An analysis of the argument over the health effects of low-dose radiation exposure caused by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi APP in Japan

Since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Atomic Power Plant last March, there has been a huge controversy over the potential health effects of low-dose radiation exposure. This paper critically examines the argument between mainstream experts and nonmainstreamers, which is revealed as an interdisciplinary argument caused by the differences in the specialties to which the experts belong. The concepts of confounding control and statistical significance, which are epidemiologically powerful tools that can disprove the argument that harm was caused by other causes, appeared to be less effective for denying the existence of a hazard entirely. The concept of risk is the most significant cause of confusion related to low-dose exposure because the epidemiologists assume that risk is the incidence rate of diseases, but biologists believe that risk includes DNA damage that may cause cancer in the future. This paper also reveals that public debate is useful to make collective choices and decisions rationally when inferential questions become the subjects of dispute.