Communicating With Residents About Risks Following the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Abstract

The Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 posed major threats to public health. In response, medical professionals have tried to communicate the risks to residents. To investigate forms of risk communication and to share lessons learned, we reviewed medical professionals' activities in Fukushima Prefecture from the prefectural level to the individual level: public communication through Fukushima Health Management Surveys, a Yorozu ("general") health consultation project, communications of radiological conditions and health promotion in Iitate and Kawauchi villages, dialogues based on whole-body counter, and science communications through online media. The activities generally started with radiation risks, mainly through group-based discussions, but gradually shifted to face-to-face communications to address comprehensive health risks to individuals and well-being. The activities were intended to support residents' decisions and to promote public health in a participatory manner. This article highlights the need for a systematic evaluation of ongoing risk communication practices, and a wider application of successful approaches for Fukushima recovery and for better preparedness for future disasters.

Towards a Long-Term Strategy for Voluntary-Based Internal Radiation Contamination Monitoring: Representativeness of the Monitoring Results in Fukushima, Japan

“…Here, we would like to echo the points proposed in our previous study that the radiation monitoring can include or shift its purpose from screening and dose assessment to concern/anxiety reduction over radiation contamination by utilizing the radiation monitoring as a risk communication tool to approach those who may be concerned about radiation risks [11,21]. In contrast with the findings of only marginal internal radiation contamination in the public, it appears that the increasing burden of mental health problems may outweigh the radiation risks [35,36].…”

“…At the emergency phase of the Fukushima incident, there were many unknowns, not only about the practical and technical aspects of the monitoring, but also the future exposure risks in terms of likelihood, severity, health impact, and more. Given that context, voluntary participation was adopted by the central and local authorities as the default setting for the monitoring, particularly of the adults [10,21], which reconciled with libertarian paternalism [33,34], a concept derived from cognitive psychology and behavioral science, which aims to encourage individuals to make choices that are more in line with their long-term best interests, while maintaining their freedom of choice. Libertarian paternalism is probably the phrase that best describes the approach that the bureaucratic system of many Western countries (including the United Kingdom and the United States of America), as well as Japan, are likely to adopt soon for its citizens [10,35].…”

“…Currently, Japan is at a juncture towards the end of the recovery phase and beyond. We have to start thinking about whether to terminate the radiation monitoring or adopt the option that we proposed in our previous report [11], which is to shift the monitoring purpose from screening and dose assessment to concern/anxiety reduction over radiation contamination by utilizing the radiation monitoring as a risk communication tool to approach those who may be concerned about radiation risks [11,21]. Therefore, to support societal decision-making on the continued operation of the monitoring program under the current low exposure levels, rigorous evaluation of the results of the voluntary-based radiation monitoring, particularly with regard to their representativeness, is needed urgently.…”

Difficulties of fathers whose families evacuated voluntarily after the Fukushima nuclear disaster

“…To prevent radiation exposure, many parents who did not chose voluntary evacuation encouraged their children to wash their hands and gargle frequently, and refrained from going outside (Kanda, Hayakawa, & Koyama, ). In addition, the radiation issue became taboo among the people of Fukushima, because they feared conflict in perceptions of radiation risk among community residents, and therefore, hid their anxiety (Murakami et al, ). An educational program from OHN could have improved fathers' health literacy of radiation, communicated with them to understand their concerns, and monitored their health to prevent stress‐related diseases through health consultations.…”

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

“…However, radiological protection experts can also be involved through the local authorities themselves. From there, the expected role of radiological protection experts is to support authorities' needs regarding for instance the development of a practical radiological protection culture, or the practical implementation of decontamination or public health programs (Murakami et al, 2017). In this particular case, experts bring their scientific knowledge while local authorities bring the local knowledge about health and environmental status as well as the direct contact with their citizens.…”