Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 57, Number 1, January-March 2022
Page(s) 17 - 25
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2021027
Published online 12 October 2021
  • Fukushima Prefecture. 2019. Results of Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey for FY 2017. Fukushima Health Management Survey. http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/kenkocyosa-kentoiinkai-35.html [cited 7/14/2020] [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • Fukushima Prefecture. 2020. Evacuation status and transition to outside the Fukushima prefecture. https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/ps-kengai-hinansyasu.html [cited 7/14/2020] [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • Hino Y, Murakami M, Midorikawa S, Ohtsuru A, Suzuki S, Tsuboi K, Ohira T. 2016. Explanatory meetings on thyroid examination for the “Fukushima Health Management Survey” after the Great East Japan Earthquake: Reduction of anxiety and improvement of comprehension. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 239(4): 333–343. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP Publication 103. 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP 37. [Google Scholar]
  • Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [Google Scholar]
  • Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kishikawa H, Murayama R, Fujiyama A, Uchiyama I. 2018. The validity of web survey on risk perception and environmental problem. Jpn. J. Risk Anal. 28(1): 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  • Kashiwazaki Y, Takebayashi Y, Murakami M. 2020. Relationships between radiation risk perception and health anxiety, and contribution of mindfulness to alleviating psychological distress after the Fukushima accident: Cross-sectional study using a path model. PLOS ONE 15(7): e0235517. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Layman M, Combs B. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events. J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Learn. Mem. 4(6): 551–578. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lindell MK, Barnes VE. 1986. Protective response to technological emergency: Risk perception and behavioral intention. Nucl. Saf. 27(4): 457–467. [Google Scholar]
  • Machida N, Murakami M, Takebayashi Y, Kumagai A, Yamaguchi T. 2020. Perceived risk and demands for countermeasures against diabetes and radiation in Fukushima after the nuclear accident: Effects of self-rated risk trade-off view and provision of risk information. Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduct. 49: 101671. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. 2018. Vital statistics. Overview of 2017 Demographic Monthly Annual Report. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/kakutei17/index.html [cited 7/14/2020] [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc. 2017. Fukushima reconstruction: Current status and radiation health risks. https://www.mri.co.jp/opinion/column/uploadfiles/MTR_Fukushima_1712.pdf [cited 7/14/2020]. [Google Scholar]
  • Murakami M, Hirosaki M, Suzuki Y, Maeda M, Yabe H, Yasumura S, Ohira T. 2018a. Reduction of radiation-related anxiety promoted well being after the 2011 disaster: “Fukushima Health Management Survey”. J. Radiol. Protect. 38(4): 1428–1440. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Murakami M, Tsubokura M, Ono K, Maeda M. 2018b. New “loss of happy life expectancy” indicator and its use in risk comparison after Fukushima disaster. Sci. Total Environ. 615: 1527–1534. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Neel JV, Schull WJ, Awa AA, Satoh C, Kato H, Otake M, Yoshimoto Y. 1991. The children of parents exposed to atomic bombs: Estimates of the genetic doubling dose of radiation for humans. J. Radiat. Res. 32(supplement): 347–374. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nickerson RS. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gener. Psychol. 2(2): 175–220. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Oe M, Maeda M, Ohira T, Itagaki S, Harigane M, Suzuki Y, Yabe H, Yasumura S, Kamiya K, Ohto H. 2019. Parental recognition of bullying and associated factors among children after the Fukushima nuclear disaster: A 3-year follow-up study from the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Front. Psychiatr. 10(May): 283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ohto H, Yasumura S, Maeda M, Kainuma H, Fujimori K, Nollet KE. 2017. From devastation to recovery and revival in the aftermath of Fukushima’s Nuclear Power Plants accident. Asia-Pacific J. Public Health 29(2_suppl): 10S–17S. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sawano T, Nishikawa Y, Ozaki A, Leppold C, Tsubokura M. 2018. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident and school bullying of affected children and adolescents: The need for continuous radiation education. J. Radiat. Res. 59(3): 381–384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sekiya, N. (2016) Research Survey of Consumer Psychology about Radioactive Contamination after the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Stations. J. Soc. Saf. Sci. 29: 143–153 [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236(4799): 280–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. 1979. Rating the risks. Environment 21(3): 14–39. [Google Scholar]
  • Statistics Bureau of Japan. 2012. Results of 2010 population Census. Basic complete tabulation on industries. Prefectures. https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/stat-search/files?page=1&toukei=00200521&tstat=000001039448 [cited 7/14/2020] [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • Suzuki T. 2014. The problems of analyzing the factors behind people’s anxiety based upon the use of true-false test in regards to their knowledge of radiation. Jpn. J. Sci. Commun. 15: 3–16 [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • Suzuki Y, Yabe H, Yasumura S, Ohira T, Niwa S-I, Ohtsuru A, Mashiko H, Maeda M, Abe M. 2015. Psychological distress and the perception of radiation risks: The Fukushima health management survey. Bull. World Health Organization 93(9): 598–605. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Takebayashi Y, Lyamzina Y, Suzuki Y, Murakami M. 2017. Risk perception and anxiety regarding radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident: A systematic qualitative review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14(11): 1306. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tateno S, Yokoyama HM. 2013. Public anxiety, trust, and the role of mediators in communicating risk of exposure to low dose radiation after the fukushima daiichi nuclear plant explosion. J. Sci. Commun. 12(2): A03. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Theakston F. 2013. Health and environment: Communicating the risks. World Health Organization 54. http://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/health-and-environment-communicating-the-risks. [Google Scholar]
  • Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of General Affairs. 2018. Statistics of Tokyo, population (estimate) based on Population Census 2015 (confirmed value). https://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/jsuikei/js-index2.htm [cited 7/14/2020] [in Japanese]. [Google Scholar]
  • UNSCEAR. 2014. Levels and effects of radiation exposure to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami. [Google Scholar]
  • van der Linden S. 2014. On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. Eur. J. Social Psychol. 44(5): 430–440. [CrossRef] [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.