Report on “Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies”

Course: Radioactivity Social Recovery Course
Name: Fumie YAMAGUCHI

Regarding “Radiation Disaster Recovery Studies”
Radiation disasters result in enormous consequences for environmental contamination,
health, and society. Radioactive materials released by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster spread overEurope, and it has been pointed out that the problems were economic and psychological, not healthrelated or environmental, in most areas (World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy
Agency, & United Nations Development Programme, 2005). United Nations Scientific Committee onthe Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) estimated that the most important health effect from the2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster is on mental and social well-being, related to the enormous impact of
the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk ofexposure to radiation (United Nations, 2014).
Radiation disasters also have an indirect effect on health, such as with diabetes, andpsychological distress, which could be seen after the Fukushima disaster. For example, the prevalenceof lifestyle diseases, especially diabetes, among evacuees has increased significantly. Diabetes itself islinked to various health risks, including cancer, stroke, and heart attack. Previous research revealed
that the average additional risk of diabetes among those in their 40s to 70s was much higher than therisk of direct radiation consequences (Murakami, Tsubokura, Ono, Nomura, & Oikawa, 2017). It has
also been shown that the risk of psychological distress was strikingly higher than the direct risks fromradiation exposure (Murakami, Tsubokura, Ono, & Maeda, 2018). It should be noted that radiation
disaster effects on health indirectly.
Issues in the process of recovery from a radiation disaster include conflict over returning
home, putting evacuees’ lives back in order, maintenance of life circumstances and community,
reconstruction of industrial damage, and protecting the children’s future (Shimizu, 2013). In theseprocesses, there are several opportunities for group-consensus building. International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) emphasized the importance of stakeholder involvement in their1

recommendation for the protection of people living in long-term contaminated areas resulting from anuclear disaster (ICRP, 2009). In the case of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, communication withthe public on recovery activities is essential to build trust (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015).
To communicate effectively, it is necessary for experts to understand the information needs of theaffected population and to provide understandable information through relevant means, andcommunication improved in the aftermath of the accident, and the affected population became
increasingly involved in decision making and remediation measures (International Atomic Energy
Agency, 2015).
A round-table meeting in Kashiwa city, Chiba prefecture is an example of group-consensus
building in which various stakeholders were involved. Although Kashiwa city is located more than
200 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, a high dose of radiation was found in theair in some parts of the city. As a consequence, a farmer’s market’s sales decreased by 40%. A roundtable meeting group was then established by farmers, consumers, distributors, and restaurants. Basedon a series of discussions, they established a voluntary limit of 20 Bq/kg, which is one-fifth of thenational limit, 100 Bq/kg, for general food. The director of the meeting said communication thatinvolved a feeling of human trust, rather than a discussion on numbers, removed consumers’ anxiety(Inoue, 2013). This suggests that the communication style was important for group-consensus
building.
The Fukushima disaster provoked an increase in the avoidance of nuclear energy, especiallyin Japan. In such circumstances, how can a convincing group-consensus be built on nuclear-relatedprojects? My doctoral dissertation focused on procedural justice as a key factor in the building ofconvincing group-consensus. It investigated functions of procedural justice in the process of attitudechanges on nuclear-related projects, and suggested a model of acceptance for such measures andfacilities.
References
ICRP (2009). Application of the commission's recommendations to the protection of people living in longterm contaminated areas after a nuclear accident or a radiation Emergency, ICRP Publication 111.
Annals of the ICRP, 39(3).
Inoue, H. (2013). Post-3.11, Collaboration on “safety and security” of local foods. Sotokoto Online.
Retrieved from https://www.sotokoto.net/jp/interview/?id=78 (January 15, 2019. In Japanese,translated by the author of this article)

2International Atomic Energy Agency (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, Report by the Director
General. Vienna; IAEA.
Murakami, M. Tsubokura, M., Ono., & Maeda, M. (2018). New “loss of happy life expectancy” indicator
and its use in risk comparison after Fukushima disaster. Science of The Total Environment. 615. 15271534.
Murakami, M., Tsubokura, M., Ono, K., Nomura, S., & Oikawa, T. (2017) Additional risk of diabetes
exceeds the increased risk of cancer caused by radiation exposure after the Fukushima disaster. PLoSONE, 12(9): e0185259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185259
Shimizu, S. (2013). Recovery from Nuclear Disaster. In S. Shimizu, N. Matsuoka, & H. Shimodaira (Eds.),
Introduction to Disaster Recovery Studies from Tohoku Region (pp. 120-143). Yamagata: Yamagata
University Press. (In Japanese, translated by the author of this article)
United Nations (2014). Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation (Report to General Assembly),
UNSCEAR 2013 Report, Volume I, Scientific Annex A: Levels and Effects of Radiation ExposureDue to the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.
World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, & United Nations Development
Programme (2015). Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. World Health Organization. Retrieved
from https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ (January 15, 2019)

Title of Doctoral Thesis
Studies on procedural justice for the acceptance of nuclear-related projects

Summary of Doctoral Thesis
NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) problems involve a contradiction in which people recognizethat facilities contribute to the public interest, but oppose the construction of such facilities near theirhomes. The construction of nuclear-related facilities (e.g., high-level radioactive waste facilities, andnuclear power plants), is a typical example of a NIMBY problem. Research on social acceptance of
NIMBY facilities has indicated that high procedural justice increases trust and social acceptance ofplans made by operating bodies. “Procedural justice” is defined as the fairness of group rules anddecision-making processes, and is distinguished from distributive justice. Research on the acceptanceof nuclear-related projects showed that procedural justice has a stronger effect than other factors on theperception of fair judgments. Perceived risk, perceived benefit, and trust in the authorities are common
determinants of people’s acceptance of nuclear-related projects. Procedural justice is strongly related
to trust. There is little agreement on the strength of procedural justice toward acceptance of nuclearrelated projects. This disagreement could be explained by the elaboration likelihood model (ELM;3Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), which is a representative theory of attitude change. It describes twostrategies for changing one’s attitude. If people have high motivation or ability regarding an issue,
they change their attitude through a high-load process using central information (e.g., perceived risk,perceived benefit). On the other hand, if people have low motivation or ability, they change theirattitude through a low-load process using peripheral information (e.g., procedural justice, trust).
Although procedural justice is considered to be evaluated by consistence, bias suppression, accuracy,
correctability, representativeness, ethicality, information disclosure, opportunities for participation(Leventhal, 1980), and the sense of values, these factors have been investigated respectively. The
purpose of this doctoral study was twofold: to investigate the role of procedural justice toward theacceptance of nuclear-related projects in terms of ELM; and to investigate factors affecting perceived
procedural justice on nuclear-related projects. In this study, strength of interest in an issue was defined
as levels of motivation and ability.
First, a scenario-based experiment regarding consensus-building around NIMBY facilities
was conducted with the aim of investigating the effects of procedural justice toward the acceptance ofnuclear-related facilities. The results suggest that procedural justice increases the level of acceptancewith results even with a loss in profits.
Second, a longitudinal questionnaire was conducted before and after restarting operations atnuclear power plants (NPPs). The aim was to investigate, using ELM, the effects of and changes in theperceived benefit, perceived procedural justice, and trust in the government and operators on asituation-dependent acceptance of restarting NPPs in Japan. The results revealed that trust, in addition
to procedural justice and perceived benefit, is necessary for the acceptance of the NPP restart.
Third, a questionnaire was conducted to investigate factors influencing perceived procedural
justice concerning the decontamination of areas affected by the Fukushima disaster. The results
indicated that determinants of perceived procedural justice were different depending on people’s levels
of interest in the decontamination. The results indicated that various factors were associated withperceived procedural justice, which was based on the perceived necessity for decontamination.
Moreover, inappropriate procedures, as well as trust in the government and the operators had animpact on perceived procedural justice in groups indicating both a high and a low necessity fordecontamination. Especially, the interpersonal factor and information disclosure increased perceived
procedural justice only in the group suggesting a low necessity for decontamination.

4

To conclude, a series of studies suggest a model for the acceptance of nuclear-related
projects: perceived benefit, perceived risk, and procedural justice are used in both high and low levelsof elaboration likelihood; however, different factors increased perceived procedural justice depending
on elaboration likelihood. Furthermore, trust has a moderating effect for perceived benefit in thecentral route of ELM, and for perceived procedural justice in the peripheral route of ELM. The
findings of this study showed the importance of bidirectional communication, and of increasing bothprocedural justice and trust to build a convincing group-consensus on nuclear-related projects.

References
Leventhal, G. S.(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairnessin social relationships. In Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. & Willis, R. (eds.) Social exchanges: Advancesin theory and research(pp.27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, In L. Berkowitz(Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(pp.123-205), New York: Academic Press.

Other theses published in academic research journals
Yamaguchi, F. & Sakata, K. (in press). Effect of Fairness on Acceptance of High-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facilities. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima
University, I Studies in Human Sciences, 13. (In Japanese with English abstract)

Yamaguchi, F. & Sakata, K. (in press). Factors Influencing Perceived Procedural Justice about
Decontamination after Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis. (InJapanese with English abstract)5