This study analyzes survey responses of those affected by the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents, evaluating issues such as recovery, compensation policy, decontamination, welfare, and overall government response. We apply an ordinal logit model to the issues of compensation, decontamination, and repatriation. We found that the people of Bryansk Oblast and those with ongoing health problems were more likely to support continued compensation and victim support programs. Another key finding was the perceived inadequacy of the Japanese government’s reconstruction policy for Fukushima. Monitoring and forestry safety measures were considered insufficient, and agricultural safety measures were particularly disappointing for those with children. More generally, there was support for planting rapeseed as a biofuel and for opening up the site as a tourist spot. Mega-solar farms or nature reserves were also seen as feasible alternatives to agricultural activities. Those who continued to see nuclear energy as a viable energy source supported the construction of waste treatment and storage facilities. Among the Chernobyl respondents, some supported a return to agricultural land use, citing scientific reports suggesting it was safe. Many said that there should be further investment in scientific research in the area. Fukushima respondents viewed social welfare provision and improved information for victims and residents as important issues. A key lesson for the Japanese government from the Chernobyl experience is the legal regime that was established there, clearly defining the affected areas and people and clarifying the measures required.

1. [1] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “INES: The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User’s Manual, 2008 Edition,” Emended Version, 2013, https://www.iaea.org/publications/10508/ines-the-international-nuclear-and-radiological-event-scale-users-manual [accessed October 20, 2021]
2. [2] IAEA, https://www.iaea.org/ [accessed October 20, 2021]
3. [3] Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), http://www.oecd-nea.org/ [accessed October 20, 2021]
4. [4] Google scholar, https://scholar.google.co.jp/ [accessed October 20, 2021]
5. [5] R. F. Mould, “Chernobyl: The real story,” 274pp., Pergamon Press, 1988.
6. [6] J. Roed and K. G. Andersson, “Clean-up of urban areas in the CIS countries contaminated by Chernobyl fallout,” J. of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol.33, No.2, pp. 107-116, doi: 10.1016/0265-931X(95)00092-O, 1996.
7. [7] J. Roed et al., “Mechanical decontamination tests in areas affected by the Chernobyl accident,” 98pp., Risø National Laboratory, 1998, https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/004/30004765.pdf?r=1 [accessed October 20, 2021]
8. [8] K. Tomura, “NANOHANA Project at Contaminated Area by Bio-remedy with Rapeseed Plant in Narodychi, Ukraine: A Challenge of Chernobyl-Chubu Association,” pp. 238-243, Chernobyl-Chubu Association, 2008, http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr139/pdf/tomura.pdf [accessed October 20, 2021]
9. [9] Y. E. Dubrova et al., “Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident,” Nature, Vol.380, pp. 683-686, doi: 10.1038/380683a0, 1996.
10. [10] Y. I. Bandazhevsky, “Chronic Cs-137 incorporation in children’s organs,” Swiss Medical Weekly, Vol.133, Nos.35-36, pp. 488-490, 10.4414/smw.2003.10226, 2003.
11. [11] G. S. Bandazhevskaya et al., “Relationship between Caesium (¹³⁷Cs) load, cardiovascular symptoms, and source of food in ‘Chernobyl’ children – preliminary observations after intake of oral apple pectin,” Swiss Medical Weekly, Vol.134, Nos.35-36, pp. 725-729, doi: 10.4414/smw.2004.10219, 2004.
12. [12] B. Bartoov et al., “Semen Quality of Workers Exposed to Ionizing Radiation in Decontamination Work after the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Accident,” Int. J. of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 198-203, doi: 10.1179/oeh.1997.3.3.198, 1997.
13. [13] K. Katanoda et al., “Quantification of the increase in thyroid cancer prevalence in Fukushima after the nuclear disaster in 2011—a potential overdiagnosis?,” Japanese J. of Clinical Oncology, Vol.46, No.3, pp. 284-286, doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyv191, 2016.
14. [14] T. Tsuda et al., “Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014,” Epidemiology, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 316-322, doi: 10.1097%2FEDE.0000000000000385, 2016.
15. [15] K. Nagatani et al., “Emergency response to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants using mobile rescue robots,” J. of Field Robotics, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 44-63, 10.1002/rob.21439, 2013.
16. [16] S. Kawatsuma et al., “Emergency response by robots to Fukushima-Daiichi accident: Summary and lessons learned,” Industrial Robot, Vol.39, No.5, pp. 428-435, doi: 10.1108/01439911211249715, 2012.
17. [17] Y. I. Tarasevich, “Application of natural adsorbents as decontamination agents for the elimination of the consequences of the Chernobyl reactor accident,” Khimiya i Tekhnologiya Vody, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 127-131, 1996.
18. [18] I. Little et al., “Efficient porous adsorbent for removal of cesium from contaminated water,” J. of Porous Materials, Vol.26, No.2, pp. 361-369, doi: 10.1007/s10934-018-0608-1, 2019.
19. [19] D. Parajuli et al., “Dealing with the Aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Decontamination of Radioactive Cesium Enriched Ash,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol.47, No.8, pp. 3800-3806, doi: 10.1021/es303467n, 2013.
20. [20] A. Iwanade et al., “Hybrid grafted ion exchanger for decontamination of radioactive cesium in Fukushima Prefecture and other contaminated areas,” J. of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol.293, No.2, pp. 703-709, doi: 10.1007/s10967-012-1721-2, 2012.
21. [21] D. Parajuli et al., “Application of Prussian blue nanoparticles for the radioactive Cs decontamination in Fukushima region,” J. of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol.151, Part 1, pp. 233-237, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.10.014, 2016.
22. [22] M. Sakai et al., “Soil removal as a decontamination practice and radiocesium accumulation in tadpoles in rice paddies at Fukushima,” Environmental Pollution, Vol.187, pp. 112-115, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.01.002, 2014.
23. [23] T. Yasutaka and W. Naito, “Assessing cost and effectiveness of radiation decontamination in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan,” J. of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol.151, Part 2, pp. 512-520, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.05.012, 2016.
24. [24] T. Baba and R. Omatsu, “Nuclear Plant Accident: How the State Assumed Responsibility – Ukraine and Chernobyl Act,” 208pp., Toyoshotenshinsya, 2016 (in Japanese).
25. [25] T. Nakamura et al., “Citizen satisfaction and continuing intentions regarding support and compensation prescribed by the Chernobyl Act: A case study of the Russian Central Federal District,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.14, No.8, pp. 1086-1104, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2019.p1086, 2019.
26. [26] M. Yamakawa and M. Seto, “Fukushima Reconstruction Studies – towards the restoration of the area and reconstruction of the lives of the disaster victims,” 298pp., Hassaku-sha, 2018.
27. [27] S. Yokemoto, “Compensation policies regarding the Fukushima nuclear accident: How have government reconstruction policies affected compensation guidelines and standards?,” The Business Review, Vol.71, No.1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.24544/ocu.20200624-008, 2020 (in Japanese).
28. [28] R. Omatsu, “Chapter 1: The Significance of the Chernobtl Law and Fukushima,” R. Omatsu, “Significance of Chernobyl Act and the Experiences of Fukushima and Chernobyl,” pp. 1-14, Iwanami Shoten, 2018 (in Japanese).
29. [29] R. Omatsu, “Inappropriate application of the narrative for post-natural disaster situation to the nuclear incidence at Fukushima Daiichi NPP: An analysis based on a study of Chernobyl Catastrophe related vocabulary,” J. of Disaster Recovery and Revitalization, Vol.15 (Special Issue), pp. 111-120, doi: 10.34606/jsdrr.15.0_111, 2020 (in Japanese).
30. [30] G. Brumfiel, “Directly comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl,” 2011, http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/directly_comparing_fukushima_t.html [accessed October 20, 2021]
31. [31] R. Omatsu, “The Standards for Soil contamination level and guidelines for soil survey in areas affected by Chernobyl accident,” Studies in Disaster Recovery and Revitalization, Vol.9, pp. 13-29, 2018, https://kwansei.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_uri&item_id=26978&file_id=22&file_no=1 [accessed October 20, 2021]
32. [32] T. Nakamura et al., “Citizen evaluation of policies for overcoming damage from nuclear accidents: A case study of Belarus,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 1-16, 2019, https://agriknowledge.affrc.go.jp/RN/2010928256.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
33. [33] T. Nakamura and S. Masuda, “Agricultural revival in Belarus based on the Chernobyl Law and National Programs,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 43-56, 2019, https://agriknowledge.affrc.go.jp/RN/2010928260.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
34. [34] Fukushima Prefecture, “2015 Fukushima Prefecture Evacuee Opinion Survey,” 2016, https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/181513.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
35. [35] The Asahi Shimbun, “Trail to regenerate Chernobyl’s radioactively contaminated soil with rapeseed,” April 23, 2011, http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201104230092.html (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
36. [36] T. Hirayama et al., “The Effective Cultivation Method and an Economic Efficiencies of Sunflower for Seed Oil,” Tohoku Agricultural Research, Vol.62, pp. 49-50, 2009, https://agriknowledge.affrc.go.jp/RN/2010782999.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
37. [37] T. Hirayama et al., “Phytoremediation effects of Radiocesium in soil by use of Sunflowers,” The 234th Meeting of the CSSJ, pp. 18-19, doi: 10.14829/jcsproc.234.0_18, 2012 (in Japanese).
38. [38] K. Tomura, “The situation of subsistence energy in bioenergy-village, Germany: Research for revival of the radioactively contaminated area of the Chernobyl accident,” Ryokoku J. of Economic Studies, Vol.49, No.1, pp.349-355, 2009, https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110007533950 (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
39. [39] National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), “Effect of radiocesium and on rapeseed and its transfer to oil,” https://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/org/tarc/seika/jyouhou/H23/hatasaku/H23hatasaku006.html (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
40. [40] K. Tomura, “Chernobyl: Narodychi Regeneration and Rape Blossom Project,” Nuclear Safety Research Group, http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/tyt2004/tomura.pdf (in Japnaese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
41. [41] H. Kobayashi and Y. Takahashi, “Removal of radiocesium from soil by plant absorption,” J. of the Japanese Society of Soil Physics, Vol.121, pp. 49-53, doi: 10.34467/jssoilphysics.121.0_49, 2012 (in Japanese).
42. [42] M. Kawata, “Ukraine’s rapeseed project enters a new phase – seeds sown five years ago are getting big,” http://www.chernobyl-chubu-jp.org/_src/sc616/kawata086.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
43. [43] Poleis State Radiation-Ecological Reserve, Official Website, https://web.archive.org/web/20190506211057/http://www.zapovednik.by/en/ [accessed October 20, 2021]
44. [44] R. Omatsu, “Changes in ‘Stricken Area’ status in Chernobyl Law: Revisions since 2014, what can and cannot be changed,” May 29, 2016, https://oacis.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=1283&item_no=1&attribute_id=16&file_no=12&page_id=13&block_id=21 (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
45. [45] M. Geuss, “Radioactive land around Chernobyl to sprout solar investments,” Artstechnica, November 28, 2017, https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/radioactive-land-around-chernobyl-to-sprout-solar-investments/ [accessed October 20, 2021]
46. [46] Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, “Feasibility study for the overseas deployment of high quality energy infrastructure,” 2019, https://www.meti.go.jp/meti_lib/report/H30FY/000206.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
47. [47] Sputnik, “Chernobyl nuclear power plant starts operation of radioactive liquid waste treatment plant,” July 18, 2019, https://jp.sputniknews.com/world/201907186480509/ (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
48. [48] A. Reiserer, “Hot testing starts at Chernobyl spent-fuel storage,” European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), September 11, 2020, https://www.ebrd.com/news/2020/hot-testing-starts-at-chernobyl-spentfuel-storage.html [accessed October 20, 2021]
49. [49] Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, “Interim Storage Facility,” http://josen.env.go.jp/en/storage/ [accessed October 20, 2021]
50. [50] TV Asahi, “Ukrainian President makes Chernobyl a tourist destination,” July 12, 2019, https://news.tv-asahi.co.jp/news_international/articles/000159309.html (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]
51. [51] Fukushima Revitalization Station, Fukushima Prefecture Government, https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/list385.html [accessed October 20, 2021]
52. [52] L. Hultkrantz and C. Olsson, “Chernobyl effects on domestic and inbound tourism in Sweden – A time series analysis,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 239-258, doi: 10.1007/BF02441380, 1997.
53. [53] G. Yankovska and K. Hannam, “Dark and toxic tourism in the Chernobyl exclusion zone,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol.17, No.10, pp. 929-939, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2013.820260, 2014.
54. [54] Sky UK, Chernobyl, https://www.sky.com/watch/chernobyl [accessed October 20, 2021]
55. [55] H. Azuma et al., “Chernobyl Dark Tourism Guide,” Genron Co., Ltd., 160pp., 2013 (in Japanese).
56. [56] Nihon Keizai Shimbun, “Chernobyl 30 years on: agricultural regeneration, people returning to contaminated areas – Belarus Chachersk district,” May 4, 2016, https://r.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO00187200X20C16A4I00000 (in Japanese) [accessed October 20, 2021]