IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Additional risk of diabetes exceeds the increased risk of cancer caused by radiation exposure after the Fukushima disaster

Author

Listed:
  • Michio Murakami
  • Masaharu Tsubokura
  • Kyoko Ono
  • Shuhei Nomura
  • Tomoyoshi Oikawa

Abstract

The 2011 Fukushima disaster led to increases in multiple risks (e.g., lifestyle diseases and radiation exposure) and fear among the public. Here, we assessed the additional risks of cancer caused by radiation and diabetes related to the disaster and the cost-effectiveness of countermeasures against these conditions. Our study included residents of the cities of Minamisoma and Soma (10–40 km and 35–50 km north of the Fukushima Daiichi (N° 1) Nuclear Power Station, respectively). We used the loss of life expectancy (LLE) as an indicator to compare risks between radiation exposure and diabetes. We also estimated the cost-effectiveness of radiation-related countermeasures, including restricted food distribution, decontamination, and whole-body counter tests and interventions. Metformin therapy was selected as a representative management for diabetes. The diabetes-related LLEs among residents were 4.1 (95% confidence interval: 1.4–6.8) ×10−2 years for the whole population and 8.0 (2.7–13.2) ×10−2 years for 40s to 70s in a scenario that considered the additional incidence of diabetes during the first 10 years. The cancer-related LLEs caused by lifetime exposure to radiation were 0.69 (2.5–97.5 percentile: 0.61–0.79) ×10−2 years for the whole population and 0.24 (0.20–0.29) ×10−2 years for 40s to 70s. The diabetes-related LLEs among residents in the above-mentioned scenario were 5.9-fold and 33-fold higher than those attributed to average radiation among the whole population and among the 40s to 70s age groups, respectively. The costs per life-years saved of the radiation countermeasures (i.e., restricted food distribution, decontamination, and whole-body counter tests and interventions) were >1 to >4 orders of magnitude higher than those of general heath checkups and conventional management for diabetes. Our findings indicate that countermeasures to mitigate diabetes are warranted. Policy-makers’ and individuals’ understanding of multiple risks after any disaster will be essential to saving the lives of victims.

Suggested Citation

  • Michio Murakami & Masaharu Tsubokura & Kyoko Ono & Shuhei Nomura & Tomoyoshi Oikawa, 2017. "Additional risk of diabetes exceeds the increased risk of cancer caused by radiation exposure after the Fukushima disaster," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185259
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185259
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185259
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185259&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185259?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    2. Gerd Gigerenzer, 2006. "Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Behavioral Reactions to Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 347-351, April.
    3. Kazuya Nakayachi & Hiromi M. Yokoyama & Satoko Oki, 2015. "Public anxiety after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake: fluctuations in hazard perception after catastrophe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 156-169, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sae Ochi & Michio Murakami & Toshihiko Hasegawa & Yoshinori Komagata, 2021. "Prevention and Control of COVID-19 in Imperfect Condition: Practical Guidelines for Nursing Homes by Japan Environment and Health Safety Organization (JEHSO)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Makoto Hasegawa & Michio Murakami & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Satoshi Suzuki & Hitoshi Ohto, 2018. "Social Capital Enhanced Disaster Preparedness and Health Consultations after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Power Station Accident," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Akiko Sato & Yuliya Lyamzina, 2018. "Diversity of Concerns in Recovery after a Nuclear Accident: A Perspective from Fukushima," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Michio Murakami & Takao Nirasawa & Takao Yoshikane & Keisuke Sueki & Kimikazu Sasa & Kei Yoshimura, 2018. "Estimation of Dietary Intake of Radionuclides and Effectiveness of Regulation after the Fukushima Accident and in Virtual Nuclear Power Plant Accident Scenarios," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-11, July.
    5. Michio Murakami & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Yoshihito Takeda & Akiko Sato & Yasumasa Igarashi & Kazumi Sano & Tetsuo Yasutaka & Wataru Naito & Sumire Hirota & Aya Goto & Tetsuya Ohira & Seiji Yasumura &, 2018. "Effect of Radiological Countermeasures on Subjective Well-Being and Radiation Anxiety after the 2011 Disaster: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kazuya Nakayachi & Kazuhisa Nagaya, 2016. "The Effects of the Passage of Time from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake on the Public’s Anxiety about a Variety of Hazards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Yoshitake Takebayashi & Yuliya Lyamzina & Yuriko Suzuki & Michio Murakami, 2017. "Risk Perception and Anxiety Regarding Radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Systematic Qualitative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    5. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    6. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    7. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    8. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2017. "Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 65-81, January.
    9. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    10. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    11. Anabela Carvalho & Jacquelin Burgess, 2005. "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1457-1469, December.
    12. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    13. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    14. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    15. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & Ortwin Renn, 1997. "The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 131-136, April.
    16. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.
    17. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    18. Sungjong Roh, 2014. "The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—But Some Don't by Nate Silver, New York Penguin Press. 2012," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 396-398, February.
    19. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    20. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185259. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.