Risk Communication Activities of JAEA after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident

1

Hirofumi Takashita

Risk Communication Study Office Tokai Research and Development Center

Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)

2

Contents

Japan

Location

Tokai Research and Development Center (Tokai Center) of JAEA

3

4

Risk Communication Activities after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Main purpose : To reduce residents’anxiety and concerns about radiation risk

★Explanatory meetings on radiation and its health effects

Ibaraki: Start in May 2011, 90 meetings, ∼7,200 participants.

Fukushima: Start in July 2011, 232 meetings, ∼18,700 participants. （as of Dec. 2013）

★Risk communication with Fukushima residents during whole-body counting (WBC) examinations

Start at Tokai Center of JAEA in July 2011.

Tokai Center screened ∼22,000 residents (as of Dec. 2013).

Create slides with messages

Form dispatch team

Listen to participants’ needs and questions

Prepare explanation slides and answers to the questions

Hold the meeting

Evaluate the effects by analyzing questionnaires

Answer questions received after the meeting

5

Implementation Process of Explanatory Meetings

Explanatory Meeting

6

Explanation using slides

Question and answer session

Flow of the meeting

Radiation measurement experiment (in Ibaraki pref.)

JAEA has taken internal dose measurements of Fukushima residents using whole-body counters.

7

Risk Communication during WBC Examinations

Whole-body counting Explanation and risk communication

Tokai Center of JAEA has implemented risk communication with the examinees and their families.

Awareness of Residents in Fukushima and Ibaraki Prefectures

8

Analysis period covered From the start to Oct. 2012

Questionnaire survey at the explanatory meetings and the WBC examination

Survey participants Participants of the meetings, WBC examinees (and their families)

• Ibaraki → Ibaraki residents

• Fukushima → Fukushima residents outside of the evacuation area

• WBC → Fukushima residents in the evacuation area and its surrounding area

(Mainly)

53

43

3

1

0

41

50

6

1

2

0% 20% 40% 60%

Ibaraki（N=1237)

Fukushima（N=518)

2012 yr.

53

43

3

0

1

33

56

7

1

3

0% 20% 40% 60%

Well

Somewhat

Not so much

None

No answerIbaraki（N=1910）

Fukushima（N=1528)

2011 yr.

Degree of Understanding

9

Most participants understood the contents of the meetings.

“Well” + “Somewhat” understood : Ibaraki → ∼ 96%, Fukushima → ∼ 90%

10

Degree of Reduced Anxiety

29

59

8

2

2

47

46

5

2

0

0% 20% 40% 60%

Well

Somewhat

Not so much

None

No answerIbaraki（N=1910）

WBC（N=3311)

2011 yr.

36

55

6

1

2

54

40

4

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60%

Ibaraki（N=1237)

WBC（N=4141)

2012 yr.

Most participants and WBC examinees experienced reduced anxiety. “Well” + “Somewhat” reduced :

Ibaraki → ∼ 90%, WBC → ∼ 93%

11

“Radiation and its health effects,” “Food” : Top two items “Food” increased, “Soil” decreased in 2012.

Items Related to Anxiety and Worry

64

63

27

21

14

6

4

66

42

26

23

20

19

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Radiation and

its health effects

Food

Soil

Prenatal radiation

exposure

Water

Air dose rate

Others

Fukushima（N=1349)

WBC（N=2438）

2011 yr.

60

66

21

19

20

9

5

66

54

22

19

20

18

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Fukushima（N=413)

WBC（N=3129）

2012 yr.

(Two items selected)

10

14

26

49

1

16

20

30

26

8

0% 20% 40% 60%

Often

Sometimes

Hardly ever

Never

No answerFukushima（N=1528)

WBC（N=2702)

10

14

31

44

1

9

11

29

41

10

0% 20% 40% 60%

Fukushima（N=518)

WBC（N=3459）

12

Frequency of Obtaining Radiation Information before the Accident

“Often” + “Sometimes”： Fukushima → 24%（2011）, 24%（2012）

WBC → 36%（2011）, 20%（2012）

Frequency is rather high for people who lived near nuclear plants.

2011 yr. 2012 yr.

13

Important Points of Nuclear Information “Accuracy,” “Clarity,” and “Rapidity” are important. Important points have not changed drastically in areas. In 2012, top 3 items do not change and “Usefulness” increases.

81

71

56

24

30

9

15

6

7

1

89

66

44

22

36

9

14

10

8

1

78

65

62

34

26

15

9

8

3

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ibaraki（N=1015） Fukushima（N=459) WBC（N=2740)

2012 yr.

85

69

56

29

25

10

15

5

4

1

91

65

53

28

29

10

13

5

5

2

81

64

60

34

21

18

8

8

3

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Accuracy

Clarity

Rapidity

Risk description

Usefulness

Detailed

Neutrality

Comprehensiveness

Interest

Others

Ibaraki（N=1646） Fukushima（N=1360) WBC（N=2269）

2011 yr.

(Three items selected) (Three items selected)

Summary（1/2）

14

Questionnaire Survey of Residents

Risk Communication Activities after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Risk communication during WBC examinations

Explanatory meetings about radiation ・in Ibaraki. ・in Fukushima.

Evaluation of our risk communication activities :

Most participants and examinees understood our explanation and reduced their anxiety.

Anxiety and worry : • Top 2 items were “Radiation and its health effects” and “Food.” • “Food” increased and “Soil” decreased from 2011 to 2012.

Summary（2/2）

15

Frequency of obtaining radiation information : Low

Important points of nuclear information :

• Top 3 items were “Accuracy,” “Clarity,” and “Rapidity.” • “Usefulness” increased from 2011 to 2012.

We should explain radiation health effects and food contamination.

Useful information (ex. radiation exposure reduction methods) should also be provided.

We should use exact and plain words and avoid technical terms or jargon.

Active listening and sympathizing with affected residents are important in risk communication.