Journal of Health Sciences Research

13(1)：29-37，2022

ReportStudy on the necessity of radiation risk communicator training
seminars: Survey of local government employees aroundnuclear power plants
HIDETAKA NARITA*1, RURIKO KIDACHI*2, MOTOYA YAMADA*1,
HIROMI KUDO*1, KOHSEI KUDO*1, MINORU OSANAI*1,
TAKAKIYO TSUJIGUCHI*3, KOYA OGURA*4, MAKOTO TANAKA*1（Received June 14, 2022 ; Accepted August 24 , 2022）
Abstract: Radiation risk communication has been one of the support programs provided to the residents living near the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant since immediately after the accident. This program has been under development, and seminars to train
radiation risk communicators for local government officials around nuclear power plants have been held in the past, but there havebeen few nationwide surveys on the desired training content and how to hold such seminars for possible participation. A nationwide
questionnaire survey was administered to local government employees around nuclear power plants in order to clarify the content
that participants preferred for seminars and how to hold them. In the future, seminars can be held according to participants’ needs.
1,089 copies were mailed to the sections on nuclear countermeasures, school education, and health and wellness at 121 local
government facilities. The results revealed an overall willingness to participate in the seminar, although awareness of radiation risk
communication opportunities varied among organizations. Participants wanted to learn not only about radiation knowledge but
also about radiation risk communication through lectures and exercises. Approximately 60% of the participants thought thatknowledge about radiation was necessary for radiation risk communicators, and around 50% thought that knowledge about risk
communication was necessary. Regarding format, participants preferred a one-day weekday seminar. Participants were aware thatthey could participate in the seminar as part of their job, and that their workplace would provide transportation expenses. The
results of this survey can serve as a basis for considering the contents and methods of holding seminars for training radiation risk
communicators.
Keywords: radiation risk communication, nuclear power plant accident, human resource development, local government officials

1. Introduction
It has been approximately 10 years since the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, but there are still
areas where it is difficult to return. There are approximately
35,000 evacuees nationwide, including residents who choose tocontinue to remain evacuees, and approximately 24,000 remain
outside the prefecture1). Radiation risk communication is one of
the forms of support provided to residents immediately after adisaster. Experts have reported various evaluations of the state of
the situation immediately after the accident2), finding that trust inscientists, businesses, and the country has been greatly shaken 3).
The relevant ministries and agencies of the Ministry ofReconstruction, Ministry of Consumers, Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), Ministry of
Health, Labor, and Welfare, and the Ministry of the Environment
have recognized the importance of radiation risk communicationand made efforts to this end. In 2014, as a “Measures Package for
Radiation Risk Communication for Return,” related ministries
and agencies announced the direction of cooperation andsupport4), and it has been continued in a different form. Such
radiation risk communication is still under development, and it is*1 Hirosaki University Graduate School of Health Sciences
66-1, Honcho, Hirosaki-shi, Aomori, 036-8564, Japan*2 Aomori Chuo Gakuin University
12 Kanda, Yokouchi, Aomori-shi, Aomori, 030-0132, Japanⓒ2022 Health Sciences Researchnecessary to strengthen detailed radiation risk communication in
response to individual anxieties by understanding the feelings
that change according to changes in the lives of residents and theprogress in decommissioning nuclear power plants 5). In
Fukushima Prefecture, the training of radiation counselors bynurses and public health nurses continues 6), and the deadline forthe end of this training is unpredictable.
With the passage of time after the accident, interest in theearthquake has declined in Fukushima Prefecture and people
from the same prefecture7), and the awareness of the danger ofnuclear power plant accidents and radiation risks has diminished 8).
Even if radiation information is disclosed after the accident andit is said that there is no danger, if the residents cannot understandthe disclosed information such as risks, they will not be positively
convinced just by receiving it as information. However, regarding
the health risks caused by radiation, because it is difficult andunclear to accumulate the data on which it is based, there arevarious methods of explanation and ways to accept them, andthere are reports that it is difficult to persuade with a uniform
manual explanation9). In addition, radiation risk communicationis conducted among residents, businesses, administrative staff,
and the facilitator and interpreter, who is an expert in support*3 Hirosaki University Radiation Emergency Medicine and Cooperation
Promotion
66-1, Honcho, Hirosaki-shi, Aomori, 036-8564, Japan*4 Hokkaido University of Science Faculty of Health Sciences
7-Jo 15-4-1 Maeda, Teine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 006-8585, Japan
Correspondence Author: narita1416@hirosaki-u.ac.jp29

Study on the necessity of radiation risk communicator training seminars:
Survey of local government employees around nuclear power plants
communication, but as the people in each position are not so
qualified10) and the explanations are must also be diverse.
The practical activities of radiation risk communication havebeen scattered, even though awareness of the danger of nuclear
power plant accidents and radiation risks inside and outside
Fukushima Prefecture has faded 11,12). In addition, opportunities
for training, such as training sessions for local government
employees13) and faculty and staff12) have increased. Local
government employees around the nuclear power plant
recognized the need to prepare for emergencies and the potential
to become risk communicators but reported a lack of knowledge
about radiation risk communication 14). Considering that
education on such communication is desired, the training contents
and methods for one local government employee were examined
and implemented, the image of radiation has changed, and theunderstanding of radiation risk communication has improved 15).
In the future, training from normal times will be necessary,
especially in local governments where nuclear power plants arelocated nationwide. However, there have been few nationwide
surveys on the content of training and how to hold seminars that
local government employees around nuclear power plants wantto participate in. Therefore, this study clarifies these aspects,
making it possible to hold such training according to participants’demands. It is expected that this will contribute to the promotionof understanding of the radiation risk communication of local
government employees and the improvement of the practicalability of radiation risk communication.

2. Definition of terms
Risk communication is conducted between residents,
businesses, and government employees. Facilitators and expert
interpreters support communication. However, there are no
qualifications for each position 10). In addition, mutual trust is thefoundation for establishing risk communication. Without trust,
regardless of how much the speakers say what they think is right,
the respondents will not understand their true intentions16).
Therefore, radiation risk communication and radiation risk
communicators in this study are defined as follows: Radiation
risk communication refers to the sharing of information andcommunication through dialogue and the exchange of opinions
among parties concerned about radiation-related risks. Throughsuch communication, a mutual understanding of risks is deepened
and relationships of trust are built. Radiation risk communicators
provide risk communication to residents and other stakeholders,regardless of whether during a radiological emergency or anormal situation. No qualifications are required to be a radiation
risk communicator, nor is there a specific profession or company
to be a radiation risk communicator.

3. Method
3.1 Study design
A cross-sectional observational study was conducted.
3.2 Participant
The following three divisions were selected for possible
involvement in radiation risk communication nationwide: nuclearⓒ2022 Health Sciences Research

power measures, school education, and health. Each of three
employees from each division of nuclear power measures, school
education, and health in local governments nationwide were
included in this study. For the selection of municipal offices, 121
locations within Urgent Protective action planning Zone (UPZ
area), such as sheltering in place in the event of an accident at anuclear power plant and an emergency, were selected. Fukushima
Prefecture was excluded from this study because various efforts
related to radiation risk communication have been reported, andlearning needs may be different from those in other prefectures.
Moreover, municipal offices located within the UPZ areas of
nuclear power plants under construction were excluded. A totalof 1,089 questionnaires were sent to the heads of divisions in thelocal government around each nuclear power plant for
distribution to the participants.
3.3 Survey method and contents
The survey was conducted between June and July 2020.
A request document and questionnaire were mailed to thedirector of each facility, and the collaborators were requested to
distribute them.
An anonymous web-based self-input questionnaire survey was
conducted, and a request for research cooperation was entered,stating that consent was given by answering the survey. The
definitions of each term in this study were explained torespondents using an explanatory document to obtain responses
based on a shared understanding of radiation risk communication
and radiation risk communicators.
For the content of the survey, a questionnaire was preparedwith reference to a survey14,15) of local government employees
within the UPZ area.
The participants were asked to indicate their age, gender,
department, and qualifications, as well as “yes,” “no,” and “don’tknow” for the following items (1) to (4): (1) desire to participate
in a risk communicator training seminar, (2) the need for risk
communicators, (3) the possibility of participating as a job andwhether travel expenses will be provided, and (4) opportunities
to conduct risk communication at work or on their own. (5)Regarding the knowledge required of risk communicators,
participants were asked to select up to three items from thefollowing categories: knowledge about radiation, knowledge
about radiation protection, knowledge about risk communication,and examples of responses to risk communication. Participants
were asked to select from a list of options whether they wanted
one or more of the following seminar contents: lectures onradiation, exercises on radiation, lectures on risk communication,and exercises on risk communication. (6) The days of the week
and frequency of the courses that participants were able to attend
were chosen from a list of options.
3.4 Analysis
After basic tabulation, cross-tabulations were conductedaccording to the attributes of the participants’ department andqualifications, and significance difference tests were conductedusing the χ2 test and residual analysis (p < .05). For the χ2 test,when responses with an expected value less than 5 accounted formore than 25% of the total, small numbers of responses were30

H. Narita,

R. Kidachi, M. Yamada,H. Kudo, K. Kudo, M. Osanai,

combined or deleted. SPSS Ver. 27 was used for the analysis.
3.5 Ethical consideration
The purpose, method, significance, confidentiality, voluntary
nature of research cooperation, publication of results, and so on,were explained to the participants in a written request, and theirconsent was deemed to be obtained by responding to the webbased questionnaire. This study was approved by the Ethics
Committee of the Graduate School of Health Sciences of Hirosaki
University (Reference Number: 2019-056).

T. Tsujiguchi,

Table 2
Question item
Hope to participate
in riskcommunication
training
Required training
content

4. Results
4.1 Demographics of the participants
A total of 1,089 questionnaires were sent, and 149 werecollected (13.7% collection rate), which were included in theanalysis.
The gender and age of the participants are reported in Table 1.
Participants’ age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with most in their
40s and 50s, together accounting for 90 (60.4%) of the total. In
terms of gender, 94 (63.1%) were male and 55 (37.0%) werefemale.
The departments and qualifications of participants are listed inTable 1. A total of 56 participants (37.6%) belonged to the nuclear
countermeasures section, 52 (34.9%) to the health and healthrelated issues section, and 41 (27.5%) to the school education
section. A total of 35 (23.5%) were public health nurses, 12(8.1%) had teaching licenses, and 5 (3.4%) were disasterprevention specialists. All public health nurses were affiliatedwith health and health-related departments.
Table 1Sex
Age (years)

Division

Job position

Demographics of the participants(n = 149) (Unit: persons)Characteristic
n
%
Men
94
63.1
Women
55
36.9
20s
29
19.5
30s
27
18.1
40s
54
36.2
50s
36
24.2
60s
3
2.0
Health52
34.9
School education
41
27.5
Nuclear power measures56
37.6
Public health nurses
35
23.5
Others
114
76.5

4.2 Basic aggregate results of needs for seminars
The need for participation in seminars, seminar content, andseminar formats, such as lectures and exercises, is presented inTable 2. A total of 50.3% of the participants wanted to participate,
16.1% did not want to, and 33.6% were unsure. Regarding the
topics to be covered in the seminar, 76.5% chose “both radiation
and risk communication,” 13.4% “risk communication only,” and8.1% “radiation only.” Regarding the type of seminar, more thanhalf (56.4%) selected “both lectures and exercises,” 37.6%
selected “lectures only,” and 4.0% selected “exercises only”.

ⓒ2022 Health Sciences Research

K. Ogura, M. Tanaka

Required form of
training

Required number ofdays
Required days of
the week
Training form forease ofparticipation

Participate asa business trip
Payment oftransportation
expenses

Needs for seminars(n = 149) (Unit: persons)
Choicesn%
Hope
75 50.3
Don’t hope
24 16.1
Unknown50

33.6

Radiation
Risk communication
Radiation and Risk
communication
Other
LectureExercise
Lectureand Exercise
Other
Half dayOne day
Two daysWeekdays
Saturday or Sunday

12
20

8.1
13.4

114

76.5

3
56
6

2.0
37.6
4.0

84

56.4

3
65
76
8
132
17

2.0
43.6
51.0
5.4
88.6
11.4

Complete at one time

97

65.1

20

13.4

27
5
75
7
67
85
13
51

18.1
3.4
50.3
4.7
45.0
57.0
8.7
34.2

Complete at one timewith follow up
Step upOther
As a business trip
As otherUnknown
Available
Unavailable
Unknown

Table 2 reports the results on conditions for attending theseminar. A total of 51.0% of the participants preferred a one-day
seminar, 43.6% a half-day seminar, and 95.6% a seminar of one
day or less. 88.6% of the participants preferred weekdays. 65.1%of the participants wanted to hold the seminar once, and 31.5%
wanted to hold the seminar more than once.
The results of the availability for participating in the seminaras part of work and whether travel expenses are paid are also
reported in Table 2. Approximately half of the participants(50.3%) were able to participate in the seminar as part of abusiness trip, while 4.7% were unable to do so. Of the participants,
57.0% answered that travel expenses would be covered and 8.7%
indicated that they would not be covered.
4.3 Basic aggregate results of risk communication
opportunities and perceptions of risk communicators
The opportunities to implement risk communication andperceptions of the need for risk communicators are presented inTable 3. Regarding the opportunity to conduct risk
communication, 34.2% of the participants recognized thepossibility of doing so in their own workplace, 26.8% recognized31

Study on the necessity of radiation risk communicator training seminars:
Survey of local government employees around nuclear power plants
Table 3 Opportunities to implement and knowledge thatparticipants consider necessary for risk communicators(n = 149) (Unit: persons)
Question item
Choicesn%
Opportunity to
Have the opportunity
51
34.2
conduct risk
Don’t have the17
11.4
communication atopportunity
work
Unknown
81
54.4
Opportunity to
Have the opportunity40
26.8
conduct risk
Don’t have the40
26.8
communication byopportunity
themselves
Unknown69
46.3
Necessity of risk
Necessary87
58.4
communicator
Unnecessary
56
37.6
Unknown64.0
Knowledge
Necessary125
83.9
required of a risk
communicator:
Unanswered24
16.1
Basic knowledge
about radiation
Knowledge
Necessary101
67.8
required of a risk
communicator:
Unanswered48
32.2
Knowledge ofradiation protection
Knowledge
Necessary98
65.8
required of a risk
communicator:
Unanswered51
34.2
Knowledge of risk
communication
Knowledge
Necessary83
55.7
required of a risk
communicator:
Correspondence
Unanswered66
44.3
example of risk
communication
the possibility of doing so by themselves, and approximately half
recognized that the opportunity to conduct risk communication
was unknown. Of the participants, 58.4% indicated that theyneeded a risk communicator and 37.6% indicated that they did
not.
Table 3 shows the knowledge that participants consider
necessary for risk communicators. Approximately 60% of theparticipants wanted knowledge about radiation and around 50%
wanted knowledge about risk communication.
4.4 Basic tabulation results on the need for risk
communication as perceived by participants who did notknow whether they would attend the seminar
The needs of the 50 participants (33.6%, hope to participate inrisk communication training in Table 2) who were not sure if theywould attend the seminar are reported in Table 4. A total of 78.0%
of the participants preferred both radiation and risk
communication as seminar content. Regarding the availability ofopportunities to conduct risk communication, 16.0% recognizedⓒ2022 Health Sciences Researchthat their workplace (section) may conduct risk communication,
12.0% recognized that they themselves may conduct risk
communication, and more than 70% were uncertain about theopportunities to conduct risk communication. In addition, 42.0%
recognized the need for a risk communicator.
Table 4

Responses of those who answered Unknown(n = 50) (Unit: persons)
Question item
Choicesn%Required training
Radiation
5 10.0content
Risk communication
4
8.0
Radiation and Risk
39 78.0
communication
Other
2
4.0
Required form of
Lecture21 42.0
training
Exercise1
2.0
Lecture and Exercise
26 52.0
Other2
4.0
Opportunity to
Have the opportunity
8 16.0conduct risk
Don’t have the3
6.0
communication at opportunity
work
Unknown
39 78.0
Opportunity to
Have the opportunity
6 12.0conduct risk
Don’t have the
8 16.0communication
opportunity
by themselves
Unknown
36 72.0
Necessity of risk
Necessary
21 42.0
communicator
Unnecessary
29 58.0
4.5 Seminar needs by qualification and by section
Regarding the seminar content, 34 (97.1%) of the 35 publichealth nurses and 100 (87.7%) of the 114 non-health nurses
requested risk communication.
The results of the analysis of seminar needs by qualificationand section are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
Regarding the format of the seminar, significantly more of those
who belonged to the school education section requested only
lectures and significantly fewer requested both lectures andexercises (χ2 = 8.13, df = 5, p = .02). Significantly more publichealth nurses preferred both lectures and exercises (χ2 = 6.35, df= 3, p = .01).
Regarding the method of holding the course, significantly
fewer of the participants belonging to the health section wanted
to complete the course in one session and significantly morewanted to complete it in one session with a follow-up session.
Significantly more belonging to the section related to school
education wanted a single session, and significantly fewer desired
multiple sessions. Significantly more of those belonging to thesection on nuclear countermeasures wanted to hold the meeting
more than once (χ2 = 16.38, df = 8, p = .01). Significantly fewerof the public health nurses preferred a single session andsignificantly more preferred a single session with follow-up (χ2 =17.40, df = 8, p = .000).
Regarding the days of the week when they were more likely toattend; significantly fewer participants in the school education

32

H. Narita,

R. Kidachi, M. Yamada,H. Kudo, K. Kudo, M. Osanai,

sector preferred weekdays and significantly more preferredweekends (χ2 = 6.70, df = 5, p = .04).
Significantly fewer participants belonging to the health section
were aware of the possibility of attending a seminar as a businesstrip, and significantly more were uncertain. Participants
belonging to the nuclear preparedness section were significantly
more likely to recognize the possibility of attending a seminar as
a business trip, and significantly fewer were uncertain (χ2 = 7.86,
df = 5, p = .02).

T. Tsujiguchi,

K. Ogura, M. Tanaka

With regard to conducting risk communication on their own,
significantly fewer participants in the school education sector
perceived that they had the opportunity to engage in risk
communication, and significantly more participants perceived
that they did not. For the item on nuclear preparedness,significantly more participants perceived that they had theopportunity and significantly fewer perceived that they did not(χ2 = 11.70, df = 8, p = .02).

Table 5

Needs for training by qualification (Unit: persons)Job position
Question item
ChoicesPublic health nurses
n
res
%
n
Required form of training
Lecture7-2.52 21.2
49(n = 140)
Lecture and Exercise
26
2.52 78.8
58
Training form for easy participation
Complete it all at once
16
-2.89 47.1
81
(n = 144)
Once and follow up
12
4.13 35.3
8
Step up6-0.19 17.6
21
χ2 test, Residuals are adjusted standardized residuals

Others
res
2.52
-2.52
2.89
-4.13
0.19

p
%
45.8
54.2
73.6
7.3
19.1

**

**

*

p < .05 **p < .01
Table 6

Needs for training by division (Unit: persons)Division

Question item

Choices
n

%

res

n

%

res

Nuclear power
measuren%res

Required form of
training (n = 140)

LectureLecture and Exercise
Once
Once and follow up
Step up
Weekday
Weekend
Have the opportunity
Don’t have theopportunity
Have the opportunity
Don’t have theopportunity

15
32
34
2
3
47
5
19

31.9
68.1
87.2
5.1
7.7
90.4
9.6
38.8

-1.39
1.39
-2.12
3.06
0.17
0.50
-0.50
-2.43

23
16
35
5
15
32
9
19

59.0
41.0
63.6
9.1
27.3
78.0
22.0
51.4

2.85
-2.85
3.09
-1.85
-2.07
-2.49
2.49
-0.21

18
36
28
13
9
53
3
37

33.3
66.7
56.0
26.0
18.0
94.6
5.4
66.1

-1.28
1.28
-0.75
-1.31
2.06
1.80
-1.80
2.55

30

61.2

2.43

18

48.6

0.21

19

33.9

-2.55

12

23.1

-0.76

6

14.6

-2.07

22

39.3

2.66

14

26.9

0.02

17

41.5

2.48

9

16.1

-2.30

Unknown

26

50.0

0.66

18

43.9

-0.36

25

44.6

-0.32

Training form for easy
participation (n = 144)
Required the dayof the week (n = 149)
Opportunity to conduct
risk communication atwork (n = 142)
Opportunity to conduct
risk communicationby themselves(n = 149)

HealthSchool education

p

*

*

*

*

*

χ2 test, Residuals are adjusted standardized residuals*p < .05

5. Discussion
5.1 Needs related to seminar organization and content
Approximately half of the participants wanted to participate ina risk communicator training seminar, 80% wanted to learn aboutboth radiation and risk communication, and 40% recognized thatthey needed a risk communicator. Similarly, a survey of local
government officials in the vicinity of nuclear power plants
published in 2016 found that about half wanted to gainⓒ2022 Health Sciences Researchknowledge about risk communication 14). It has been four years
since the survey in the previous study14), and it is reported that itis difficult to secure and maintain skills because municipal
employees are transferred every certain number of years
regardless of their positions, except for qualified personnel suchas public health nurses, teachers’ license holders, and employeesof sections related to nuclear power measures 17). As in theprevious study, more than half wanted to study risk
communication. Thus, it is suggested that there is a need for risk

33

Study on the necessity of radiation risk communicator training seminars:
Survey of local government employees around nuclear power plants
communicator training seminars for municipal employees in the
UPZ area.
On the other hand, about 30% of the participants wereuncertain about their desire to participate in the seminar, andabout 70% perceived the opportunity to implement risk
communication as uncertain. In implementing risk
communication, municipal employees would participate in an
administrative capacity, and although they believe that they will
also play the role of facilitator in the future, none are qualified 10),and their roles may not be divided. It may thus be difficult forthem to imagine opportunities to conduct risk communication
because municipal employees are transferred every certain
number of years regardless of their positions, except for qualified
personnel such as public health nurses, teachers, and employeesof sections related to nuclear power. However, approximately halfof the participants recognized the need for risk communicators,
and approximately 80% desired both radiation and risk
communication as seminar content. This suggests that even if
they are uncertain about their desire to attend the seminar or theopportunity to do so, they may recognize the need to learn aboutrisk communication.
Regarding the opportunity to conduct risk communication,
significantly more participants belonging to the section related tonuclear power measures recognized that they had the opportunity
to do so. Although residents, companies, and administrators are
not considered to have any specific qualifications for theirpositions in the section10), it is possible that they imagined more
opportunities to conduct risk communication than in othersections because they are in charge of radiation-related tasks dueto the characteristics of their section.
Significantly more staff members of the school education
section recognized that they had few opportunities to engage inrisk communication by themselves. In the risk communication
promotion measures published by the Risk Communication on
Science and Technology for Safety and Security and Social
Collaboration of MEXT, it is stipulated that teachers conduct risk
communication on earthquakes and tsunamis as part of disasterprevention education18), and it is possible that they do not imagine
risk communication on radiation. However, according to theReconstruction Agency’s strategy to dispel rumors and strengthenrisk communication, it is necessary for educators to understandcorrect knowledge and dispel misconceptions to promote anunderstanding of radiation among students 19). Risk
communication is also covered in teacher licensing courses 20),21),and it is expected that risk communication about radiation will be
conducted in schools in the future. Therefore, it is possible thatthe school education section, which participates in the educationof parents and local residents and responds to their diverse
opinions, will also be required to address the issue of risk
communication in the future.
Regarding the division of health, there was no significant
difference in the opportunity to conduct risk communication.
However, almost all the public health nurses who belonged to all
the health and health-related divisions wanted to hold seminars
on risk communication. Such nurses have continued to work forthe health of local residents, and immediately after the earthquakeⓒ2022 Health Sciences Researchand during the recovery process, they were similarly involved inrebuilding the health status and lives of local residents affectedby the nuclear power plant accident22). However, in 2014, 14% of
the surveyed public health nurses within UPZ areas participatedin risk communication training23), and it is possible that they
desired to participate in the seminar because they considered it
necessary for their future duties.
It was highlighted that a certain level of need was indicated forrisk communicator training seminars since the nuclear power
plant accident, and the fading of crisis awareness of radiation
risks has faded7), and despite the possibility that some sections
and qualifications may not be able to imagine opportunities toimplement risk communication. The fact that local government
officials who take administrative positions in risk communication
still have such needs is important because risk communication isrequired not only in times of disaster but also in normal times19),
and it is necessary to respond to these needs by holding risk
communication training seminars. Considering the content of theseminar, the following points should be considered. Whenconsidering the content of the seminar, it is necessary toincorporate content that imagines opportunities to conduct risk
communication according to the section and qualifications of theparticipants.
5.2 Needs related to seminar format
Approximately 50% of the participants requested not only
lectures but also exercises. According to a previous study, half ofthe local government officials had experience in conducting risk
communication 11), and it is possible that they experienced
difficulties in gaining an understanding of local government
officials through uniform manual explanation 1) and wanted
practical learning. The fact that exercises were incorporated into
the training programs for human resource development at the
Nuclear Human Resource Development Center 24), prefectures25),
and other levels of administration, suggests that exercises arenecessary for seminars on risk communication.
By qualification, public health nurses significantly preferredlectures and exercise. Such nurses have been engaged in practicalactivities for the health of local residents, and it is possible thatthey desired a seminar because it is a prerequisite for thedevelopment of their practical skills.
For occupations other than public health nurses, the adjusted
residual analysis revealed that only lectures were significantly
desired. However, the actual number of participants was similar
for both lectures and lectures and exercises. Although the numberof those who wanted to receive training was smaller than that of
public health nurses who significantly wanted to receive training,
we believe a certain number of staff members want skills in
addition to knowledge, as is the case with public health nurses.
Regarding those who requested only lectures, about half wereuncertain about the opportunities to conduct risk communicationand the necessity of risk communicators, and it is possible thatthey expected lectures to start with training in risk
communication.
5.3 Needs related to how seminars are held
Regarding the method of holding the seminar, about 70%

34

H. Narita,

R. Kidachi, M. Yamada,H. Kudo, K. Kudo, M. Osanai,

wanted it to be completed in one session, and about 90% in half
to one day. Given the problems reported by municipal employees
regarding external training, such as lack of time, personnel, andbudget26), it is possible that municipal employees desired aseminar that could be completed in one day or less, considering
its impact on their workplaces and jobs.
In terms of the day of the week, approximately 90% of theparticipants preferred weekdays, while those in the school
education section significantly preferred Saturdays and Sundays.
However, only 22.0% of the employees in the school education
section preferred to hold seminars on Saturdays and Sundays,
suggesting that employees in all sections may have preferred tohold seminars on weekdays. Since the participants of this survey
were municipal employees and it can be assumed that they workon weekdays and take weekends off, they would like seminars tobe held on weekdays so that they could participate in them as partof their work. However, because problems such as lack of time,
manpower, and budget have been highlighted for external
training of municipal employees26), it is possible that even if
seminars were held on weekdays, few people would be able toattend. Regarding participation in seminars, approximately halfof the participants were aware that their workplaces allowed themto participate in business trips and provided transportation
expenses. Therefore, we believe that it is possible to holdseminars on weekdays to meet these needs.
The fact that a certain number of participants wished toparticipate in the seminar as part of their work and expected toobtain an understanding from their workplaces regarding their
participation suggests that municipal officials in the UPZ areas
recognize risk communication as part of their own work. It canalso be assumed that they are considering participating with theassumption that they will conduct risk communication from an
administrative standpoint. When holding a seminar, it is also
necessary to consider covering risk communications from an
administrative perspective.

6. Limitation
The heads of divisions in local governments around nuclear
power plants were sent questionnaires and were requested to
distribute them to participants in this study. The questionnaires
were not probably reached to all participants. In addition,
participants may not have answered the questions because they
were asked to respond using the internet. Therefore, the collection
rate might have been lower than otherwise. However, the findingsof this study are valuable because few reports have investigatedand analyzed the need for radiation risk communicator training
seminars among local government employees around nuclear
power plants nationwide.

ⓒ2022 Health Sciences Research

K. Ogura, M. Tanaka

need to hold them on weekdays within one day into account. The
results of this survey may serve as reference material when
considering the content, form, and method of holding seminars.

8. Conflicts of Interest
This study was funded by the Division of Radiation Risk
Communication Education, Committee for Promotion of Human
Resource Development in Radiation Exposure Medicine,
Hirosaki University Graduate School of Health Sciences.

References
1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

7. Concluding Remarks
There is a demand for seminars on radiation and risk
communication for employees working in municipalities in the
UPZ area. Seminars need to include not only lectures, but also
exercises, and it is necessary to consider how to develop seminars
according to the type of work. When holding seminars, it isnecessary to consider how to do so, taking the fact that there is a

T. Tsujiguchi,

12)

13)

Reconstruction Agency, "Number of evacuees nationwide,"
https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat2/sub-cat21/20220428_kouhou1.pdf (2022-8-3)
Nuclear Energy Response Headquarters, "Report of theGovernment of Japan to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on
Nuclear Safety - Regarding the Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima
Nuclear Power Station,"
https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/topics/2011/pdf/houkokusyo_full.pdf(2022-8-3)
Chuo Chosa-sha, "The impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake
on Japanese people’s attitudes and behavior, JGSS-2012 (Japan
General Social Survey-2012),"
http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp/research/news/news_J12.pdf (2022-8-3)
Reconstruction Agency, "Package of measures on radiation risk
communication for return home,"
https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat1/sub-cat11/20140218_risk_communication_package_all.pdf (2022-8-3)
Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, "Basic Guidelines for
Accelerating Fukushima Recovery from Nuclear Disaster,"
https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/kinkyu/pdf/2016/1220_
01.pdf (2022-8-3)
Ministry of the Environment, "Training sessions, etc.,"
https://www.env.go.jp/chemi/rhm/shiencenter/study_group.html(2022-8-3)
Fukushima Prefecture Construction Technology Association,"Results of Questionnaire on “Reputations and Rumors” of theGreat East Japan Earthquake,"
http://fukken.net/dobokukikaku_anke-to/enquete0329.pdf (2022-83)
Fukushima Minyu Shimbun, "[Radiation Education (1)] “Sense ofcrisis” in the waning interest,"
https://www.minyu-net.com/serial/f-kodomo/FM20150603009712.php (2022-8-3)
I. Horiguchi, "Study on risk communication as a response to the
Fukushima nuclear power plant accident," Health and Medical
Science, vol.62, no.2, pp.150-156, 2013.
Ministry of the Environment, "Citizen’s Guidebook forInterpreting PRTR Data: From the Results of the Tabulation in FY
2008, issued September 2020,"
http://www.env.go.jp/chemi/prtr/archive/guide_H30/zenbun.pdf(2022-8-3)
Ministry of the Environment, "Status of risk communication
activities related to radiation,"
http://josen.env.go.jp/plaza/info/data/pdf/data_1909_11.pdf (20228-3)
Reconstruction Agency, "Status of implementation of the packageof measures on radiation risk communication for return (H29.1),"
https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat1/sub-cat11/170224_risukomijisshijoukyou.pdf (2022-8-3)
Ministry of the Environment, "Support Center for Radiation Risk
Communication Consultants Training Course,"

35

Study on the necessity of radiation risk communicator training seminars:
Survey of local government employees around nuclear power plants
https://www.env.go.jp/chemi/rhm/shiencenter/study_group.html(2022-8-3)
14) R. Kidachi, M. Yamada, R. Narita, et al., "Awareness of necessity
for radiation risk communication among municipalities adjacent tonuclear power plants in Japan," Radiation Environment andMedicine, vol.5, no.2, pp.39-43, 2016.
15) K. Norikane, M. Yamada, R. Kidachi, et al., "A case study of theeffects of teaching radiation risk communication to local
government officials," Radiation Environment and Medicine,vol.7, no.1, pp.37-41, 2018.
16) Prime Minister’s Residence," Key points of risk communicationand consensus building in reconstruction,"
https://www.kantei.go.jp/saigai/senmonka_g57.html (2022-8-3)17) Fire and Disaster Management Agency, "Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications: Report of the Study Group on
Disaster Information Dissemination by Local Governments: Basic
Ideas for the Development, Management, and Training ofInformation Dissemination to Residents,"
https://www.fdma.go.jp/singi_kento/kento/items/kento104_14_hou
kokusho.pdf (2022-8-3)18) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology,"Measures to Promote Risk Communication,"
https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/gijyutu/gijyutu2/064/houko
ku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/04/25/1347292_1.pdf (2022-8-3)
19) Reconstruction Agency, "Strategy for Dispelling Rumors andStrengthening Risk Communication,"
https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/main-cat1/sub-cat14/fuhyou/20171212_01_kyoukasenryaku.pdf (2022-8-3)20) Hirosaki University, "Syllabus for the 2021 Hirosaki University
Teachers’ License Renewal Course,"
http://niad.sakura.ne.jp/202106_kouhyou/08_hirosaki/E0808/0808iD-2.pdf (2022-8-3)21) Kansai University Teaching Support Center, "2019 Teacher’s
License Renewal Course,"
https://www.kansai-u.ac.jp/kyoshoku/extend/files/2019/s_1.pdf(2022-8-3)22) K. Matsukawa, "Survey of knowledge of radiation among publichealth nurses in prefectures where nuclear power plants arelocated," Journal of the Japanese Society of Radiation Nursing,vol.4, no.1, pp.1-11, 2016.
23) Y. Noguchi, S. Tsubokura, "Activities to prevent secondary healthhazards by municipal public health nurses after an earthquake bycapturing residents’ reactions," Journal of Japan Society ofDisaster Nursing, vol.17, no.3, pp.58-67, 2016.
24) Japan Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Human Resource
Development Center, "13th Basic Course on Risk
Communication,"
https://nutec.jaea.go.jp/training_other01.html (2022-8-3)25) Ministry of the Environment, "Implementation of Risk
Communication on Radiation Health Concerns,"
http://www.env.go.jp/chemi/rhm/post_3.html (2022-8-3)
26) Y. Araki, N. Arai, K. Kurata, et al., "Role of prefecture-wide
disaster prevention training for local government officials,"
Proceedings of the Japan Society for Regional Safety Studies,vol.37, pp.351-358, 2020.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Municipality of Town A and allparticipants for their cooperation in conducting this study.

ⓒ2022 Health Sciences Research36

H. Narita,

R. Kidachi, M. Yamada,H. Kudo, K. Kudo, M. Osanai,

T. Tsujiguchi,

K. Ogura, M. Tanaka【報告】
放射線リスク・コミュニケーター
育成セミナーの必要性に関する研究-原子力発電所周辺自治体職員への調査成田秀貴*1 木立るり子*2 山田基矢*1 工藤ひろみ*1 工藤幸清*1
小山内暢*1 辻口貴清*3 小倉巧也*4 田中真*1（2022 年 6 月 14 日受付，2022 年 8 月 24 日受理）
要旨：福島第一原子力発電所の事故後，住民に対して被災直後から行われてきた支援のひとつである放射線リスク・
コミュニケーションは発展途上にあるいわれている。セミナー等が開催されているものの，原子力発電所周辺の自治体職員に望まれる研修内容や開催方法に関する全国的な調査は少ない。そこで今後の育成セミナーの開催に向けて，対象者の望む研修内容や開催方法に関する全国的な質問紙調査を実施した。地方自治体 121 施設における原子力対策に関する課，学校教育に関する課，保健・健康に関する課へ 3 部ずつ合計 1,089 部の質問紙調査票を郵送し，回収した 149 部を分析対象とした。放射線リスク・コミュニケーションを実施する機会があるという認識は所属ごとに異なったが，全体的にセミナーへの参加希望が多かった。セミナーの内容には放射線に関する知識だけでなく放射線リスク・コミュニケーションの内容も希望され，セミナーの形態は講義と演習の両方を希望するものが多かった。放射線リスク・コミュニケーターに必要と考えられる知識は，約 6 割が放射線に関する知識，約 5 割がリス
ク・コミュニケーションの知識であった。セミナーの開催方法については平日かつ 1 日の終了が希望され，仕事としての参加，交通費は支給されるものという認識が多かった。本調査の結果は，放射線リスク・コミュニケーター
育成セミナーを開催する際に，セミナーの内容や開催方法などを検討するための基礎資料となる。

キーワード：放射線リスク・コミュニケーション，原子力発電所事故，人材育成，地方自治体職員*1 弘前大学大学院保健学研究科〒036-8564 青森県弘前市本町 66-1 TEL:0172-33-5111*2 青森中央学院大学〒030-0132 青森県青森市横内字神田 12 TEL:017-728-0131*3 弘前大学被ばく医療連携推進機構〒036-8564 青森県弘前市本町 66-1 TEL:0172-33-5111*4 北海道科学大学保健医療学部〒006-8585 北海道札幌市手稲区前田 7 条 15 丁目 4-1
TEL:011-681-2161
Correspondence Author narita1416@hirosaki-u.ac.jpⓒ2022 Health Sciences Research37