EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 57 / No 4 (October - December 2022) Radioprotection, 57 4 (2022) 281-288 References
Free Access
Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 57, Number 4, October - December 2022
Page(s) 281 - 288
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2022031
Published online 07 December 2022
  • Ando R. 2016. Measuring, discussing, and living together: Lessons from 4 years in Suetsugi. London: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  • Baudé S, Dubreuil GH, Eikelmann I, Boilley D, Schneider T. 2016. Local populations facing long-term consequences of nuclear accidents: Lessons learnt from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Radioprotection 51: S155–S158. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bertho JM, Gabillaud-Poillion F, Reuter C, Riviere O. 2022. Comparative study of nuclear post-accident management doctrines in Europe and North America. Radioprotection 57(1): 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2022002. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bourguignon M. 2022. Towards new recommendations in radiological protection: ICRP on the move. Radioprotection 57(2): 91–92. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison J, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM, Cousins C, Lochard J, Bouffler S, Cho K, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S. 2021. Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for purpose. J. Radiol. Prot. 41: 1390–1409. [Google Scholar]
  • Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison J, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM, Cousins C, Lochard J, Bouffler S, Cho K, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S. 2022. Maintenir les recommandations de la CIPR adaptées aux besoins. Radioprotection 57(2): 93–106. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Covello VT. 2011. Risk communication, radiation, and radiological emergencies: Tools, and techniques. Health Phys. 101(5): 511–30. [Google Scholar]
  • Dubreuil GH, et al. 1999. Chernobyl post-accident management: The ETHOS project. Health Phys. 77(4): 361–372. [Google Scholar]
  • Fischhoff B. 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 15(2): 137–45. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2006. The optimisation of radiological protection – Broadening the process. Ann. ICRP 36(3): 71–104. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann. ICRP 47(1): 1–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2020. Radiological protection of people and the environment in the event of a large nuclear accident: Update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111. ICRP Publication 146. Ann. ICRP 49(4): 1–137. [Google Scholar]
  • Igarashi Y. 2022. The round-table project in Kashiwa: A dialogue to reconcile consumers and farmers in the Tokyo suburbs after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection 57(3): 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2022021. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Kashiwazaki Y, Takebayashi Y, Murakami M. 2022 The relationship between geographical region and perceptions of radiation risk after the Fukushima accident: The mediational role of knowledge. Radioprotection 57(1): 17–25. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Kasperson R, et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8(2): 177–187. [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J. 2017. Practical radiological protection culture: A challenge for professionals. Jpn. J. Health Phys. https://www.genken.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/abdi/dhrc/data/170629_Oita.pdf. [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. https://www.radioprotection.org/articles/radiopro/pdf/2020/05/radiopro200049.pdf. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J. 2021. Chapter 7: The ethics of the co-expertise process in the post-nuclear accident context. In: Research Ethics for Environmental Health. Routledge, 16 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Mosneaga A. 2015. Tackling prolonged displacement: Lessons on durable solutions from Fukushima. UNU-IAS Policy Brief Series. United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability. [Google Scholar]
  • Murakami M. 2018. Importance of risk comparison for individual and societal decision-making after the Fukushima disaster. J. Radiat. Res. 59(suppl_2): ii23–ii30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrx094. [Google Scholar]
  • Nagasaki University. 2021. International Advanced Training Course in Stakeholder Engagement for Recovery after Nuclear Disasters on 13–17 October 2021 in Fukushima. Available from https://www.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/en/news/news94.html. [Google Scholar]
  • Orita M. 2015. Radiation health risk communication in Nagasaki University/Kawauchi village reconstruction promotion base. Nippon Genshiryoku Gakkai-Shi 57(5): 346–349. [Google Scholar]
  • Renn O. 1999. A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33(18): 3049–3055. [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider T, et al. 2018. The work programme of NERIS in post-accident recovery. Ann. ICRP 47(3-4): 221–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider T, Lochard J. 2021. Supporting societal and economic dynamic of recovery: Lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima. In: Proceedings of the ICRP International Conference on Recovery after Nuclear Accident: Radiological Protection Lessons from Fukushima and Beyond. Ann. ICRP 50(S1): 68–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider T, Maître M, Lochard J. 2019. The role of radiological protection experts in stakeholder involvement in the recovery phase of post-nuclear accident situations: Some lessons from the Fukushima-Daiichi NPP accident. Radioprotection 54: 259–270. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Slovic P. 2012 The perception gap: Radiation and risk. Bull. Atom. Sci. 68(3): 67–75. [Google Scholar]
  • Takamura N, et al. 2018. Recovery from nuclear disaster in Fukushima: Collaboration model. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 182(1): 49–52. [Google Scholar]
  • Takamura N. 2019. Experiences in communication response: From crisis communication in the initial phase after an accident to risk communication, pp. 31–32. [Google Scholar]
  • Trafimchik Z. 2005. The CORE programme in Belarus: A new approach to the rehabilitation of living conditions in contaminated areas. Vienna: Chernobyl Forum. Available from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44675417/The-CORE-Programme-in-Belarus-A-new-approach-to (last accessed 6 May 2021). [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. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020061. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [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.