# Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

Hello, I am Toshiko Kato, the first author of Reference 151 cited in this article.
The current description in the article reads: "However, the authors of a dose-response relationship study from 2023 also claimed that the incidence of thyroid cancer may be underreported due to societal and political pressure." [151]
This is incorrect and does not reflect the conclusion of our paper.
The actual conclusion of our study was: "The linear dose–response of thyroid cancer incidence showed that childhood thyroid cancer in Fukushima originated from radiation exposure. The observed EAR/Gy in Fukushima, which was 50–100 times higher than in Chernobyl, indicated that UNSCEAR substantially underestimated the thyroid dose compared with Chernobyl. The increased incidence of thyroid cancer in Fukushima was found to arise from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl."
Reference: Kato T, Yamada K, Hongyo T. *Area Dose–Response and Radiation Origin of Childhood Thyroid Cancer in Fukushima Based on Thyroid Dose in UNSCEAR 2020/2021: High 131I Exposure Comparable to Chernobyl.* Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4583. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184583
I kindly request that the incorrect description be corrected so that the article accurately reflects the conclusion of our study.
Thank you for your assistance. Katotoshiko (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kato,
Out of an abundance of caution for misinformation, I will remove this from the article until further review by myself or other editors. I believe you may also edit the article in accordance with WP:COI though there may be additional (automatic) restrictions on this article that I am unsure of. Czarking0 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The current article incorrectly states that our 2023 study claimed that the incidence of thyroid cancer was underreported due to societal and political pressure. Our paper did not make such a claim. In fact:

We did not question the incidence data published by Fukushima Prefecture.
We concluded that UNSCEAR 2020/2021 thyroid dose estimates were underestimated because of the lack of reliable direct thyroid dose measurements.
The article therefore misrepresents our findings by confusing incidence with dose estimation.
I suggest replacing the current sentence with the following, which accurately reflects the study’s conclusion:"The authors of a 2023 dose–response study reported that thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima Prefecture increased linearly with the average thyroid dose estimated by UNSCEAR 2020/2021, and concluded that the underestimated thyroid dose suggests that the increased thyroid cancer arose from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl."Reference: T. Kato et al. Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4583. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184583 Katotoshiko (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I am following up because this edit request was previously marked as answered, but the inclusion of the study has not yet been resolved.  
Just following up to ask if there has been any further discussion or decision regarding the inclusion of this study.  
I understand that reviews can take time, but I would appreciate any update or reconsideration of the request.  
I propose replacing the removed sentence with the following, which accurately reflects the study and is neutrally phrased:
"A 2023 dose–response study by Kato et al. reported that thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima Prefecture increased linearly with the average thyroid dose estimated by UNSCEAR 2020/2021, and concluded that the increased thyroid cancer arose from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl."
Reference: Kato T, Yamada K, Hongyo T. Area Dose–Response and Radiation Origin of Childhood Thyroid Cancer in Fukushima Based on Thyroid Dose in UNSCEAR 2020/2021: High 131I Exposure Comparable to Chernobyl. Cancers. 2023;15(18):4583. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184583 Katotoshiko (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This is COI request not a protected edit request. I believe Kato is following proper procedure Czarking0 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see a COI declared anywhere, but maybe I missed it.  Also, COI requests should use {{Edit COI}} not {{edit semi-protected}}. meamemg (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
COI is that the requesting user claims to be the other of the study. You can't expect new users to know all the different edit request tags Czarking0 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please change the following text in the article:
"However, the authors of a dose-response relationship study from 2023 also claimed that the incidence of thyroid cancer may be underreported due to societal and political pressure." [151]
to:
"A 2023 dose–response relationship study by Kato et al. reported that thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima Prefecture increased linearly with the average thyroid dose estimated by UNSCEAR 2020/2021, and concluded that the increased thyroid cancer arose from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl." [151] Katotoshiko (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This is COI request not a protected edit request. I believe Kato is following proper procedure Czarking0 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
For now I am inclined to leave this out of the article. I understand what you are saying here that UNSCEAR 2020/2021 underestimated the dose, but that the observed incidence scaled linearly with the estimated dose. I'll also note that your study relies on taking a correction factor from observation of the Chernobyl data and presents an odds-ratio at the 95% CI. I see six citations and one published correction. From reading your article, my main take away is that over-diagnosis is hard to estimate and that there is no scientific consensus on the level of over diagnosis. On a possibly related note, can you elaborate on why your study only considers 10-year-old children? Or maybe I misunderstood that? Czarking0 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the careful reading of my article. To clarify, UNSCEAR provides estimated thyroid dose data for adults, 10-year-old children, and 1-year-old infants. The reference to age 10 was used as a representative example for the dose–response calculation, but the analysis covered the full population included in the Fukushima screening data, i.e., residents aged 0–18 years in 2011. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. Katotoshiko (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok thanks I missed that important context. I still stand by my conclusions that removing referenced to this study in this article is the best course of action right now, but others might disagree? Czarking0 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I originally found the citation through the "Cited by" function in CrossRef/PubMed, where the Wikipedia article was listed at the time, though it no longer appears there.
Regarding the removal, I would prefer that the reference remain, since the study is peer-reviewed and directly relevant to the topic. While I respect your perspective, I could not find specific reasons for deletion, and I find it difficult to understand removing it without such justification. Of course, I am open to consensus from other editors. Katotoshiko (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
My immediate reason for removing it was preventing misinformation. My reason for keeping it out now is unconnected to the fact that it was in the article beforehand. "peer-reviewed and directly relevant to the topic" - agreed however, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of sources that meet this criteria and the article should not include all of them. I don't think the conclusions of this study significantly shift what should be stated in the two paragraphs and table starting with The World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and researchers from other groups and ending with baseline rates which it the part of the article to which I believe this study would belong. Czarking0 (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your concern about “misinformation.” Our paper used only UNSCEAR 2020/2021 thyroid dose estimates and FHMS screening reports, and the incidence–dose relationship can be independently reproduced. The study adds value because it shows a significant linear dose–response (p ≤ 0.01) using UNSCEAR’s own estimates, and reports an EAR/Gy about 60–140 times higher than in Chernobyl, suggesting that UNSCEAR may have underestimated Fukushima doses. This contribution is not duplicated in the WHO, UNSCEAR, or other sources already cited. Katotoshiko (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
For future use, can I ask how you even came to find your work cited on this page? Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to have been late of answering your question. I found via link listed in my paper in Cancers.
Just following up to ask if there has been any further discussion or decision regarding the inclusion of this study. I understand that reviews can take time, but I would appreciate any update on the current status. Katotoshiko (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! There has not been further discussion you can check the discussion history for the entire topic here. I think my current comment "I don't think the conclusions of this study significantly shift what should be stated in the two paragraphs" represents the matter as it currently stands but others are welcome to disagree with me and I may just be mistaken. Czarking0 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a COI edit request. I am the author of the cited paper, so I will not edit the page directly. 
I request review and implementation by uninvolved editors. Thank you.

I reviewed the answers and Czarking0 has reasonable explanations for their refusal. I'm not going to interfere with the discretion that they exercised when declining the request. Also, the proposed rewrite has a bit of a Captain Obvious vibe. Excess radiation causes cancer and any person with a basic school biology and/or physics background should know it. Closing. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)