Following the article, the author J. Kenens has published another paper "Changing perspectives: tracing the evolution of citizen radiation measuring organizations after Fukushima (2020)" DOI: 10.1051/radiopro/2020041 (link) that draws on the research on citizen science in Japan with a new focus on the comparison of their practices directly after the nuclear accident and today.
It is interesting to see how citizen science in Japan is enacted and how the concept of citizen science is dependent to the social and cultural context. Also looking at it not only from a top-down perspective, where universities or organizations are involved, but also the bottom-up perspective that includes only those practices that are done by citizens alone opens up a new space. As I am currently engaging with research on air pollution in different sites, I could build from this text in considering the link between "citizen-driven approaches and institutional imparatives in the governance" (p. 7) of issues with air pollution.
The text is an article about citizen science in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The first noteworthy detail about this text that struck me is the inclusion of Japanese words and even their original spelling. This creates a kind of closeness to the field that the authors did their research in.
The authors engaged in multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork that took place in and around Fukushima but also in other geografical sites like Tochigi, Miyagi, Aichi, Tokyo and Kyoto. There, they conduct semi-structured interviews with various organisations that are all somehow involved with citizen science or radiation measurement. To learn about the citizens that measure radioactivity and create their own data on radiation because of a lack of provided data by the government, a literature review of policy documents and workshops with those citizen scientists is performed.
Historical examples of emergency repsonse were given, showing how times have changed. In the theater fire years ago that was described, people sat around waiting for "fire-proof" mechanisms to kick in. This mindset has changed over the years and we have learned our lessons.
"Clearly, this criterion aimed to prevent people who came to France solely for the purposes of getting treatment for their illness from also acquiring a temporary residence permit and free health care under the medical assistance system. However, such situations were not uncommon"
"Precisely because he or she is illegally resident, the sick immigrant may undertake medical tests or seek treatment under a different name, so that the cost of treatment is coverd, or simply to avoid being denounced and deported"
It was partialy funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
I looked up how emergency responders deal with mental health, since the method that was described in this article is no longer recommended. I also investigated the types of disaster that people around the world face each year, besides for weather disasters. Furthermore, I looked at a map of the types of disasters across the globe.
The pdf did not include the bibliography, however I would assume that a lot of the scientific information came from other, more medical/chemical rather than sociological, Chernobyl research.