Risk Communication Strategies: Lessons Learned from Previous Disasters with a Focus on the Fukushima Radiation Accident
- 951 Downloads
Purpose of the Review
It has been difficult to both mitigate the health consequences and effectively provide health risk information to the public affected by the Fukushima radiological disaster. Often, there are contrasting public health ethics within these activities which complicate risk communication. Although no risk communication strategy is perfect in such disasters, the ethical principles of risk communication provide good practical guidance.
These discussions will be made in the context of similar lessons learned after radiation exposures in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987; the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, Ukraine, in 1986; and the attack at the World Trade Center, New York, USA, in 2001. Neither of the two strategies is perfect nor fatally flawed.
Yet, this discussion and lessons from prior events should assist decision makers with navigating difficult risk communication strategies in similar environmental health disasters.
KeywordsRisk communication Ethics Radiation Management Fukushima accident
Ichiro Yamaguchi reports grants from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE) Ethics and Philosophy Committee has taken an active role in supporting ethical conduct and formulating ethics guidelines. The second revision to the Ethics Guidelines for Environmental Epidemiologists was adopted by the Governing Council of the ISEE in 2012 .
Conflict of Interest
Erik R. Svendsen, Ichiro Yamaguchi, Toshihide Tsuda, Jean Remy Davee Guimaraes, Martin Tondel declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance ••Of major importance
- 4.Kamiya K, Ishikawa T, Yasumura S, et al. External and internal exposure to Fukushima residents. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016.Google Scholar
- 6.•Shimura T, Yamaguchi I, Terada H, Robert Svendsen E, Kunugita N. Public health activities for mitigation of radiation exposures and risk communication challenges after the Fukushima nuclear accident. J Radiat Res. 2015;56(3):422–9 This is a fundamental document detailing the public health activities after the Fukushima disaster.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Takamura N, Taira Y, Yoshida K, Nakashima-Hashiguchi K, Orita M, Yamashita S. Communicating radiation risk to the population of Fukushima. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016.Google Scholar
- 14.••Tsuda T, Tokinobu A, Yamamoto E, Suzuki E. Thyroid cancer detection by ultrasound among residents ages 18 years and younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014. Epidemiology. 2016;27(3):316–22 This is the fundamental paper which has initiated the public debate regarding whether there is an increase in pediatric thyroid cancer in Fukushima.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Commission JFS. The report by the working group on future direction of risk communication In: Commisssion JFS, ed 2015.Google Scholar
- 29.Ishikawa K. What has been brought to residents and communities by the nuclear power plant accident? Special and serious disaster relief procedure modification after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Fukushima. Nihon Ronen Igakkai zasshi Jpn J Geriatr. 2011;48(5):489–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Ministry of Health LaW. We created a brochure to answer to the worry of the radiation to the mother for in women and child care during pregnancy. 2011.Google Scholar
- 33.Health Ministry. Pregnant women, et al for the pamphlet created = a fear of radioactivity—the Ministry of Health and Welfare. In: Health Mo, ed 2011. Japan.Google Scholar
- 47.Beyea J. Response to, “on the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.” Environmental research. 2016.Google Scholar
- 51.Government JN. Basic information on radiation risk. In: The Cabinet Office tCAA, the Reconstruction Agency, the, Ministry of Foreign Affairs tMoE, Culture, Sports, Science and, Technology tMoH, Labour and Welfare, the Ministry of Agriculture,, Forestry and Fisheries tMoE, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of, the Environment tSotNRA, eds. Tokyo, Japan: Federal Government Report; 2016: 44.Google Scholar
- 52.Agency IAE. TM on Best Practices in Media and Public Communication for Nuclear Power Programmes. 2015; https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Meetings/2015/2015-10-05-10-08-NIDS.html.
- 53.Hangai T. How to overcome the difficulties from the nuclear disaster by empowering local community. TM on Best Practices in Media and Public Communication for Nuclear Power Programmes 2015; https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2015/2015-10-05-10-08-NIDS/Session3/Session_3-2-1_IAEA_hangai2.pdf.
- 55.Shimura H, Ohana N. Current situation and the role of department of clinical laboratory medicine on the Fukushima health management survey project for risk of thyroid cancer. Rinsho Byori Jpn J Clin Pathol. 2013;61(12):1166–71.Google Scholar
- 56.Watanobe H, Furutani T, Nihei M, et al. The thyroid status of children and adolescents in Fukushima prefecture examined during 20–30 months after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster: a cross-sectional, observational study. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e113804.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 59.Cancer IARo. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 100D. IARC: Lyon, France; 2012.Google Scholar
- 60.Cancer IARo. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 78. IARC: Lyon, France; 2001.Google Scholar
- 61.Cancer IARo. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 75. IARC: Lyon, France; 2000.Google Scholar
- 62.•ATSDR-CDC. A primer on health risk communication. Principles and practices. Atlanta, GA, USA: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Centers Disease Control and Prevention.; 2016. A fundamental document on the guidelines to public health risk communication Google Scholar
- 65.Vyncke B, Perko T, Van Gorp B. Information sources as explanatory variables for the Belgian health-related risk perception of the Fukushima nuclear accident. risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. 2016.Google Scholar
- 67.Perko T, Turcanu C, Carle B. media Reporting of nuclear emergencies: the effects of transparent communication in a minor nuclear event. J Conting Crisis. Man. 2012;20(1):52–63.Google Scholar
- 83.Band PR, Le ND, Fang R, et al. Cohort study of Air Canada pilots: mortality, cancer incidence, and leukemia risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143(2):137–43.Google Scholar
- 92.•International Society for Environmental Epidemiology EaPC. Ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists 2012; http://www.iseepi.org/About/documents/ethics_guidelines_adopted_april_25_2012_001.pdf. These are the ethical guidelines which can help frame the public dialogue regarding pediatric thyroid cancer in Fukushima.
- 94.•ICRP. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Vol 60: ICRP; 1991. Fundamental paper showing the international guidelines in radiological protection.Google Scholar