EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 61 / No 1 (Janvier-Mars 2026) Radioprotection, 61 1 (2026) 13-21 References
Open Access
Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 61, Number 1, Janvier-Mars 2026
Page(s) 13 - 21
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2025047
Published online 20 March 2026
  • ANCCLI, 2025. https://www.anccli.org (Accessed 11/01/26). [Google Scholar]
  • Ando R, Koyama R, Schneider T, Lecomte J-F, Isse M, Koyama Y. 2023. Report on the 23rd Fukushima Dialogue:“ Thinking together about issues of Fukushima Daiichi treated water”. Radioprotection 58(1): 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2023004 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bertho JM, Maître M, Croüail P, Naito W, Shkliarava N, Mostovenko A, Jones K, Simon-Cornu M. 2019. Assessment of population radiation exposure at the edge of the exclusion zone 32 years after the Chernobyl accident: methods and preliminary results. Radioprotection 54(4): 247–257. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bottollier-Depois JF, Trompier F, Darley G, Lejeune V, Lajouanine C, Maximin A, Simon C, Allain E. 2017. OpenRadiation Full details at https://doi.org/10.57876/FY5Y-Q998 [Google Scholar]
  • Bottollier-Depois JF, Allain E, Baumont G, Berthelot N, Darley G, Ecrabet F, Jolivet T, Lebeau-Livé A, Lejeune V, Quéinnec F, Simon C, Trompier F. 2019. The OpenRadiation project: monitoring radioactivity in the environment by and for the citizens. Radioprotection 54(4): 241–246. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Canet L, Takada M, Yasutaka Y. 2024. Comparative qualitative and quantitative analysis of guidelines for nuclear accident recovery. Radioprotection 59(2): 69–79. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Ethos in Fukushima. 2022. Suetsugi Atlas 2011-2020: A record of struggle for reclaiming life in the district at boundary, 27 km from the NPP (in Japanese) Ethos in Fukushima, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • Fukasawa M, Umeda M, Akiyama T, Horikosh N, Yasumura S, Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Bromet EJ, Kawakami N. 2022. Worry about radiation and its risk factors five to ten years after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(24): Article 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416943 [Google Scholar]
  • Fukushima Dialogue, 2025. https://fukushima-dialogue.jp/en/ (Accessed 11/01/26). [Google Scholar]
  • Hande V, rita M, Matsunaga H, Kashiwasaki Y, Xiao X, Schneider T, Lochard J, Taira Y. 2023. Thoughts, perceptions and concerns of coastal residents regarding the discharge of tritium-containing treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean. BMC Public Health Dec 6;23(1). [Google Scholar]
  • Hériard Dubreuil G, Lochard J, Girard P, Guyonnet JF, Le Cardinal G, Lepicard S, Livolsi P, Monroy M, Ollagnon H, Pena-Vega A, Pupin V, Rigby J, Rolevitch I, Schneider T. 1999. Chernobyl post-accident management: The ETHOS project. Health Phys 77: 361–372. [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). [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]
  • Ishii K, Goto A, Yoshida-Komiya H, Ohira T, Fujimori K. 2022. Postpartum Mental Health of Mothers in Fukushima: Insights from the Fukushima Health Management Survey’s 8-year Trends. J Epidemiol 32(Suppl_XII): S64–S75. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20210385 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ito S, Goto A. 2024. Comparative analysis of gender and prefecture-based attitudes toward future parenthood following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Radioprotection 59(2): 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2023045 [Google Scholar]
  • Katsurao Collective. https://katsurao-collective.com/katsurao-collective [Google Scholar]
  • Kobayashi T, Maeda M, Nakayama C, Takebayashi Y, Sato H, Setou N, Momoi M, Horikoshi N, Yasumura S, Ohto H. 2022. Disaster resilience reduces radiation-related anxiety among affected people 10 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Front Public Health 10: 839442. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.839442 [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J. 2013. Stakeholder engagement in regaining decent living conditions after Chernobyl. In: Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management (D. Oughton, S.O. Hansson, Eds.). Radioactivity in the Environment Vol. 9, pp. 311–331. Elsevier. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J, Ando R, Takagi H, Momma M, Miyazaki M, Kuroda Y, Kosumoto T, Endo M, Endo S, Koyama Y. 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, Schneider T, Ando R, Niwa O, Clement C, Lecomte JF, Tada J. 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]
  • Ministry of the Environment. 2023. Booklet to Provide Basic Information Regarding Health Effects of Radiation. https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/rhm/basic-info/2023/02-04-11.html [Google Scholar]
  • Mitsubishi Research Institute. 2023. Comparison of perceptions of Tokyo and Fukushima residents regarding the earthquake and reconstruction: Report on the 6th survey (2023). Mitsubishi Research Institute. https://www.mri.co.jp/knowledge/column/jdvs5f0000004mt9-att/mtr_fukushima_202403.pdf (in Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  • Miyai Y, Ando R, Arai T. 2018. Regaining Confidence after the Fukushima Accident: the Story of the Suetsugi Community. Video.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_ZhjixM6oM. [Google Scholar]
  • Murakami M, Nakatani J, Oki T. 2016. Evaluation of risk perception and risk-comparison information regarding dietary radionuclides after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. PloS One 11(11): e0165594. [Google Scholar]
  • Nakayama J, Kawano H, Kobayashi T. 2021. Public attitudes ten years after the Great East Japan Earthquake as seen in opinion polls: Based on the results of the “Survey on attitudes toward recovery, ten years after the Great East Japan Earthquake.” NHK Broadcasting Studies and Research, pp. 28–57. (in Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  • Renn O. 1999. A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 33(18): 3049–3055. [Google Scholar]
  • Sasaki M, Kobayashi K, Ichikawa Y, Ando T, Kayama Y. 2022. Mental health of mothers raising young children under earthquake and radiation disaster conditions: a study based on data collected three years after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Japan J Develop Psychol 33(2): 76–88. https://doi.org/10.11201/jjdp.33.76 (in Japanese) [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. [Google Scholar]
  • Takamura N, Orita M, Taira SY, Fukushima Y, Yamashita S. 2018. Recovery from nuclear disaster in Fukushima: collaboration model. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 182: 49–52. [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). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111306 [Google Scholar]
  • TEPCO. 2023. Treated water portal site. Discharge history : FY2023 Sea Area Monitoring Results (concentrations of tritium in seawater). https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/performance_of_discharges/2023/index-e.html [Google Scholar]
  • TEPCO. 2024. Treated water portal site. Discharge history: FY2024 Sea Area Monitoring Results (concentrations of tritium in seawater). https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/performance_of_discharges/2024/index-e.htm [Google Scholar]
  • Thu Zar W, Lochard J, Taira Y, Takamura N, Orita M, Matsunaga H. 2022. Risk communication in the recovery phase after a nuclear accident: the contribution of the “co-expertise process”. Radioprotection 57(4): 281–288. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Thu Zar W, Hande V, Orita M, Matsunaga H, Lochard J, Schneider T, Takamura N. 2025. Concerns and knowledge-seeking behavior among Futaba residents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster: insights from qualitative and quantitative analyses. Radioprotection. in press https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2025016 [Google Scholar]
  • United Nations. 2015. Sendaï framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. Resolution A/RES/69/283 adopted by the general assembly on June 3rd, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • United Nations. 1989. International decade for natural disaster reduction. Resolution A/RES/44/236 adopted by the general assembly on December 22th, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • Yasutaka T, Kanai 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]

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.