Open Access
Volume 55, Number 4, October-December 2020
Page(s) 297 - 307
Published online 20 January 2021
  • @J_Tphoto and @buvery. 2012. Introduction to ICRP Publ.111. (retrieved 19, Nov., 2020, Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Adachi N, et al. 2015. Measurement and comparison of individual external doses of high-school students living in Japan, France, Poland and Belarus—the ‘D-shuttle’ project. J. Radiol. Prot. 36(1): 49–66. [Google Scholar]
  • Ando R. 2015. Measuring, discussing, and living together: lessons from 4 years in Suetsugi. Ann. ICRP 45(1 Suppl.): 75–83. [Google Scholar]
  • Ando R. 2016. Ethos in Fukushima and the ICRP dialogue seminars. Ann. ICRP 45(2_Suppl.): 135–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Brown A, et al. 2016. Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima. J. Radiol. Prot. 36(2): S82–S101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Citizens’ Radiation Data Map of Japan Project Team. 2018. Citizens’ radiation data map of Japan. Minna-no Data Site (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Date City. 2014. Date City report since 2011.3.11. Date City (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Dubreuil GH, et al. 1999. Chernobyl post-accident management: the ETHOS project. Health Phys. 77(4): 361–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Endo S. 2016. A farmhouse son-in-law and radiation. Ann. ICRP 45(2_Suppl.): 71–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • EURANOS. 2009. Sustainable rehabilitation of living conditions in contaminated territories after a nuclear accident or a radiological event − Revised framework for the elaboration of post-accident rehabilitation preparedness strategies. Deliverable Report for the EURANOS project. European Commission. [Google Scholar]
  • Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, et al. 2010. Communication about environmental health risks: a systematic review. Environ Health Glob Access Sci Source 9: 67–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Fujigaki Y, et al. 2008. Theoretical perspective for science communication (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Fukushima Minyu. 2015. Dr. Tsubokura’s Radiation Classroom. (Retrieved 19, Nov., 2020, Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Hara T, et al. 2015. Radiation exposure level in senior high school students in Fukushima Prefecture in comparison with those in other prefectures. J. Phys. Educ. Soc. Jpn. 63(2): 87–91 (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Hayano R, et al. 2014. BABYSCAN: a whole body counter for small children in Fukushima. J. Radiol. Prot. 34(3): 645–653. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Honda K, et al. 2020. The structuralization of risk communication work and objectives in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50: 101899. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Horiguchi I. 2013. Research on risk communication after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. J. Natl. Inst. Public Health 62(2): 150–156 (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Horikoshi H, et al. 2019. Analysis on researchers’ practical activities for radiation risk reduction and risk communication after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident. Jpn. J. Risk Anal. 29(2): 103–110. [Google Scholar]
  • Igarashi Y. 2012. The shape of “peace of mind” decided by everyone. Akishobo (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Igarashi Y. 2018. The nuclear disaster and food − market, communication and discrimination. Chuokoron-Shinsha, Inc. (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Iitate village. 2012. Kawaraban Michishirube. (Retrieved 19, Nov., 2020, Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Ishii H, et al. 2017. Radiation measurement and experimental cultivation conducted by cooperation between residents and universities / research institutes. J. Cent. Reg. Aff. Fukushima Univ. 29(1): 8570–8580 (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Kanno M, et al. 2014. Decontamination in collaboration with Iitate Village residents and research institutions. Trends Sci. 19(7): 36–39 (Japanese). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Komatsu R. 2018. New revivalism. Genron Co., Ltd. (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Kono T, et al. 2020. Analysis of the activities of the website “Question and answer about radiation in daily life” after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and some lessons learned from it―To pass on this experience to the future. Jpn. J. Health Phys. 55(4) (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Kuroda Y. 2020. The making of “Information booklet for returnees”. Building trust through collaboration with local communities. Radioprotection 55(4): 309–315. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J, et al. 2020. The post-nuclear accident co-expertise experience of the Suetsugi community in Fukushima Prefecture. Radioprotection 55(3): 225–235. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J, et al. 2019. An overview of the dialogue meetings initiated by ICRP in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection 54(2): 87–101. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • MOE. 2014. Nasubi no Gimon. (Retrieved 19, Nov., 2020, Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Moritomo Y. 2016. Continuation of farming and regional regeneration. J. Rural Plan. 34(4): 423–427 (Japanese). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Murakami M, et al. 2017. Communicating with residents about risks following the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 29(2_Suppl.): 74S–89S. [Google Scholar]
  • Naito W, et al. 2016. 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 11(8): e0158879. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Naito W, et al. 2017. Measuring and assessing individual external doses during the rehabilitation phase in Iitate village after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. J. Radiol. Prot. 37(3): 606–622. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ogino H. 2012. Reflection on risk communication in 9 months after Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Jpn J. Health Phys. 47(1): 37–43 (Japanese). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Science Council of Japan. 2014. Committee of clinical medicine − Radiological protection and risk management sectional committee: enhancement of radiological health risk science education including compulsory in medical education (Japanese). [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider T, et al. 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. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Takamura N, et al. 2018. Recovery from nuclear disaster in Fukushima: collaboration model. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 182(1): 49–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tsubokura M, et al. 2020. Usefulness of the whole-body counter for infants and small children (BABYSCAN) as a risk communication tool after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant incident. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B 96(2): 70–78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wynne B. 1989. Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information. Environment (U. S.) 31: 2. [Google Scholar]
  • Yamaguchi I, et al. 2018. Lessons learned from radiation risk communication activities regarding the Fukushima nuclear accident. J. Natl. Inst. Public Health 67(1): 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  • Yasutaka T, et al. 2020. 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. Radioprotection 55(3): 215–224. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Yoshida-Ohuchi H, et al. 2016. Indoor radiocaesium contamination in residential houses within evacuation areas after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Sci. Rep. 6: 26412. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yoshida-Ohuchi H, Shinohara N. 2020. Estimated internal exposure doses due to indoor radiocaesium contamination in residential houses after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Sci. Rep. 10(1): 17212. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [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.