of the 26th Annual Meeting; of the Society of Risk Analysis Japan, Vol.26, B-5-1, 2013 (in Japanese).
  24. [24]  J. Umihara and M. Nishikitani, “Emergent use of twitter in the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake,” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Vol.228, pp. 434-440, 2013.
  25. [25]  V. T. Covello, “Risk communication, radiation and radiological emergencies: strategies, tools, and techniques,” Health Physics, Vol.101, pp. 511-530, 2011.
  26. [26]  K. H. Ng and M. L. Lean, “The Fukushima nuclear crisis reemphasizes the need for improved risk communication and better use of social media,” Health Physics, Vol.103, pp. 307-310, 2012.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Jan. 18, 2019