Report on the first Osaka workshop on social sciences and humanities in the management of the recovery process after the Fukushima accident

Open Access

Issue		Radioprotection Volume 60, Number 4, Octobre-Décembre 2025


Page(s)		337 - 343
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2025024
Published online		15 December 2025

Abeysinghe S, Leppold C, Ozaki A, Williams AL. 2022. Health, Wellbeing and Community Recovery in Fukushima. Routledge Studies in Hazards, Disaster Risk and Climate Change. [Google Scholar]
Ando R. 2018. Trust-what connects science to daily life. Health Phys 115: 581–589. [Google Scholar]
Ando R, Koyama Y, Kobayashi T, Sasaki D, Akimoto N, Schneider T, Lochard J, Kanai Y. 2023. Report on the 24th Fukushima Dialogue “creating the future of Fukushima together with the next generation”. Radioprotection 58: 161–167. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Croüail P, Schneider T, Gariel JC, Masaharu T, Naito W, Orita M, Takamura N. 2020. Analysis of the modalities of return of populations to the contaminated territories following the accident at the Fukushima power plant. Radioprotection 55: 79–93. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Doering A, Kato K. 2021. In search of light: Ecohumanities, tourism and Fukushima’s post-disaster resurgence. In Socialising tourism: Rethinking tourism for social and ecological justice, pp. 175–194. [Google Scholar]
Hori A, Murakami M, Oshima F, van der Wijngaart R. 2024. Feasibility of schema therapy for recurrent depression in a disaster relief worker with prior post-traumatic stress disorder treatment using prolonged exposure therapy. Behav Sci 14: 1156. [Google Scholar]
ICRP. 2018. ICRP publication 138: Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. Ann ICRP 47. [Google Scholar]
ICRP. 2020. ICRP publication 146: Radiological protection of people and the environment in the event of a large nuclear accident: update of ICRP publications 109 and 111. Ann. ICRP 49. [Google Scholar]
ICRP. 2021. Proceedings of the international conference on recovery after nuclear accidents: Radiological protection lessons from Fukushima and beyond. Ann. ICRP 50. [Google Scholar]
ICRP. 2016. Proceedings of the international workshop on the Fukushima Dialogue initiative. Ann ICRP 45. [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: 209–215. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Kobayashi T, Hidaka T, Mizuki R, Kobayashi A, Maeda M. 2024. Female migrants into Fukushima: A qualitative approach to their migration-support needs after the nuclear accident. PLOS ONE 19: e0309013. [Google Scholar]
Kobayashi T, Murakami M, Ozaki A, Ohnuma S, Shineha R. 2025. Thinking about negative-side of surveys. Jpn J Risk Anal 34: in press (in Japanese) [Google Scholar]
Liu M, Matsunaga H, Orita M, Kashiwazaki Y, Xiao X, Takamura N. 2025. Residents of the towns in which the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station is located express more worries about reputational damage than about the discharge of treated water itself. J Radiat Res rraf 003. [Google Scholar]
Lochard J. 2022. The ethics of the co-expertise process in the post-nuclear accident context In Research ethics for environmental health. In: Routledge (F. Zölzer, G. Meskens, Eds.) 1^st edn. [Google Scholar]
Lochard J, Ando R, Takagi H, Endo S, Momma M, Miyazaki M, Kuroda Y, Kusumoto T, Endo M, Endo S, Koyama Y. 2020. The post-nuclear accident co-expertise experience of the Suetsugi community in Fukushima prefecture. Radioprotection 55: 225–235. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [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: 87–101. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Mashiko H, Yabe H, Maeda M, Itagaki S, Kunii Y, Shiga T, Miura I, Suzuki Y, Yasumura S, Iwasa H, Niwa S-i, Ohtsuru A, Abe M. 2017. Mental health status of children after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Asia-Pac J Public He 29: 131S–138S. [Google Scholar]
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. 2019. Survey on distribution of agricultural products from Fukushima Prefecture in fiscal year 2018. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/shokusan/ryutu/attach/pdf/190329-10.pdf. Accessed on February 26, 2025. (in Japanese) [Google Scholar]
Murakami M, Igarashi Y. 2022. Perspectives for measures against harmful rumors regarding treated water from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Jpn J Risk Anal 32: 25–29. (in Japanese) [Google Scholar]
Murakami M, Takebayashi Y, Ono K, Kubota A, Tsubokura M. 2020 The decision to return home and wellbeing after the Fukushima disaster. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 47: 101538. [Google Scholar]
Ochi S. 2021. ’Life communication’ after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster: what experts need to learn from residential non-scientific rationality. J Radiat Res 62: I88– I94. [Google Scholar]
Sawano T, Ozaki A, Hori A, Tsubokura M. 2019. Combating ‘fake news’ and social stigma after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant incident-the importance of accurate longitudinal clinical data. QJM-Int J Med 112: 479–481. [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Lochard J. 2024. Social sciences and humanities in the management of the recovery process after the Fukushima accident − summary of the May 25, 2024 on-line meeting. CEPN-R333, September 2024. [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Lochard J, Maître M, Ban N, Croüail P, Gallego E, Homma T, Kai M, Lecomte JF, Takamura N. 2021. Radiological protection challenges facing business activities affected by a nuclear accident: some lessons from the management of the accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioprotection 56: 181–192. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Maître M, Lochard J, Charron S, Lecomte J-F., 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: 259–270. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Takada M, Murakami M, Ohnuma S, Shibata Y, Yasutaka T. 2025. Public perception and underlying values regarding final disposal of radioactively contaminated soil from a large nuclear accident. Environ Manage https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-00025-02124-00262. [Google Scholar]
Takamura N, Orita M, Taira Y, Fukushima Y, Yamashita S. 2018. Recovery from nuclear disaster in Fukushima: collaboration model. Radiat Prot Dosim 182: 49–52. [Google Scholar]
Tsujikawa N, Tsuchida S, Shiotani T. 2016. Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Anal 36: 98–113. [Google Scholar]
Yasutaka T, Kanai Y, Kurihara M, Kobayashi T, Kondoh A, Takahashi T, Kuroda Y. 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: 215–224. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Yokoyama M, Ohnuma S, Hirose Y. 2021. Can the veil of ignorance create consensus?: A qualitative analysis using the siting for a contaminated waste landfill game. Lect Notes Comput Sci 11988: 139–152. [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.