The Japanese Journal of Health Physics, the Journal of the Japan Health Physics Society (JHPS), has so far handled many articles related to the accident at Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)’s Fukushima Daiichi (1F) Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) that occurred in March 2011 [1]. The number of articles on risk communication published by March 2022 was 13, and these were classified as (1) special article (two articles), (2) report (three articles), (3) technical data (one article), (4) note (two articles), (5) topics (four articles), and (6) radiation protection in the world (RPW) (one article). This paper gives an overview of these 13 articles.

The two special articles are ‘Public worry and question about radiation hazard: analysis of JHPS web-site opinion on Fukushima I Accident’ by Shimo [2] and ‘Reflection on risk communication in 9 months after the Fukushima nuclear accident’ by Ogino [3].

In the former article, the background to the launch of ‘Question and answer about radiation in daily life’ on the web-site of the JHPS on March 25, 2011, and the stance taken at that time are summarized. The stance at the time of the launch was as follows. (1) For the general public who are skeptical about open information released by the national government, local governments, and electric utilities, we would like to provide answers to those who can say ‘it is ok’ based on the available information and situation at that time. (2) As a group of researchers, we take responsibility for the answers we give. If we cannot do so, we have no value as researchers. (3) Experts, from a different standpoint from the national government, local governments, and electric utilities, will make a judgment based on the information and knowledge available at the time, and it is important that this judgment leads to a reduction in the anxiety of the general public. In preparing the answers, consideration was given to: (1) answering all questions, (2) answering carefully, (3) being objective, (4) not tarnishing the dignity of the society, etc. From the questions asked at that time, the impression was expressed that: (1) basic knowledge was lacking, (2) knowledge was not systematized, (3) the mechanism of health effects was not understood, and (4) the ‘risk=hazard×quantity’ was not understood. At the time of writing, the discussion and coordination for the bookbinding of a series of Q&A had just started. Later, this activity was taken over by the Young Researcher’s Association of JHPS, and a book was published by Asahi Press in 2013 [4].

The latter article summarizes the various reactions of society in relation to radiation risks during the first 9 months after the accident and the activities of the ‘Question and answer about radiation in daily life’ from the viewpoint of the Young Researcher’s Association of JHPS and reflects on radiation risk communication in general. The article also raises issues regarding: (1) best expert judgment, and (2) recommendations/standard documents to be referred to. For (2), for example, the author states, “In cases where radioactive materials are transferred across national borders, such as in logistics and atmospheric/oceanic dispersion, the author believes that the importance of consistency with international standards should still be emphasized, as the country concerned is also accountable for its actions. In addition, for areas that have not yet been developed internationally, such as planned evacuation after a large-scale nuclear accident, it will be important to utilize current Japanese experience as a lesson for the world and to propose Japan’s unique approach in the process of revising the international standards.”

Along with the authors’ impressions, three report articles provide an overview of the meetings organized, co-organized, or sponsored by JHPS [5]. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)/Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) Dialogue Meeting held at Higashi Nippon International University (Iwaki, Fukushima) in December 2018 was jointly organized by the ICRP, JAEA, and the Fukushima Dialogue Executive Committee. Such dialog meetings were held for local residents to exchange opinions on radiation protection, and the December 2018 meeting was the 20th meeting. The authors concluded: “Local residents offered their supportive opinions, and felt that the meeting was very useful to know about the current situation in Fukushima, and about the past and present responses of Japanese research institutes. ICRP stated that the opportunity for Japanese research institutes to express their expert opinions to the public was a major step forward in the history of dialogue meetings.” In the ‘Panel session toward improved communication and engagement with publics after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: study reports and discussion including specialists from the relevant fields’ organized as part of the 53rd JHPS Annual Meeting held virtually in June 2020 [6], the expert group reported their study methods and outcomes of their activities and deepened related discussions in a panel discussion after designated remarks from two experts. The authors state, “A new risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), discussed at the panel discussion, shares the common feature that we are forced to change our lives due to invisible risks, but the characteristics of the risk itself, which are transmissible from person to person and fatal, are different. After the nuclear disaster, the creation of human connections was effective in maintaining mental health, but in the COVID-19 era, these connections are interrupted. There are two sides where knowledge of the nuclear disaster is directly useful and where it must be adapted to new risks.” Another meeting, ‘JHPS International Symposium: how do we find the solution to radiological protection of tritium water?—Symposium discuss international and social aspects of radiological protection’ [7] was also held in June 2020, consisting of two parts; the first part consisted of five lectures and two designated statements by experts from Taiwan and Korea, and the second part consisted of live discussions. The chairperson of the symposium stated, “We have learned that scientific knowledge cannot reach people’s hearts unless it is wrapped in a sheath of emotion, even if all the scientific information is available.”

In the technical data article, ‘Analysis of the activities of the website “Question and answer about radiation in daily life” after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and some lessons learned from it: to pass on this experience to the future’ [8], the article looks back at the related activities from the perspective of 2020 and summarizes the stance of the individuals concerned and the actual response situation, the experiences and issues gained from them, and the results of the analysis through Twitter. The report summarizes the stance of the parties concerned, the actual response situation, the experiences and issues gained from the activities, and the results of the analysis through Twitter. It is positioned as an addendum to [2].

Two note articles present the results of a questionnaire about knowledge on radiation [9] and a face-to-face interview survey on the return of evacuated residents [10]. The former article reports on the results of a questionnaire survey conducted to ascertain the level of understanding of basic knowledge about radiation among 125 people in Namie town and 117 members of the general public in Aomori prefecture who attended a lecture on radiation organized by Hirosaki University. It is written that “Some citizens considered that health effects would occur at a dose of 1 mSv, and this was particularly true for the residents of Namie town. The residents of Namie town also considered that there was a difference between the health effects of artificial radiation and those of natural radiation.” The latter article describes town’s residents who were living in evacuation shelters. The latter article is about a study of 86 elderly residents of a town who are living as evacuees. The purpose of the study was to clarify their hopes and conditions for returning to their homes, the current status of radiation measurements, and to examine the issues for returning to their homes. It was written that: (1) as a condition to return to their homes, the radiation level should be lowered; (2) concerns for returning to their homes included the radiation level and the effectiveness of decontamination; and (3) the need for support was suggested, since less than half of the respondents used personal dosimeters when they temporarily returned home, and it is expected that more people will use personal dosimeters when they return home in the future.

Four topics articles are ‘Establishing ETHOS (practical radiation protection culture): self-help protection based on ICRP Publ. 111’ [11], ‘Working on the talks with the refugee from Fukushima’ [12], ‘Learning risk communication on radiation: visit to Tokai Research and Development Center Japan Atomic Energy Agency’ [13], ‘Impressions on OECD/NEA workshop on preparedness for post-accident recovery process: lessons from experience’ [14]. Ethos is the name of the project for rebuilding the living conditions of the population under long-term exposure situations in contaminated areas implemented by the European Union since 1996 after the Chernobyl accident.

One RPW article, ‘The post-nuclear accident co-expertise experience of the Suetsugi community in Fukushima prefecture’ [15], was originally published in English [16], and translated into Japanese with the permission of the journal Radioprotection of the French Society for Radiological Protection (La Société Française de Radioprotection) and Édition Diffusion Presse (EDP) Sciences. The report was on the history of the co-expertise process undertaken to improve radiation protection and the living environment in the Suetsugi area, located about 30 km south of the TEPCO’s 1F. The report highlighted the uniqueness of the process in that it was initiated and led by local residents with the support of local leaders and expert volunteers. It further highlighted the lessons learned on the role and attitude of experts in the recovery period after a nuclear disaster and the restoration of social trust, and it was concluded that “This made it possible to clarify the shared knowledge process.”

This paper presents an overview of 13 articles on risk communication published in the Japanese Journal of Health Physics through March 2022. The various issues related to risk communication are not limited to radiation, nor is there an absolute right answer for each case. The articles presented here, which are based on the experiences of experts in the field of radiation protection, are also meant to be a record of the practical issues and issues at the time. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original articles.