L’accident nucléaire de Fukushima : enjeux et contestations autour de la définition du zonage

Open Access

Issue		Radioprotection Volume 55, Number 1, January-March 2020


Page(s)		29 - 38
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020005
Published online		25 March 2020

BEIR VII. 2006. The 2006 National Academy of Sciences Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Report. [Google Scholar]
Blix H. 2005. Cited in “ Chernobyl: Looking back to go forward”, in : Proceedings of an International IAEA Conference, Vienna 6–7 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
Boilley D. 2015. L’impact sanitaire de la catastrophe de Fukushima. Les cahiers de Global Chance n^o 37. [Google Scholar]
Boilley D. 2016. Fukushima 5 ans après, retour à l’anormal. Rapport de l’Association pour le Contrôle de la Radioactivité dans l’Ouest (ACRO). Sortir du nucléaire 68: 8–9. [Google Scholar]
Boilley D, Josset M. 2016. Plan d’urgence nucléaire en France, forces et faiblesses. Rapport ACRO réalisé à la demande de l’ANCCLI. [Google Scholar]
Boudia S. 2007. Naissance, extinction et rebonds d’une controverse scientifique. Les dangers de la radioactivité pendant la guerre froide, Mil neuf cent. Revue d’histoire intellectuelle 1/2007 25: 157–170. [Google Scholar]
Boudia S. 2008. « Sur les dynamiques de constitution des systèmes d’expertise scientifique : le cas des rayonnements ionisants », Genèses 70: 26–44. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Boudia S, Jas N. 2014. Powerless science? Science and politics in a toxic world. New York: Berghahn. [Google Scholar]
CCNE. 2015. The state of affairs and ongoing challenges of the Fukushima nuclear disaster – A civil society response towards recovery. Tokyo, Japan: Citizen’s Commission on Nuclear Energy. [Google Scholar]
Courdy K. 2013. Au-delà du nuage Yonaoshi 3.11. Film documentaire. [Google Scholar]
Fassert C. 2013. Des experts face à la crise. La cellule sanitaire du CTC de l’accident de Fukushima. Rapport interne IRSN. [Google Scholar]
Fassert C, Hasegawa R. 2019. Shinrai research Project: The 3/11 accident and its social consequences. Case studies from Fukushima prefecture. Rapport IRSN/2019/00178. [Google Scholar]
Ferrier M. 2011. Fukushima, récit d’un désastre. Gallimard. [Google Scholar]
Frickel S. 2015. The New Political sociology of science. University of Wisconsin. [Google Scholar]
Gaulène M. 2016. Le nucléaire en Asie. Fukushima, et après ? (P. Picquier, ed.). [Google Scholar]
Greenpeace. 2017. “ Unequal impact”. Kendra Ulrich, (Ai Kashiwagi and Kazue Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan, eds.). [Google Scholar]
Grover A. 2013. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mission to Japan (15–16 November 2012), A/HRC/23/41/Add.3, 2 United Nations. [Google Scholar]
Hasegawa R. 2015. Returning home after Fukushima: Displacement from a nuclear disaster and international guidelines for internally displaced persons. Migration, Environment and Climate Change: Policy Brief Series, Issue 4, Vol. 1, International Organization for Migration (IOM). [Google Scholar]
IAEA. 2009. Severe accident management programmes for nuclear power plants. Safety Guide. IAEA Safety Standards Series N^o NS-G-2.15. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. [Google Scholar]
ICRP. 2009. Publication 111: Application of the Commission’s recommendations to the protection of people living in long-term contaminated areas after a nuclear accident or a radiation emergency, Vol. 39, No. 3. [Google Scholar]
IPPNW/PSR. 2016. 5 years living with Fukushima. Summary of the health effects of the nuclear catastrophe. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility report. [Google Scholar]
Jobin P. 2016. “Nuclear Gypsies” in Fukushima before and after 3/11. Forthcoming in Nuclear Portraits: People, Communities and the Environment, Laurel MacDowell, University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]
Kalmbach K. 2014. Meanings of a Disaster: The Contested ’Truth’ about Chernobyl. British and French Chernobyl Debates and the Transnationality of Arguments and Actors. Dissertation. Florence: European University Institute. [Google Scholar]
Lochard J, Schneider T, Ando R, Niwa O, Clement C, Lecomte JF, Tada JI. 2019. An overview of the dialogue meetings initiated by ICRP in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection 54(2): 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019021. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Luhmann N. 2006. La confiance, un mécanisme de réduction de la complexité sociale. Paris : Economica, Études sociologiques (Coll.). [Google Scholar]
NAIIC. 2012. Report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission of the National Diet of Japan. http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic-report.pdf. [Google Scholar]
Quéré L. 2006. Confiance et engagement, in Albert Ogien et Louis Quéré (dir.) Les moments de la confiance. Connaissance, affects, et engagements. Paris : Economica, Études sociologiques (Coll.). [Google Scholar]
Rosanvallon P. 2008. La légitimité démocratique. Impartialité, réflexivité, proximité. Paris : Seuil. [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Maître M, Lochard L, Charron S, Lecomte JF, Ando R, Kanai Y, Kurihara M, Kuroda Y, Miyazaki M, Naito W, Orita M, Takamura N, Tanigawa K, Tsubokura M, Yasutaka T. 2019. The role of radiological protection experts in stakeholder involvement in the recovery phase of post-nuclear accident situations: Some lessons from the Fukushima-Daïchi NPP accident. Radioprotection 54(4): 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019038. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Shirabe M, Fassert C, Hasegawa R. 2015. “Risk Communication” to Participatory Radiation Risk Assessment’. Workshop “Understanding and Communicating Risks Post-Fukushima”, organisé par the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Fukushima Global Communication (FGC). http://i.unu.edu/media/ias.unu.edu-en/news/12850/FGC-WO-21. [Google Scholar]
Sugita K, Augendre M. 2012. Les déplacés de l’accident de Fukushima : les conséquences sociales et sanitaires, et les initiatives citoyennes. HAL halshs_00967033. [Google Scholar]
Topçu S. 2014. Organiser l’irresponsabilité ? La gestion (inter)nationale des dégâts d’un accident nucléaire comme régime discursif. Ecologie et politique 49: 95–114. [Google Scholar]
Topçu S. 2016. Catastrophes nucléaires et « normalisation » des zones contaminées. Enjeux politiques, économiques, sanitaires, démocratiques et éthiques. Les notes de la fondation d’Ecologie Politique 8. [Google Scholar]
USAEC. 1957. Theoretical possibilities and consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants. US Atomic Energy Commission Report. [Google Scholar]
Wynne B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstandings, social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1(3): 281–304. [Google Scholar]
Yuasa M. 2013. Whistle in the graveyard: safety discourse and Hiroshima/Nagasaki Authority in Post Fukushima Japan. in Hiroshima Shiritsu Daigaku, Kokusai Gakubu (éd.), Japan’s 3/11 disaster as seen from Hiroshima: A multidisciplinary approach. Tokyo : Soeisha/Shoten. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.