Next Article in Journal
Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Next Article in Special Issue
Temporal and Spatial Variation of Radon Concentrations in Environmental Water from Okinawa Island, Southwestern Part of Japan
Previous Article in Journal
The Potential of Chaetoceros muelleri in Bioremediation of Antibiotics: Performance and Optimization
Previous Article in Special Issue
Radon Activity Concentrations in Natural Hot Spring Water: Dose Assessment and Health Perspective
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Discriminative Measurement of Absorbed Dose Rates in Air from Natural and Artificial Radionuclides in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture

1
Graduate School of Health Sciences, Hirosaki University, 66-1 Hon-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori 036-8564, Japan
2
Institute of Radiation Emergency Medicine, Hirosaki University, 66-1 Hon-cho, Hirosaki, Aomori 036-8564, Japan
3
Faculty of Education, University of the Ryukyus, 1 Senbaru, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan
4
National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage, Chiba 263-0024, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Present address: Fuji Electric Co., Ltd., 1 Fujimachi, Hino, Tokyo 191-8502, Japan.
Present address: Radiation Protection Department, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engineering Laboratories, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, 4-33 Muramatsu, Tokai, Ibaraki 319-1194, Japan.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(3), 978; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030978
Submission received: 28 December 2020 / Revised: 17 January 2021 / Accepted: 18 January 2021 / Published: 22 January 2021

Abstract

:
Ten years have elapsed since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, and the relative contribution of natural radiation is increasing in Fukushima Prefecture due to the reduced dose of artificial radiation. In order to accurately determine the effective dose of exposure to artificial radiation, it is necessary to evaluate the effective dose of natural as well as artificial components. In this study, we measured the gamma-ray pulse-height distribution over the accessible area of Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture, and evaluated the annual effective dose of external exposure by distinguishing between natural and artificial radionuclides. The estimated median (range) of absorbed dose rates in air from artificial radionuclides as of 1 April 2020, is 133 (67–511) nGy h−1 in the evacuation order cancellation zone, and 1306 (892–2081) nGy h−1 in the difficult-to-return zone. The median annual effective doses of external exposures from natural and artificial radionuclides were found to be 0.19 and 0.40 mSv in the evacuation order cancellation zone, and 0.25 and 3.9 mSv in the difficult-to-return zone. The latest annual effective dose of external exposure discriminated into natural and artificial radionuclides is expected to be utilized for radiation risk communication.

1. Introduction

On 11 March 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck the Tohoku region along the eastern coast of Japan. The earthquake caused a tsunami with a height of more than 15 m, and affected the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP). The FDNPP lost power and the cores of Units 1 to 3 became heated and melted. This caused a hydrogen gas explosion [1]. As a result of the FDNPP accident, 132Te, 131I, 134Cs, 137Cs, and rare gases such as 133Xe, etc., were released into Fukushima Prefecture and other eastern regions of Japan [2]. The radioactivity of radionuclides released into the atmosphere is shown in the UNSCEAR 2013 report (Table 1) [3]. On the day of the accident, the Japanese government issued an indoor evacuation order to residents within 10 km of the FDNPP, and issued an evacuation order to residents within 20 km the next day [4]. Thereafter, the area where the annual cumulative dose may have exceeded 20 mSv, outside the 20 km area from the FDNPP was designated as a “planned evacuation zone”. In addition, regardless of the annual cumulative dose, the area within 20 to 30 km of the FDNPP was designated as an “emergency evacuation preparation zone” and the area within 20 km was designated as a “warning zone” [5]. Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture (The location map that is shown in Figure 1a was made by original maps from d-maps.com), is also one of the areas significantly contaminated by radionuclides due to the FDNPP accident, and because it was a planned evacuation zone, the townspeople living there were forced to evacuate. In 2012, the area where the annual cumulative dose was confirmed to be 20 mSv or less was designated as an “evacuation order cancellation preparation zone”. This is the area where temporary return homes, restricted businesses such as shops, hospitals, and farming are permitted. Areas where the annual cumulative dose may exceed 20 mSv but are confirmed to be 50 mSv or less have been designated as a “restricted residence zone” and it has become possible to temporarily return home or enter for road restoration. Areas where the annual cumulative dose exceeds 50 mSv and the annual cumulative dose may not fall below 20 mSv, five years from 2012, has been designated as a “difficult-to-return zone”. Figure 1b indicates each area division, and taken from the official website of Fukushima Prefecture [5]. Subsequently, the artificial decontamination of radionuclides was actively promoted, and in 2017, six years after the earthquake, evacuation orders were lifted in some areas of Namie Town [6]. Currently, the return of evacuees is progressing, and by the end of November 2020, more than 1500 people were living in Namie Town [7]. Before the Great East Japan Earthquake, the registered population of Namie Town was 21,434 [8]. Years after the FDNPP accident, the returning residents continue to have a significant amount of radiation anxiety [9]. Experts in radiation science and psychology at each Japanese support organization, including the university of the current authors, have communicated radiation risk, and interacted with residents to reduce anxiety about radiation. In consideration of this, Kudo et al. conducted a questionnaire survey on the basic knowledge of radiation among those who returned to Namie Town. It was found that many Namie townspeople recognize that natural and artificial radiation have different effects on the human body, even if the effective dose is the same [10].
Since the FDNPP accident, national staff and researchers at universities and research institutions have been evaluating artificial radioactive contamination and investigating the distribution of ambient dose equivalent rates [11,12,13]. In addition, internal and external exposures from artificial radionuclides are being evaluated [14,15,16,17,18,19], and monitoring posts are installed in various locations to continuously measure the ambient dose equivalent rate [20]. In 2017, Shiroma et al. conducted a car-borne survey in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture, and reported that the absorbed dose rate in air was 0.041–11 µGy h−1 [21]. More than nine years have passed since the FDNPP accident, and the relative contribution of natural radiation to ambient dose equivalent rates is increasing because the dose of artificial radiation is decreasing. This means that it is not possible to estimate the effects on the human body due to artificial radionuclides, without correctly evaluating the dose from natural radionuclides. People with a high risk of internal exposure, such as agricultural workers, need information on internal exposure due to inhalation of dust. However, clarifying the actual conditions of external exposure from natural and artificial radionuclides is useful for radiation risk communication for general population, which has a low risk of internal exposure. In this study, the gamma-ray pulse-height distribution was measured and analyzed in Namie Town, which was divided into 1 km × 1 km meshes. An absorbed dose rate map that discriminated between natural and artificial radionuclides was created from the absorbed dose rate in the air, and the annual effective dose to external exposure was calculated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Measurement Location and Method of γ-Ray Pulse-Height Distribution

From 15 September 2016 to 13 December 2019, gamma-ray pulse-height distributions were obtained at the 130 accessible points that divided the entire area of Namie Town into a mesh of 1 km × 1 km. A 3 × 3-inch NaI(Tl) scintillation spectrometer (EMF-211, EMF Japan Co., Himeji, Japan [22]) was used to obtain the measurements. The detector was installed 1 m above the ground and connected to a control laptop PC. The measurement time was 900 s. Latitude and longitude coordinate data were obtained using a Global Positioning System to create an absorbed dose rate map. Gamma-ray pulse-height distributions at 2–5 points were additionally acquired in six of the 130 meshes, and the fluctuation of the absorbed dose rate in air in the mesh was evaluated.

2.2. Analysis of Gamma-Ray Pulse-Height Distribution and Correction of Absorbed Dose Rate in Air

The gamma-ray pulse-height distributions obtained by the NaI(Tl) scintillation spectrometer is different from the distributions of the gamma-ray energy spectrum. The pulse-height distributions of gamma-ray are unfolded into the energy spectrum by a response matrix of 49 rows × 49 columns, and then the dose contributions for each radionuclide are calculated according to the previous reports to discriminate between natural and artificial radionuclides [23,24,25]. The absorbed dose rate in air obtained by the analysis needs to be corrected to consider the number of days elapsed from the measured date. Factors that reduce radioactivity in the environment include the physical half-life of radionuclides, diffusion by wind, rain, and infiltration into soil, and the implementation of artificial decontamination of radioactive substances. In order to comprehensively evaluate the factors that affect the attenuation of radioactivity, the apparent half-life was calculated using the data of the air dose rate that is regularly observed at the monitoring posts widely installed in Namie Town. There are 103 monitoring posts in Namie Town, and the measurement data are published on the website [20]. Some of these datasets have long-term data loss within the period in which we measured the gamma-ray pulse-height distribution, and significant dose increases and decreases in a short period of time that are not due to artificial decontamination. It is probable that the data loss could not be measured due to maintenance of the monitoring posts. The short-term significant fluctuation of the ambient dose equivalent rate may be due to a device malfunction, but the specific cause is unknown. These data may affect the appropriate time decay correction of absorbed dose rates in air. Therefore, the apparent half-life was calculated using the data of 55 monitoring posts, and excluding the lossy dataset and coefficient of determination R2 of less than 0.7 (not due to artificial decontamination) in the exponential approximation of the ambient dose equivalent rate. Equation (1) was used to calculate the apparent half-life (Ta).
T a = t   ×   0.693 l n D 1 D 0
where D0 and D1 are the ambient dose equivalent rates (µSv h−1) as of 1 April 2016, and 1 April 2020, respectively, and t is the elapsed time, which was taken as used four years. The FDNPP accident released short half-life radionuclides such as 131I and 133Xe and long half-life radionuclides such as 134Cs and 137Cs. Originally, it was necessary to calculate the apparent half-life for each of the short-half-life and long-half-life radionuclides, but now that nine years have elapsed since the accident, the contribution from the short-half-life radionuclides can be ignored [26,27]. The apparent half-life was calculated using the simple formula in Equation (1), considering only the contribution from radionuclides with a long half-life. The calculated apparent half-life was divided into an evacuation order cancellation zone and a difficult-to-return zone, and the fluctuation was evaluated to examine the application to the correction of the absorbed dose rate in air.

2.3. Estimating the Effective Dose of External Exposure

The annual effective dose of external exposure in Namie Town was estimated using Equation (2), and the time-corrected absorbed dose rate in air.
E = D × DCF × T × (Qin × R + Qout)
where D is the time-corrected absorbed dose rate in air (nGy h−1) and DCF is a dose conversion factor (Sv Gy−1) from the absorbed dose rate in air to the effective dose to external exposure. The natural radionuclide component DCF uses 0.748, as reported by Moriuchi et al., and the artificial radionuclide uses 0.73, as reported by Omori et al. [28,29]. T is the number of hours per year, which is 8766 h (24 h × 365.25 d). Qin is the indoor occupancy factor, Qout is the outdoor occupancy factor, and they are 0.83 and 0.17, respectively, as reported by Ploykrathok et al. [30]. R is a reduction factor, the natural radionuclide is 1, and the artificial radionuclide is 0.43, as reported by Yoshida et al. [31].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Absorbed Dose Rate in Air and Dose Rate Map

The gamma-ray pulse-height distribution was measured over the entire accessible area of Namie Town and was developed using a response matrix to determine the absorbed dose rate in air. The absorbed dose rates in air of the natural radionuclides, artificial radionuclides, and their totals are 15–68, 14–11,861, and 47–11,900 nGy h−1, respectively. The total absorbed dose rate in air obtained in this study is almost in agreement with the 0.041–11 µGy h−1 measured by Shiroma et al. [21]. The absorbed dose rates in air of natural radionuclides, artificial radionuclides, and their totals in the evacuation order cancellation zone are 19–51, 14–2010, and 47–2040 nGy h−1, respectively. The natural, artificial, and their total absorbed dose rates in air in the difficult-to-return zone are 15–68, 140–11,861, and 186–11,900 nGy h−1, respectively. The radioactivity ratios of cesium (134Cs/137Cs) released from Units 1, 2, and 3 of the FDNPP were reported to be 0.941, 1.082, and 1.046, respectively [32]. This radioactivity ratio is evaluated as the value as of 11 March 2011. As a result of estimating 134Cs/137Cs as of March 2011 for the measured data, the median (range) was 1.07 (1.04–1.09), and it was confirmed that 134Cs and 137Cs were released from FDNPP. The apparent half-life was calculated by analyzing the datasets of 55 monitoring posts installed in Namie Townin order to time-correct the measured absorbed dose rate in air. A total of 32 of them were located in areas exceeding 1.0 µGy h−1 as of April 2016. 10 of them were located in areas exceeding 1.0 µGy h−1 as of April 2020. The mean ± standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and median (range) of apparent half-lives in the difficult-to-return zone are 4.2 ± 1.4 y, 33%, and 4.7 (4.0–4.8) y, respectively (Appendix A Table A1). Considering that the half-life of 137Cs is approximately 30 years, the reason why the apparent half-life is shortened is seemingly strongly influenced by diffusion due to environmental factors. The mean ± standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and median (range) of the apparent half-life in the evacuation order cancellation zone are 4.8 ± 2.7 y, 56%, and 4.7 (2.3–6.7) y, respectively. It was found that there are variations in the areas where residence is allowed. The apparent half-life was calculated using the data from 1 April 2016 to 1 April 2020. A detailed review of the data for each monitoring post revealed that some areas were decontaminated after April 2016, and some were decontaminated prior to that date [33]. The implementation of artificial decontamination contributes to rapid dose reduction and significantly shortens the apparent half-life. Therefore, the evacuation order cancellation zone was further divided into areas where decontamination was conducted before, and on and after, April 2016, and the apparent half-life was analyzed. Figure 2 indicates the difficult-to-return zone, evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated before April 2016, and evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated on, and after, April 2016 areas. The mean ± standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and median (range) of the apparent half-life in the evacuation order cancellation zone are 6.4 ± 2.0 y, 31%, and 6.1 (5.0–7.5) y, respectively (Appendix A Table A2). Conversely, the mean value ± standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and median (range) of the apparent half-life limited to the zones where decontamination was completed after 1 April 2016, are 2.0 ± 0.6 y, 30%, 1.8. (1.6–2.3) y, respectively (Appendix A Table A3). A significant difference test was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test for the apparent half-life of the evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated before, and on and after, April 2016. It was confirmed there was a significant difference between the two groups (p-value < 3.8 × 10–7). This result demonstrates that the implementation of decontamination significantly contributes to the reduction of the ambient dose equivalent rates from artificial radionuclides. In addition, it was found that the evacuation order cancellation zone can be evaluated with a fluctuation of approximately 30%, by dividing it into two areas for the calculations. This coefficient of variation is significantly lower than when the evacuation order cancellation zone was not divided into two. In addition, a significant difference in apparent half-life was determined using the Mann–Whitney U test for the difficult-to-return zone and evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated before April 2016, for the difficult-to-return zone and the evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated on and after April 2016. The p-values are 6.9 × 10−4 and 9.5 × 10−4, respectively, confirming that there is a significant difference in distribution. Hayes et al. reported that the effective half-life of radiocesium in the environment was 7.8 years as a theoretical value and 3.2 years as a measured value [34]. Table 2 shows a comparison of the apparent half-life calculated in this study, the previously reported effective half-life, and the theoretical half-life.
The measured data of absorbed dose rates in air from artificial radionuclides were corrected to the values as of 1 April 2020 using different apparent half-lives for each of the three areas (Appendix B). The median (range) is shown in Table 3, and the distribution of the absorbed dose rate in air of the artificial radionuclides collected as of 1 April 2020 is shown in Figure 3.
A significant difference test was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test on the absorbed dose rates in the air from artificial radionuclides in the evacuation order cancellation zone and the difficult-to-return zone. It was confirmed that the two groups are significantly different (p-value = 6.0 × 10−14). The evacuation order cancellation zone is an area that the Japanese government has determined people can live in because it has been confirmed that the ambient dose equivalent rate has decreased [6]. In contrast, the difficult-to-return zone is an area where the annual cumulative dose exceeds 50 mSv as of April 2012, and the annual cumulative dose may not fall below 20 mSv after five years have elapsed [5]. It was found that the absorbed dose rate in air remained high in the difficult-to-return zone nine years after the FDNPP accident. The mean ± standard deviation and median (range) of absorbed dose rates in air by natural radionuclides throughout Namie Town are 35 ± 10 and 34 (28–42) nGy h−1, respectively. The national average in Japan is reported to be 50 nGy h−1 [36]. It was found that the average value of Namie Town was 70% of the national average value. These data can be used for radiation risk communication. The absorbed dose rate maps (Figure 4a,b) were developed so that the absorbed dose rate in air could be visually understood by dividing it into natural and artificial radionuclides.
The activity concentrations of 40K, 232Th, and 238U are shown in Appendix B. When examining the absorbed dose rate in air from natural radionuclides (Figure 4a), it can be seen that the eastern coastal area of Namie Town is less than 40 nGy h−1 in most areas. The range of activity concentrations of 40K, 232Th, and 238U in the evacuation order cancellation zone were 109–444, 9–32, and 9–34 Bq kg−1, respectively. Conversely, in the mountainous areas on the west side, there are many areas of 40 nGy h−1 or more. The range of activity concentrations of 40K, 232Th, and 238U in the difficult-to-return zone were 99–1830, 9–46, and 10–161 Bq kg−1, respectively. On the west side of Namie Town, where granite is widely distributed, the activity concentrations of 40K, 232Th, and 238U tended to be high [37]. When examining the absorbed dose rate in air from artificial radionuclides (Figure 4b), it can be seen that there is a clear difference between the coastal areas on the east side and the mountainous areas on the west side. This is a clear result of the evacuation order cancellation zone and the difficult-to-return zone. In the coastal area, decontamination was actively conducted in order to realize the return of evacuees, and the evacuation order was lifted in March 2017 [6]. In contrast, the mountainous area on the west side has many areas exceeding 1.0 µGy h−1, and is remains designated as a difficult-to-return zone. This result indicates that artificial decontamination activities contribute significantly to dose reduction. However, there were two meshes in the evacuation order cancellation area that exceeded 1.0 µGy h−1. Factors that increased the absorbed dose rate in air in this area include the presence of slopes composed of soil and the presence of localized forest areas in the city, such as bamboo groves. Slopes composed of soil have not been actively decontaminated because they may loosen the ground and cause sediment-related disasters. Local forest areas in the city, such as bamboo groves, are difficult to decontaminate by removing the upper part of the soil without cutting, which is a factor that increases the absorbed dose rate in air. However, local forests and slopes composed of soil do not always exist uniformly within a 1 km × 1 km mesh. In order to examine the variation of the measurement data in the mesh, the absorbed dose rate in air was additionally measured at 2–5 points in six out of the 130 meshes (Table 4). Although there are some fluctuations depending on the mesh, it was found that it is possible to evaluate with a volatility of approximately 50% or less. It was also determined that the volatility is not dose-dependent.

3.2. Estimating External Exposure Dose

Table 5 indicates the median (range) of the annual effective dose of external exposure calculated from the absorbed dose rate in the air. The annual effective doses of natural radionuclides in the evacuation order cancellation zone, difficult-to-return zone, and Namie Town as a whole are 0.12–0.33, 0.10–0.45, and 0.10–0.45 mSv, respectively, and their geometric mean (mean ± standard deviation) is 0.20 (0.20 ± 0.05), 0.24 (0.24 ± 0.06), and 0.22 (0.23 ± 0.06), respectively. The national average effective annual dose of ground gamma-rays in Japan is 0.33 mSv. It was found that the average value for the town of Namie is 70% of the national average [38,39]. The annual effective doses of external exposure to artificial radionuclides in the evacuation order cancellation zone, difficult-to-return zone, and entire Namie Town are 0.03–4.6, 0.23–19.6, and 0.03–19.6 mSv, respectively. The median annual external exposure effective dose from artificial radionuclides in the evacuation order cancellation zone (0.40 mSv) is 0.21 mSv, which differs from the median natural radionuclides (0.19 mSv). In contrast, the median annual external exposure effective dose from artificial radionuclides in the difficult-to-return zone (3.9 mSv) is 15.6 times higher than the median from natural radionuclides (0.25 mSv). A significant difference test was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test on the annual effective dose of external exposure from artificial radionuclides in the evacuation order cancellation zone and the difficult-to-return zone. The two groups have a statistically significant difference (p-value < 6.0 × 1014). This difficult-to-return zone is an area where access to people is restricted. Cars are allowed on some sections, but the general public is still not allowed to stay for a long time [40]. Currently, in difficult-to-return zone, active decontamination is being carried out so that people can live. In the future, this artificial decontamination is expected to reduce the absorbed dose rate in air.

4. Conclusions

The absorbed dose rate in air was measured by discriminating between natural and artificial radionuclides in the entire area of Namie Town, an area affected by the FDNPP accident. The following results were obtained from this study:
  • From the measurements of 134Cs and 137Cs concentrations, it was confirmed that Namie Town was radioactively contaminated by artificial radionuclides from the FDNPP accident.
  • From the data of the monitoring posts installed in Namie Town, the median (range) of the apparent half-life of artificial radionuclides in the evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated before April 2016, the evacuation order cancellation zone decontaminated after April 2016, and the difficult-to-return zone, is 6.4 ± 2.0, 2.0 ± 0.6, and 4.2 ± 1.4 y, respectively.
  • The median (range) of absorbed dose rates in the air from artificial radionuclides time-corrected as of 1 April 2020, using the apparent half-life are 133 (67–511) and 1306 (892–2081) nGy h−1 in the evacuation order cancellation zone and the difficult-to-return zone, respectively.
  • The median annual effective doses of external exposures from natural and artificial radionuclides are 0.19 and 0.40 mSv in the evacuation order cancellation zone and 0.25 and 3.9 mSv in the difficult-to-return zone.
Examination of the absorbed dose rate in the air from artificial radionuclides revealed a clear difference between the eastern coastal area and the western mountainous area. This result suggests that artificial decontamination activities contribute significantly to dose reduction. The distribution map of the absorbed dose rate in air measured in this study, and the information on the annual external exposure effective dose calculated by discriminating between natural and artificial radionuclides, are expected to be utilized for radiation risk communication.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H. and S.T.; Formal analysis, Y.T., T.S., R.Y., and R.N.; Funding acquisition, S.T.; Investigation, K.O., M.H., Y.T., T.S., T.T., M.Y., Y.S., K.I., and M.S.; Methodology, M.H. and S.T.; Project administration, S.T.; Supervision, M.H. and S.T.; Validation, K.O., M.H. and N.A.; Visualization, K.O.; Writing—original draft, K.O.; Writing—review and editing, M.H., T.T., M.Y., Y.S., I.K., and S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Research on the Health Effects of Radiation, organized by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Calculation table of apparent half-life in the difficult-to-return zone.
Table A1. Calculation table of apparent half-life in the difficult-to-return zone.
Mesh CodeAmbient Dose Equivalent Rate (µSv h−1)Apparent Half-Life (y)
As of 1 April 2016As of 1 April 2020
B54.22.44.7
D82.41.34.5
F41.20.644.7
F50.960.605.8
F54.90.701.4
F52.10.441.8
F83.62.04.6
G62.31.35.1
G81.70.884.2
H135.43.25.2
J146.43.24.0
L161.00.625.6
M183.62.04.8
Q192.21.24.7
Q1911.85.73.9
Q204.70.691.4
Table A2. Calculation table of apparent half-life in the evacuation order cancellation zone where decontamination was conducted before 1 April 2016.
Table A2. Calculation table of apparent half-life in the evacuation order cancellation zone where decontamination was conducted before 1 April 2016.
Mesh CodeAmbient Dose Equivalent Rate (µSv h−1)Apparent Half-Life (y)
As of 1 April 2016As of 1 April 2020
L181.50.763.9
L193.21.95.0
L220.400.288.2
M192.21.24.7
M200.590.417.5
M211.10.604.4
M210.380.246.1
M220.410.3210.5
M230.250.188.8
M230.160.118.1
N220.880.383.3
N240.220.145.9
N240.190.1410.1
N240.120.075.9
N250.250.155.5
N250.080.067.4
N250.100.076.2
N260.210.136.1
N260.130.096.4
N260.090.067.0
O230.460.244.2
O240.230.179.2
P210.640.303.6
P231.60.975.7
P250.160.117.1
Table A3. Calculation table of apparent half-life in the evacuation order cancellation zone where decontamination was conducted on, and after, 1 April 2016.
Table A3. Calculation table of apparent half-life in the evacuation order cancellation zone where decontamination was conducted on, and after, 1 April 2016.
Mesh CodeAmbient Dose Equivalent Rate (µSv h−1)Apparent Half-Life (y)
As of 1 April 2016As of 1 April 2020
L191.20.362.3
N213.20.391.3
N222.50.261.2
N231.00.251.9
O202.10.471.8
O202.70.551.7
O211.20.261.8
O211.70.361.8
O211.20.342.3
O221.30.191.4
O220.580.273.6
P241.60.281.6
Q211.30.382.3

Appendix B

Table A4. Measured absorbed dose rate in air from natural and artificial radionuclides, estimated absorbed dose rate in air from artificial radionuclide as of 1 April 2020, and activity concentrations of natural radionuclides.
Table A4. Measured absorbed dose rate in air from natural and artificial radionuclides, estimated absorbed dose rate in air from artificial radionuclide as of 1 April 2020, and activity concentrations of natural radionuclides.
Mesh CodeMeasuring DateAbsorbed Dose Rate in Air (nGy h−1)40K
(Bq kg−1)
232Th
(Bq kg−1)
238U
(Bq kg−1)
Artificial RadionuclidesArtificial Radionuclides as of 1 April 2020Natural Radionuclides
A32017/8/2316201048504193228
A42018/9/1013201017544283929
A52018/9/1016001233282442113
B32017/8/2322301442514772728
B42017/8/231370886262481514
B52017/11/135782390222731811
B62017/8/2329901934332622219
B72017/11/117601175221781214
C42017/8/2318501196231391615
C52017/8/2332802121474312228
C62017/11/130202017373542219
C72017/11/319601310382862225
C82017/11/11360908282441517
D22017/8/241230796494002830
D32017/8/241240802373821721
D42017/11/128401897443822326
D52017/8/231520983393631823
D62017/11/137412498293172215
D72017/11/121601442323111717
D82017/11/119501302302881318
E12017/8/24239155363141822
E32017/8/24811525413512523
E42017/8/24954617413672224
E52017/8/2323001487453912228
E62017/11/126701783353001623
E72017/11/131202083434072522
E82017/11/122001469505022725
F12017/8/24305197303021615
F22017/8/25246159292521717
F42017/8/241200776534192934
F52016/9/1514077464001931
F62016/9/1519801095443912028
F72017/11/330102012484842227
F82017/11/317701183232131313
F92017/11/31060709484282230
F102017/11/353353566455454225
F112017/11/354123618385303721
G22017/8/24255165171431010
G32017/8/24376243312161920
G42017/8/24891576454072227
G52017/8/251230796302631518
G62017/8/2523801541282421716
G72017/11/219301289363261722
G82017/11/220801390373231723
G92017/11/2913610686282646
G112017/11/331002072474772722
G122018/5/1658904303405454222
H32017/8/24315204454072624
H42017/8/2415198363882017
H62018/9/1013101010423392823
H72017/8/2514309261599119
H82017/11/216901129454371630
H92017/11/220901396433482228
H102017/11/223601577323041816
H122018/5/1664664723446594525
H132016/9/1653062935546784531
I42017/8/24207134282511516
I62018/9/101130871453233524
I72017/8/251220790373301823
I82017/11/215601042383481524
I92017/11/216401096373331524
I102017/11/231902131344071515
I122018/5/1642783125525823630
I132018/9/1124701904413543119
I142018/5/1637882767524473530
J132018/5/1637992775313362416
J142018/5/1643693192414592823
J152018/5/1638982847423942224
J192017/12/22925724232081512
K132018/5/1657214179395023922
K162018/9/1015701210403083319
K192017/12/22595466211991310
K202017/12/221120876303111615
K222019/11/14179172262051814
L162018/5/1624901819373672019
L172018/5/1620901527403732321
L182018/9/1115101277463823224
L192017/12/22231104282901414
L202017/12/221100861241891315
L212017/12/2219501526191091313
L222017/12/22147115282581615
L232018/12/26285249302652015
L252018/12/268978221691413
M172018/5/1617201256242201611
M182018/5/1621201549332812118
M192016/9/1615101031261811616
M202017/12/221260986271372118
M212017/12/22343268443112827
M222016/9/16423289232221213
M232017/12/23242189353601718
M242018/12/2610592322581820
M252018/12/263531513393432
M262017/12/233326393881723
N202017/12/22854668241971414
N212017/12/22174136323051915
N222018/5/1614173474442029
N232017/12/221460654384131521
N242016/9/16149393362024
N252016/9/156746282981216
N262018/12/267667312441620
N272017/12/232721393791822
O202017/12/2213560262601512
O212017/12/2212094272721514
O222017/12/22306137232301213
O232017/12/23398312342981919
O242017/12/23231181363881818
O252017/12/2316901323342572022
O262018/12/26182159444162225
O272018/12/261917322852017
P202017/8/2620101519251841516
P212017/12/2210078242421411
P222017/12/225341343571916
P232018/12/26149130212241011
P242016/9/17563162282362013
P252017/12/233930464073123
P262018/12/267666403602222
P272018/12/262018272541415
Q192016/9/17960453162612609113
Q202018/9/1014801141302571816
Q212017/8/261620648272601515
Q222018/9/11206119282571515
Q232018/9/11988320181149
Q272018/12/26615322225913
R182018/9/1055604285304164416
R192016/9/1711861656539183016122
R202017/8/2616501069302801815
R212017/8/262390154821202159
R272018/12/2610188302661618
S202017/8/2653423460283603015
T202017/8/2642692764213422411

References

  1. Yaneza, J.; Kuznetsova, M.; Souto-Iglesiasb, A. An analysis of the hydrogen explosion in the Fukushima-Daiichi accident. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 8261–8280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tominaga, T.; Hachiya, M.; Tatsuzaki, H.; Akashi, M. The Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011. Health Phys. 2014, 106, 630–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2013 Report Annex A: Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Nuclear Accident after 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. Prime Minister’s Office of Japan. Evacuation Order. (Tentative Translation). Available online: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/kikikanri/jisin/20110311miyagi/20110312siji11.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2020). (In Japanese)
  5. Fukushima Revitalization Station. Transition of Evacuation Designated Zones. Available online: https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08.html (accessed on 13 December 2020).
  6. Namie Town. About Area Reorganization and Evacuation Order Cancellation. (Tentative Translation). Available online: https://www.town.namie.fukushima.jp/soshiki/2/13457.html (accessed on 13 December 2020). (In Japanese).
  7. Namie Town. Now in Namie Town. (Tentative Translation). Available online: https://www.town.namie.fukushima.jp/ (accessed on 13 December 2020). (In Japanese).
  8. Fukushima Revitalization Station. The Situation in Namie Town. (Tentative Translation). Available online: https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/26-11.html (accessed on 13 December 2020).
  9. Takebayashi, Y.; Lyamzina, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Murakami, M. Risk Perception and Anxiety Regarding Radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Systematic Qualitative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kudo, H.; Tokonami, S.; Hosoda, M.; Iwaoka, K.; Kasai, Y. Understanding of Basic Knowledge on Radiation among General Public –Comparison of Residents Participated in the Same Seminar in between Namie Town and Three Cities in Aomori Prefecture–. Jpn. J. Health Phys. 2016, 51, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saito, K.; Tanihara, I.; Fujiwara, M.; Saito, T.; Simoura, S.; Otsuka, T.; Onda, Y.; Hoshi, M.; Ikeuchi, Y.; Takahashi, F.; et al. Detailed deposition density maps constructed by large-scale soil sampling for gamma-ray emitting radioactive nuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. J. Environ. Radioact. 2015, 139, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Hosoda, M.; Tokonami, S.; Sorimachi, A.; Monzen, S.; Osanai, M.; Yamada, M.; Kashiwakura, I.; Akiba, S. The time variation of dose rate artificially increased by the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Sci. Rep. 2011, 1, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Andoh, M.; Nakahara, Y.; Tsuda, S.; Yoshida, T.; Takahashi, F.; Mikami, S.; Kinouchi, N.; Sato, T.; Tanigaki, M.; Takemiya, K.; et al. Measurement of air dose rates over a wide area around the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant through a series of car-borne surveys. J. Environ. Radioact. 2015, 139, 266–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Akahane, K.; Yonai, S.; Fukuda, S.; Miyahara, N.; Yasuda, H.; Iwaoka, K.; Matsumoto, M.; Fukumura, A.; Akashi, M. NIRS external dose estimation system for Fukushima residents after the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ishikawa, T.; Yasumura, S.; Ozasa, K.; Kobashi, G.; Yasuda, H.; Miyazaki, M.; Akahane, K.; Yonai, S.; Ohtsuru, A.; Sakai, A.; et al. The Fukushima Health Management Survey: Estimation of external doses to residents in Fukushima Prefecture. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Tokonami, S.; Hosoda, M.; Akiba, S.; Sorimachi, A.; Kashiwakura, I.; Balonov, M. Thyroid doses for evacuees from the Fukushima nuclear accident. Sci. Rep. 2012, 2, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hayano, R.S.; Tsubokura, M.; Miyazaki, M.; Satou, H.; Sato, K.; Masaki, S.; Sakuma, Y. Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident as measured by extensive whole-body-counter surveys. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B 2013, 89, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hosoda, M.; Tokonami, S.; Akiba, S.; Kurihara, O.; Sorimachi, A.; Ishikawa, T.; Momose, T.; Nakano, T.; Mariya, Y.; Kashiwakura, I. Estimation of internal exposure of the thyroid to 131I on the basis of 134Cs accumulated in the body among evacuees of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident. Environ. Int. 2013, 61, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, E.; Kurihara, O.; Tani, K.; Ohmachi, Y.; Fukutsu, K.; Sakai, K.; Akashi, M. Intake ratio of 131I to 137Cs derived from thyroid and whole-body doses to Fukushima residents. Radiet. Prot. Dosim. 2016, 168, 408–418. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nuclear Regulation Authority Japan. Monitoring Information of Environmental Radioactivity Level. (Tentative Translation). Available online: http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/map/ja/ (accessed on 13 December 2020). (In Japanese)
  21. Shiroma, Y.; Hosoda, M.; Iwaoka, K.; Hegedűs, M.; Kudo, H.; Tsujiguchi, T.; Yamaguchi, M.; Akata, N.; Kashiwakura, I.; Tokonami, S. Changes of Absorbed Dose Rate in Air by CAR-BORNE Survey in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Radiet. Prot. Dosim. 2019, 184, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. EMF Japan Co. Product Overview of EMF211 Type Gamma Ray Spectrometer. (Tentative Translation). Available online: https://www.emf-japan.com/emf/img/PDF/emf211-survey.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2021). (In Japanese).
  23. Radiation Earth Science Laboratory. Introduction of 49x49 Response Matrix for Environment Gamma Ray Analysis. (Tentative Translation). Available online: http://www1.s3.starcat.ne.jp/reslnote/YONQ.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2020). (In Japanese).
  24. Minato, S. Diagonal elements fitting technique to improve response matrixes for environmental gamma ray spectrum unfolding. Radioisotopes 2001, 50, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. International Commission on Radiation Unites and Measurements. ICRU Report 53: Gamma-Ray Spectrometry in the Environment; International Commission on Radiation Unites and Measurements: Stockholm, Sweden, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sanada, Y.; Urabe, Y.; Sasaki, M.; Ochi, K.; Torii, T. Evaluation of ecological half-life of dose rate based on airborne radiation monitoring following the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident. J. Environ. Radioact. 2018, 192, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kinase, S.; Takahashi, T.; Saito, K. Long-term predictions of ambient dose equivalent rates after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moriuchi, S.; Tsutsumi, M.; Saito, K. Examination on Conversion Factors to Estimate Effective Dose Equivalent from Absorbed Dose in Air for Natural Gamma Radiations. Jpn. J. Health Phys. 1990, 25, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Omori, Y.; Wakamatsu, H.; Sorimachi, A.; Ishikawa, T. Radiation survey on Fukushima Medical University premises about four years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Fukushima J. Med. Sci. 2016, 62, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ploykrathok, T.; Ogura, K.; Shimizu, M.; Hosoda, M.; Shiroma, Y.; Kudo, H.; Tamakuma, Y.; Tokonami, S. Estimation of annual effective dose in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture due to inhalation of radon and thoron progeny. Radiat. Emer. Med. 2020, 10, 1. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yoshida, H.; Hosoda, M.; Kanagami, T.; Uegaki, M.; Tashima, H. Reduction factors for wooden houses due to external γ-radiation based on in situ measurements after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Nishizawa, Y.; Yoshida, M.; Sanada, Y.; Torii, T. Distribution of the 134Cs/137Cs ratio around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant using an unmanned helicopter radiation monitoring system. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ministry of the Environment. Decontamination Information Site—Specified Reconstruction and Regeneration Base [Namie Town]- (Tentative Translation). Available online: http://josen.env.go.jp/kyoten/namie/ (accessed on 13 December 2020). (In Japanese)
  34. Hayes, J.M.; Johnson, T.E.; Anderson, D.; Nanba, K. Effective Half-life of 134Cs and 137Cs in Fukushima Prefecture When Compared to Theoretical Decay Models. Health Phys. 2020, 118, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wessel, P.; Smith, W.H.F. Free software helps map and display data. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1991, 72, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Furukawa, M.; Shingaki, R. Terrestrial gamma radiation dose rate in Japan estimated before the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Radiat. Emerg. Med. 2012, 1, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  37. Geological Survey of Japan. Geology of Namie, Iwaki and Tomioka Areas. (Tentative Translation). Available online: https://www.gsj.jp/data/50KGM/PDF/GSJ_MAP_G050_07046_1994_D.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2020). (In Japanese).
  38. Omori, Y.; Hosoda, M.; Takahashi, F.; Sanada, T.; Hirao, S.; Ono, K.; Furukawa, M. Japanese population dose from natural radiation. J. Radiol. Prot. 2020, 40, 99–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hosoda, M.; Tokonami, S.; Furukawa, M. Dose assessment on natural radiation, natural radionuclide, and artificial radionuclide released by the Fukushima nuclear accident. Radiat. Biol. Res. Commun. 2012, 47, 22–45. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Standards for Temporary Entry into Difficult-to-Return Zone. (Tentative Translation). Available online: https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/kinkyu/hinanshiji/pdf/190905_zissikizyun2.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2020). (In Japanese)
Figure 1. (a) Location of Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, and (b) officially designed evacuation zones as of 1 April 2017. (a) is created by d-maps.com (https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=29487, https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=11273). (b) is taken from the official website with permission from the administrative officer in Fukushima Prefecture [5].
Figure 1. (a) Location of Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, and (b) officially designed evacuation zones as of 1 April 2017. (a) is created by d-maps.com (https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=29487, https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=11273). (b) is taken from the official website with permission from the administrative officer in Fukushima Prefecture [5].
Ijerph 18 00978 g001
Figure 2. Area classification for which the apparent half-life was calculated, and the location of the monitoring posts. The red circles indicate the location of the monitoring posts used for the analysis, the blue mesh is the difficult-to-return zone, the pink mesh is the evacuation order cancellation zone where the radionuclides decontamination work was carried out before April 2016, and the green mesh is the evacuation order cancellation zone where the radionuclides decontamination work was carried out after April 2016. This map was drawn using a map created by Generic Mapping Tools [35].
Figure 2. Area classification for which the apparent half-life was calculated, and the location of the monitoring posts. The red circles indicate the location of the monitoring posts used for the analysis, the blue mesh is the difficult-to-return zone, the pink mesh is the evacuation order cancellation zone where the radionuclides decontamination work was carried out before April 2016, and the green mesh is the evacuation order cancellation zone where the radionuclides decontamination work was carried out after April 2016. This map was drawn using a map created by Generic Mapping Tools [35].
Ijerph 18 00978 g002
Figure 3. Histogram of absorbed dose rate in air of artificial radionuclides corrected as of 1 April 2020.
Figure 3. Histogram of absorbed dose rate in air of artificial radionuclides corrected as of 1 April 2020.
Ijerph 18 00978 g003
Figure 4. (a) Map of absorbed dose rate in air derived from natural radionuclides and (b) map of absorbed dose rate in air derived from artificial radionuclides. This map was drawn using a map created by Generic Mapping Tools [35].
Figure 4. (a) Map of absorbed dose rate in air derived from natural radionuclides and (b) map of absorbed dose rate in air derived from artificial radionuclides. This map was drawn using a map created by Generic Mapping Tools [35].
Ijerph 18 00978 g004
Table 1. The estimated value of the quantity of typical radionuclides released into the atmosphere by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident.
Table 1. The estimated value of the quantity of typical radionuclides released into the atmosphere by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident.
The Estimated Value of the Quantity of Radionuclides Released into the Atmosphere (Bq)
132Te131I132I133I133Xe134Cs136Cs137Cs
2.9 × 10161.2 × 10172.9 × 10169.6 × 10157.3 × 10189.0 × 10151.8 × 10158.8 × 1015
Table 2. Comparison of the half-life of radiocesium in the environment.
Table 2. Comparison of the half-life of radiocesium in the environment.
Apparent Half-Life of Radiocesium in the Environment (y)
Evacuation Order Cancellation ZoneDifficult-to-Return ZonePreviously
Reported Value [34]
Theoretical Value [34]
Decontaminated
before April 2016
Decontaminated on and after April 2016
6.42.04.23.27.8
Table 3. Median (range) estimated absorbed dose rate in air as of 1 April 2020.
Table 3. Median (range) estimated absorbed dose rate in air as of 1 April 2020.
Absorbed Dose Rate in air as of 1 April 2020 (nGy h−1)
Evacuation Order Cancellation ZoneDifficult-to-Return Zone
Natural radionuclides28 (25–35)37 (30–45)
Artificial radionuclides133 (67–511)1306 (892–2081)
Total161 (995–81)1340 (921–2124)
Table 4. Evaluation of variation of measurements data in a 1 km × 1 km mesh.
Table 4. Evaluation of variation of measurements data in a 1 km × 1 km mesh.
Mesh CodeNumber of MeasurementsAbsorbed Dose Rate in Air
Average ± Standard Deviation (nGy h−1)Standard Error
(nGy h−1)
Coefficient of Variation
F541118 ± 84428%
L223126 ± 331926%
L236312 ± 1476047%
M225227 ± 833737%
M244156 ± 1479%
N233147 ± 442530%
Table 5. Estimated annual external exposure effective dose.
Table 5. Estimated annual external exposure effective dose.
Median (Range) Annual External Exposure Effective Dose (mSv)
Evacuation Order Cancellation ZoneDifficult-to-Return Zone
Natural radionuclides0.19 (0.16–0.23)0.25 (0.20–0.29)
Artificial radionuclides0.40 (0.20–1.5)3.9 (2.7–6.2)
Total0.55 (0.39–1.7)4.1 (2.9–6.5)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ogura, K.; Hosoda, M.; Tamakuma, Y.; Suzuki, T.; Yamada, R.; Negami, R.; Tsujiguchi, T.; Yamaguchi, M.; Shiroma, Y.; Iwaoka, K.; et al. Discriminative Measurement of Absorbed Dose Rates in Air from Natural and Artificial Radionuclides in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030978

AMA Style

Ogura K, Hosoda M, Tamakuma Y, Suzuki T, Yamada R, Negami R, Tsujiguchi T, Yamaguchi M, Shiroma Y, Iwaoka K, et al. Discriminative Measurement of Absorbed Dose Rates in Air from Natural and Artificial Radionuclides in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(3):978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030978

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ogura, Koya, Masahiro Hosoda, Yuki Tamakuma, Takahito Suzuki, Ryohei Yamada, Ryoju Negami, Takakiyo Tsujiguchi, Masaru Yamaguchi, Yoshitaka Shiroma, Kazuki Iwaoka, and et al. 2021. "Discriminative Measurement of Absorbed Dose Rates in Air from Natural and Artificial Radionuclides in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 3: 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030978

APA Style

Ogura, K., Hosoda, M., Tamakuma, Y., Suzuki, T., Yamada, R., Negami, R., Tsujiguchi, T., Yamaguchi, M., Shiroma, Y., Iwaoka, K., Akata, N., Shimizu, M., Kashiwakura, I., & Tokonami, S. (2021). Discriminative Measurement of Absorbed Dose Rates in Air from Natural and Artificial Radionuclides in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030978

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop