Evaluation of Risk Perception and Risk-Comparison Information Regarding Dietary Radionuclides after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident

In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident, to facilitate evidence-based risk communication we need to understand radiation risk perception and the effectiveness of risk-comparison information. We measured and characterized perceptions of dread risks and unknown risks regarding dietary radionuclides in residents of Fukushima, Tokyo, and Osaka to identify the primary factors among location, evacuation experience, gender, age, employment status, absence/presence of spouse, children and grandchildren, educational background, humanities/science courses, smoking habits, and various types of trustworthy information sources. We then evaluated the effects of these factors and risk-comparison information on multiple outcomes, including subjective and objective understanding, perceived magnitude of risk, perceived accuracy of information, backlash against information, and risk acceptance. We also assessed how risk-comparison information affected these multiple outcomes for people with high risk perception. Online questionnaires were completed by people (n = 9249) aged from 20 to 69 years in the three prefectures approximately 5 years after the accident. We gave each participant one of 15 combinations of numerical risk data and risk-comparison information, including information on standards, smoking-associated risk, and cancer risk, in accordance with Covello’s guidelines. Dread-risk perception among Fukushima residents with no experience of evacuation was much lower than that in Osaka residents, whereas evacuees had strikingly higher dread-risk perception, irrespective of whether their evacuation had been compulsory or voluntary. We identified location (distance from the nuclear power station), evacuation experience, and trust of central government as primary factors. Location (including evacuation experience) and trust of central government were significantly associated with the multiple outcomes above. Only information on “cancer risk from radiation and smoking risk” enhanced both subjective and objective understanding without diminishing trust in all participants and in the high dread-risk perception group; use of other risk-comparison information could lead the public to overestimate risk.

[1]  M. Murakami.  Risk Analysis as Regulatory Science: Toward The Establishment of Standards , 2016, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[2]  A. Ohtsuru,et al.  Explanatory Meetings on Thyroid Examination for the "Fukushima Health Management Survey" after the Great East Japan Earthquake: Reduction of Anxiety and Improvement of Comprehension. , 2016, The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine.

[3]  Akiko Sato,et al.  Understanding Effective Risk Communication in the Context of a Radiological Accident , 2015 .

[4]  M. Shapiro,et al.  Framing Effects in Narrative and Non‐Narrative Risk Messages , 2015, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  S. Yasumura,et al.  Psychological distress and the perception of radiation risks: the Fukushima health management survey , 2015, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[6]  M. Bogren,et al.  Mortality of subjects with mood disorders in the Lundby community cohort: a follow-up over 50 years. , 2015, Journal of affective disorders.

[7]  S. Nomura,et al.  Absence of Internal Radiation Contamination by Radioactive Cesium among Children Affected by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster , 2015, Health physics.

[8]  T. Oki,et al.  Estimated Dietary Intake of Radionuclides and Health Risks for the Citizens of Fukushima City, Tokyo, and Osaka after the 2011 Nuclear Accident , 2014, PloS one.

[9]  Tomoyuki Takahashi,et al.  Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Noboru Takamura,et al.  Determinants of the return to hometowns after the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: a case study for the village of Kawauchi. , 2013, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[11]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  K. Nakayachi,et al.  Paradoxical effects of the record-high tsunamis caused by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake on public judgments of danger , 2012 .

[13]  J. Yoshinaga,et al.  Daily intake of inorganic arsenic and some organic arsenic species of Japanese subjects. , 2012, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[14]  C. Hommerich.  Trust and Subjective Well‐being after the Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Meltdown: Preliminary Results , 2012 .

[15]  L. A. Pratt.  Serious psychological distress, as measured by the K6, and mortality. , 2009, Annals of epidemiology.

[16]  James Hyde,et al.  Numeracy and Communication with Patients: They Are Counting on Us , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[17]  R. Thaler,et al.  Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2008 .

[18]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception , 2007 .

[19]  M. Inoue,et al.  Impact of tobacco smoking on subsequent cancer risk among middle-aged Japanese men and women: data from a large-scale population-based cohort study in Japan--the JPHC study. , 2004, Preventive medicine.

[20]  Branden B Johnson,et al.  Are Some Risk Comparisons More Effective Under Conflict?: A Replication and Extension of Roth et al. , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[21]  岩崎 民子.  SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION : United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes , 2002 .

[22]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? , 2002 .

[23]  P. Slovic,et al.  Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effects of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instruction, and Employing Probability Versus Frequency Formats , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[24]  Åsa Boholm,et al.  Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research , 1998 .

[25]  Kimihiko Yamagishi.  When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[26]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  Cognitive Representation of Risk Perceptions , 1991 .

[27]  M. G. Morgan,et al.  What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons , 1990 .

[28]  Paul Slovic,et al.  What Should We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?1 , 1990 .

[29]  Henry I. Kohn,et al.  Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation , 1989 .

[30]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[31]  R. Keeney,et al.  Improving risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  C. Starr.  Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[33]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[34]  J. Valentin.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[35]  P. Corrigan.  On the stigma of mental illness: Practical strategies for research and social change. , 2005 .

[36]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Fault Trees: Sensitivity of Estimated Failure Probabilities to Problem Representation , 2005 .

[37]  P. Brandt,et al.  Evaluation of certain food additives. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Fifty-ninth report of the JECFA, nitrate and nitrite , 2002 .