Department of Human Ecology, Graduate School of Environmental and Life Science, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8530, Japan.
Connect Japan LLC, 1-47-8 Chuo-dai Kashima, Iwaki-shi, Fukushima, 970-8043, Japan.
Curr Environ Health Rep. 2017 Jun;4(2):119-129. doi: 10.1007/s40572-017-0145-0.
This article describes the debates in Japan regarding the 100 mSv threshold assumption and ethical issues related to it, and explores the background to distorted risk information and absence of risk communication in Japan. Then we seek proper risk communication based on scientific evidence.
On March 11, 2011 an accident occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant due to the Great East Japan Earthquake. Since then a number of misunderstandings have become common in Japan as a result of public statements by the Japanese and local governments that have no basis in medical science or are contradictory to medical science. Consequently, not only the population of Fukushima Prefecture, but also others, have been subjected to unnecessary exposure to radiation, against the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle. The number of cases of thyroid cancer has increased by one or two orders of magnitude since the accident in Fukushima. However, the population has hardly been given any correct information from the central and local governments, medical societies, and media. The center of this problem is a statement on radiation-induced cancer (including thyroid cancer) made by the Japanese Government and Japanese medical academic societies indicating that "exposure of less than 100 mSv gives rise to no excess risk of cancer, and even if there is some resulting cancer it will be impossible to detect it" (this will be referred to as "the 100 mSv threshold assumption" from now onward). They have been saying this since April 2011 and have made no effort to correct it. Many Japanese began to notice this but correct information on radiation protection has reached only one part of the population. Risk communication should be based on scientific evidence, and providing it as information for the public is a key element. In Japan, governments and academic societies tried to communicate with the public without doing it. Ethical problems after the accident in Fukushima can be understood from the consequences of the mistakes in both risk information and risk communication in Japan after 2011.
本文描述了日本在 100mSv 阈值假设及其相关伦理问题方面的争议,并探讨了日本风险信息扭曲和缺乏风险沟通的背景。然后,我们寻求基于科学证据的适当风险沟通。
2011 年 3 月 11 日,日本福岛第一核电站因东日本大地震发生事故。此后,由于日本和地方政府发表了一些没有医学科学依据或与医学科学相悖的言论,在日本出现了许多误解。因此,不仅福岛县的居民,而且其他人也遭受了不必要的辐射暴露,违反了尽可能低的合理可行(ALARA)原则。自福岛事故以来,甲状腺癌的病例数增加了一到两个数量级。然而,中央和地方政府、医学协会和媒体几乎没有向民众提供任何正确的信息。这个问题的核心是日本政府和日本医学学术协会就辐射诱发癌症(包括甲状腺癌)发表的一份声明,称“低于 100mSv 的照射不会增加癌症风险,即使有一些癌症发生,也无法检测到”(从现在起将称为“100mSv 阈值假设”)。自 2011 年 4 月以来,他们一直在这样说,并没有努力纠正这一说法。许多日本人开始注意到这一点,但有关辐射防护的正确信息只传达给了一部分民众。风险沟通应基于科学证据,将其作为公众信息提供是一个关键要素。在日本,政府和学术协会试图在没有这样做的情况下与公众沟通。福岛事故后的伦理问题可以从 2011 年后日本风险信息和风险沟通错误的后果中理解。