Erik R Svendsen1, Ichiro Yamaguchi2, Toshihide Tsuda3, Jean Remy Davee Guimaraes4, Martin Tondel5. 1. Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon Street, Suite 303, MSC 835, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. esvendse@tulane.edu. 2. Department of Environmental Health, National Institute of Public Health, 2-3-6, Minami, Wako City, Saitama, 351-0197, Japan. 3. Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Okayama City, 700-8530, Japan. 4. Inst. de Biofisica Carlos Chagas Filho, Lab. de Tracadores, Bloco G, CCS, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil. 5. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Ullerakersvagen 40, SE-751 85, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: It has been difficult to both mitigate the health consequences and effectively provide health risk information to the public affected by the Fukushima radiological disaster. Often, there are contrasting public health ethics within these activities which complicate risk communication. Although no risk communication strategy is perfect in such disasters, the ethical principles of risk communication provide good practical guidance. FINDINGS: These discussions will be made in the context of similar lessons learned after radiation exposures in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987; the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, Ukraine, in 1986; and the attack at the World Trade Center, New York, USA, in 2001. Neither of the two strategies is perfect nor fatally flawed. Yet, this discussion and lessons from prior events should assist decision makers with navigating difficult risk communication strategies in similar environmental health disasters.
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: It has been difficult to both mitigate the health consequences and effectively provide health risk information to the public affected by the Fukushima radiological disaster. Often, there are contrasting public health ethics within these activities which complicate risk communication. Although no risk communication strategy is perfect in such disasters, the ethical principles of risk communication provide good practical guidance. FINDINGS: These discussions will be made in the context of similar lessons learned after radiation exposures in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987; the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, Ukraine, in 1986; and the attack at the World Trade Center, New York, USA, in 2001. Neither of the two strategies is perfect nor fatally flawed. Yet, this discussion and lessons from prior events should assist decision makers with navigating difficult risk communication strategies in similar environmental health disasters.
Keywords:
Ethics; Fukushima accident; Management; Radiation; Risk communication
Authors: G M Kendall; M P Little; R Wakeford; K J Bunch; J C H Miles; T J Vincent; J R Meara; M F G Murphy Journal: Leukemia Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar Solano; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklof; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-06-29
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21