After the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (1F), the Japanese Journal of Health Physics, by the Japan Health Physics Society (JHPS), has published many articles related to the 1F accident [1]. The JHPS established a working group (WG) to explore the findings and issues from the 1F accident, look back on the last 11 years, and provide information from a new perspective.

The WG classified the articles related to the 1F accident published until March 2022 into four areas: (1) risk communication, (2) environmental monitoring, (3) dosimetry and dose assessment, and (4) radiation medicine and radioactive waste, to explore and provide insight on the lessons learned from the 1F accident and disseminate that information. This report summarizes various articles related to the opinions and others that are excluded from (1)–(4). Totaling 47 articles, the breakdown of the reviewed articles by the JHPS submission categories is as follows: including (1) 13 ‘Special articles’; (2) one ‘Original article’ (including research results that include new and valuable conclusions or useful facts); (3) one ‘Review article’; (4) two ‘Report’ (This type of manuscript includes ideas for radiation protection practices and research and development issue); (5) six ‘Topic’ (The contents of ‘Topic’ in the JHPS is general information, excluding research and development or technical content such as radiation protection practices); (6) three ‘Japan to the World (J to W)’; and (7) one description on ‘Radiation protection in the world (RPW).’ Furthermore, 20 articles were published in the ‘Foreword’ (This means the remarks prepared when each issue is published, and stakeholders from various positions give their opinions). This study presents an overview of these 47 articles.

The JHPS held three symposia in June, August, and December 2011 in response to the 1F accident. Table 1 lists the contents of the presentations at these three symposia. The summaries and individual presentations of these symposia were also published as special articles in the JHPS. This section summarizes two overviews and eight presentations of the first and third symposia and the responses and recommendations of the JHPS based on the symposium results.

The first symposium was held on June 16, 2011, 3 months after the accident, and focused on the standards for emergency preparedness and response to nuclear accidents. Four special articles were published on this symposium in volume 46, issue 3: Ban [2], ‘JHPS symposia on Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident’; Ishihara [3], ‘Standard for administration of stable idodine pilulae’; Oumi [4], ‘Activity in the early after the accident’; and Ogino et al. [5], ‘Radiological issues and future perspectives on Fukushima Nuclear Accident from the viewpoint of young researchers and students.’

The second symposium was held in August 2011. The presentations in the second symposium mostly focused on public exposure and its influences on the daily lives in the affected areas; Tanaka [6], ‘Outlook of the accident at Fukushima no.1 nuclear power plants and issues concerning radioactive materials in environments’; Tatsuzaki [7], ‘Short-time home coming project in evacuation zone’; Iimoto [8], ‘Contamination due to radioactive materials around the metropolitan area in Japan’ [8]; Kono et al. [9], ‘Suggestion from young researchers in symposium II conducted by Japan Health Physics Society about Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: focusing on internal exposure management to relate to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident’ [9]; and Yasuda [10], ‘On the basis of experience in nuclear emergency responses’ [10] were published as special articles in the Journal of the JHPS.

The third symposium was held in December 2011. The volume 1, issue 47, contains an introduction to the program [11] and a special article on ‘Dose limit for emergency workers’ by Sugai [12]. Three more issues were discussed: (1) public exposure and dose assessment and reconstruction; (2) dose limits for emergency work; and (3) radioactive waste management following the accident. The details of these discussions are summarized in the articles of the 1F WG on Environment Monitoring and Dosimetry and Dose Assessment.

The results of these symposia are summarized in volume 47, issue 2, ‘Issues Associated with Radiation Protection after Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: Responses of and Recommendations from Japan Health Physics Society’ by the JHPS Executive Committee [13]. In this report, radiation protection issues related to the 1F accident are categorized as emergency exposure situations, existing exposure situations, and all situations. Eleven issues are extracted for these situations, and the JHPS shows the responses and recommendations. Table 2 summarizes these issues, responses, and recommendations. In the foreword to volume 47, issue 1, Endo [14] refers to these issues and recommendations, stating, “I hope that the JHPS will play a useful role in society, not only in academia but also in social activities based on scientific findings,” and highlighting several issues that must be addressed. More than a decade has passed since the 1F accident, and it is crucial to consider the scope and extent of subsequent achievements and further issues regarding these responses and recommendations made by the JHPS and provide feedback for future society activities.

One original paper is Kanda et al. [15], ‘Text analysis of radiation information in newspaper articles headlines and Internet contents after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident.’ In this original paper, newspaper headlines and Internet content from March 11, 2011 to January 31, 2012, were analyzed based on a framework concerning the social amplification of risk using text mining to clarify the characteristics of information communication regarding the 1F accident. The results highlight that many articles on danger/risk were reported, partly because the full extent of the exposure was not yet clear as of March 2011. These articles could be crucial in the dissemination of information to avoid risks. However, it might have affected the public’s risk perception.

One review article by Takahara et al. [16], ‘How can interventions for inhabitants be justified after a nuclear accident? An approach based on the Radiological Protection System of the International Commission on Radiological Protection’ explores the ethical basis of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)’s radiation protection system and examines the conditions for its application to radiation risk management in contaminated areas after a nuclear accident from an ethical perspective. The authors point out that a utilitarian approach can be one solution to the need for a method to address quantitative issues, including risk trade-offs between radiological and nonradiological effects. Furthermore, the autonomous decision by individuals on whether to evacuate causes individualization of responsibility, and resolving this burden on each individual is a crucial issue. To address such challenges, the authors propose a management approach based on a compromise of three normative ethical values, such as adopting utilitarianism as a governance principle to set the general framework while providing sufficient information and options to promote the autonomy of individual residents.

Two reports were published: Igarashi [17] ‘Impressions of JHPS symposium domestic and overseas trends and prospects of emergency monitoring’ and Tsujiguchi et al. [18] ‘Nuclear emergency protection measures and standards: outline of evacuation exit inspections in Japan.’ Igarashi [17] reported at the JHPS symposium, which was entitled ‘Domestic and overseas trends and prospects of emergency monitoring’ held on June 21, 2019. The symposium introduced the current status of emergency monitoring domestically and internationally and presented the analysis results and issues on (1) the international standardization of measurement methods and equipment; (2) the role of whole-body counters in a response plan for nuclear emergency in Japan; and (3) the results of analysis on the current status of the activities and challenges of local authorities for emergency monitoring.

Furthermore, Tsujiguchi et al. [18] reported the contents of screening tests for evacuees in a nuclear emergency based on the nuclear emergency guidelines prepared in Japan published after the 1F accident. This report also describes the emergency drill held in Aomori prefecture. The expert review of the drill highlighted the following challenges: (1) determining the distance between the GM survey meter and the target; (2) communicating when dust masks are worn; and (3) explaining the necessity of decontamination beyond Operational Intervention Level (OIL) 4. In particular, the authors stated that few opportunities exist to learn the standard methods and practical procedures for the screening test. Finally, they stressed that effective training is necessary to develop skilled personnel.

The six topics were published as follows: Hanzawa [19] ‘The gap of perception and understanding between experts and local residents on decontamination after Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: not only natural science but also human mind is important for promoting decontamination’; Tsuda [20] ‘Impression of the special symposium II of the Japan Health Physics Society on the second Fukushima project’ [20]; Tokonami et al. [21] ‘Outline of the recovery support project for the Great East Japan Earthquake to Namie town, Fukushima prefecture’; Matsuo [22] ‘Health risk and protection from low-level radiation: enhancing the cooperation between disciplines’; Akimoto [23] ‘A reflection of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant’; and Fukunaga [24] ‘Disaster-related deaths in Fukushima.’

Hanzawa [19] describes the gap in perceptions and understanding among experts, authorities, and residents regarding decontamination after the 1F accident from his perspective as an employee of the Date city office in Fukushima prefecture facing the decontamination site. Decontamination does not mean removing all radioactive materials but reducing them away from living areas. It is important to decontaminate only what is necessary in low-dose areas while assessing the effects of these measures. However, when interacting with residents, the experts should state scientific correctness and their theories and consider how to increase the residents’ sense of security while conveying objective facts about the effectiveness of the decontamination process and the rumors related to decontamination.

Hanzawa [19] also stated that many scientific statements exist from the top down and defensive statements to avoid responsibility and said, “To all the experts who only talk defensively about scientific commentary, why don’t you come to the site more? The same goes for stuffs in the national authorities. If they did, they would not fall into laboratory-only theories. Although the decontaminations were performed based on the decisions according to a dose criterion of 0.23 μSv/hr, to tell the truth, those activities cannot be achieved without the local population’s sense. Consequently, it is far more difficult to deal with those.”

Matsuo [22] provides an overview of the symposium Towards a consensus on the health risks of low-dose radiation and its protection, held on June 30, 2016, as an attempt regarding collaboration among radiation-related societies (Japanese Radiation Research Society, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology, JHPS, and Society for Risk Analysis Japan). In the symposium, through the presentations and panel discussions, two issues were raised: (1) there is consensus among the experts (e.g., a linear increase in solid tumors above 100 mSv), and (2) there is no consensus among the experts (e.g., the relationship between the biological effects of radiation and carcinogenesis). In particular, regarding the issues of scientific uncertainty where there is no consensus, the author pointed out that the experts have two attitudes. The first attitude is focused on the aspect of radiation effect science; these experts emphasize the search for discoveries, such as clarifying biological mechanisms. The second attitude is focused on the aspect of health physics; these experts value which paradigm should be used to take measures when risks must be addressed with uncertainty.

Fukunaga [24] summarized information on disaster-related deaths following the Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent 1F accident. Fukunaga [24] pointed out that the number of disaster-related deaths in Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures was 469, 928, and 2,286, respectively. The highest number of deaths was found in Fukushima prefecture, and most disaster-related deaths were among the elderly. Furthermore, the evacuation after the 1F accident was a wrong judgment because most disaster-related deaths in Fukushima prefecture were related to the evacuation performed to avoid radiation exposure. The report further proposes that if more individualized assessments of the risks of radiation and nonradiation effects based on age groups had been conducted, the elderly would not have been evacuated for long periods, and the number of disaster-related deaths could have been reduced.

The three J to W reports include Fujiwara [25] ‘Action of the engineers and scientists from Osaka and Kyoto in response to the accident in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant’; Ishida [26] ‘JAEA activities after the Great East Japan Earthquake’; and the JHPS Executive Committee [27] ‘Issues associated with radiation protection after Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: responses of and recommendations from Japan Health Physics Society.’

Furthermore, one report describing RPW is Clement and Sasaki [28] ‘The International Commission on Radiological Protection and the accident at the Fukushima Nuclear power stations.’ Clement and Sasaki [28] is the scientific secretary of the ICRP, and this report provides an overview of the ICRP’s activities following the accident at 1F. Publications 109 and 111 are free and summarize an international symposium of experts and dialogues with various local stakeholders. They also state that the ICRP will continue to be involved in the recovery from the 1F accident.

In the Japanese Journal of Health Physics, the foreword remarks are prepared when each issue is published, and stakeholders from various positions give their opinions in the context of each period. This section summarizes the 20 foreword articles relating to the 1F accident published after the accident until March 2022. The forewords reviewed in this study are: Kosako [29] ‘Enhancement of activity and development of Japan Health Physics Society: celebration of 50^th foundation anniversary and switch to the form as cooperation, under the reflection of Fukushima reactor accident’; Maher [30] ‘Year of the emergency responder’ and Suzuki [31] ‘Disaster and academe’; Endo [14] ‘Expectation for the Japan Health Physics Society toward the restoration and development of Fukushima’; Coates [32] ‘The future of radiation protection after the Fukushima accident: an IRPA perspective’; Nagataki [33] ‘Mission and responsibility of scientific society in light of the Fukushima accident’; Lochard [34], ‘From distress to dialogue’; Kamiya [35] ‘Scientists and risk communication’; Kai [36] ‘Think about where Japan Health Physics Society should be going’; McLaughlin [37] ‘Natural radiation and public perception of radiation and associated risks’; Niwa [38] ‘From Fukushima to Hiroshima and Nagasaki’; Yoshida-Ohuchi [39] ‘Taking part in the IRPA activities as a new executive council member’; Nishida [40] ‘Situation of date city during five years after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident and expectations for the experts’; Shimo [41] ‘Health physics as practical science’; Shimada [42] ‘Step forward together’; Tanaka [43] ‘Can not see the JHPS!’; Tanigawa [44] ‘Lessons learned from Fukushima accident and suggestions for the future: reflections over the 7 years after the accident’; Uwamino [45] ‘Expectations for Japan Health Physics Society’; Urabe [46] ‘Expectations for new developments in radiation protection’; and Yoshida [47] ‘The role of Japan Health Physics Society.’

Kai [36] discusses two issues that emerged through the experience of the 1F accident: (1) the relationship between the experts and society and (2) the sharing of knowledge among the experts. Point (1) refers to the distrust that has arisen toward the experts in their dealings with society. Regarding this point, the other foreword also pointed out the lack of and failure in risk communication [35], the doubts about evidence of criteria and how to determine those [43], and the arguments about the difficulty of explaining the criteria [45]. Furthermore, some stakeholders pointed out that the JHPS must accumulate and refine our professional knowledge [30, 33].

Regarding (2), Kai [36] pointed out that to solve the problems in response to social needs after the 1F accident, it is necessary to go beyond the limitations of scientific knowledge and the complexity of social values and collaborate with academic societies in fields other than radiation (for example, risk-related and social science societies). In this regard, Matsuo [22] states that “Achievements from the collaboration among academic societies on risks surrounding radiation have potential applications in other fields” and highlights the importance of such efforts as “They will have great social significance beyond the governance of radiation.”

Furthermore, regarding (2), several foreword remarks emphasize the importance of collaboration among the experts as well as people from various positions. Shimada [42] presents the problems after the 1F accident as a trans-scientific problem (defined as ‘a question that can be asked scientifically but cannot be answered by science alone’), and expresses the importance of working together with people from different standpoints, such as government, other industries, the public, and the professional community of academic societies, to solve such problems as a ‘Step forward together.’ As an example of such expressions, Nishida [40] summarized his experience as the mayor of Date city, Fukushima prefecture, where he challenged the accident and stated, “I believe that the main causes of residents’ anxiety and rumor damage are the inadequate and too-strict standards without realistic-applicability, and the attitude of the national authorities that once a decision is made, it is not easily revised,” emphasizing the importance of the government and experts working together with people from different standpoints, such as local administration and residents [40].

This study provides an overview of 47 articles published in the Japanese Journal of Health Physics up to March 2022. These articles describe the contents, except for risk communication, environmental transfer behavior and measurement, dosimetry and assessment, and radiation exposure medicine and waste. The reviewed articles in this study offer various points of discussion depending on the awareness of the issues and position of the authors, which allows reconsideration of the academic system for the health physics or radiation protection. It is essential for the future development of society to address these matters and continue to enquire about the significance of health physics (or radiation protection).