Fukushima nuclear accident has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result November 3, 2024 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 16, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that an official investigation found the Fukushima nuclear accident was foreseeable and preventable? News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 12, 2011, March 18, 2011, and April 12, 2011. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 11, 2021, and March 11, 2023.

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Japan: History / Infrastructure High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History task force. This article is supported by the Infrastructure task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Earthquakes High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Oceans High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Oceans To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus) Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea Photo : find images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the oceans Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus) Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Royiswariii talk 00:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Town of Namie (population 21,000) was evacuated as a result of the accident.

• ... that residents evacuated in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health effects are likely to be below detectable levels?

• Source: "Outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fuku-

shima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer

above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated" page 8: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/78218/9789241505130_eng.pdf;jsessionid=5D2A9C6FCDE7BA3C9686CED940B05E3A?sequence=1

• • ALT1: ... that during the Fukushima nuclear accident officials were told not to use the phrase "core meltdown" in order to conceal the meltdown until they officially recognized it two months after the accident? Source: " Tepco asked a third-party panel to investigate the matter and the panel released a report on 16 June saying the company’s then-president, Masataka Shimizu, had instructed officials not to use the words "core meltdown"." https://www.neimagazine.com/news/tepco-concealed-core-meltdowns-during-fukushima-accident-4931915/
  • ALT2: ... that the Fukushima nuclear accident was foreseeable and preventable? Source: "The accident "cannot be regarded as a natural disaster," the panel's chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the report. "It was a profoundly manmade disaster -- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response."" https://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-nuclear-accident--manmade-not-natural--disaster-20120705-21jrl.html
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Czarking0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Czarking0 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Czarking0: I'll start by addressing WP:DYKNEW. This article last appeared at In the news on 12 April 2011, and the on this day on 11 March 2023. This was over one year ago, so it can go on the main page again.

The article recently became a good article so it is eligible for DYK. Earwig's is not working so i'll assume good faith when it comes to copyvios. QPQ not needed.

I'll review ALT0 (I think it is the most interesting). The hook matches the article.

I'm worried about the source for this hook because it is a preliminary report, which uses predictions of health effects rather than observations. It also doesn't say about the evacuations and also says In the highest dose location ... For leukaemia, the lifetime risks are predicted to increase by up to around 7% over baseline cancer rates in males exposed as infants However, a 2020 source says that No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident. So I'll approve, with caution. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panamitsu I worded ALT0 this way because claiming that there will never be health effects has been contentious. Follow up studies have not found health effects directly attributable to the radiation from the accident. However the cleanup remains on going and many children born in the years after the accident are still young. Additionally, increased thyriod cancer rates have been found but it is hard to directly attribute these to the accident.Czarking0 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panamitsu, in light of the possible issues with ALT0, could you review the other hooks? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. ALT1:

Is in the article, is interesting, and is verified by the source.

ALT2:

Is in the article, is intersting, and is verified by the source.

Both ALT1 and ALT2 look good. I would prefer to use these over ALT0 due to the issues I mentioned previously. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Toshiko Kato, the first author of Reference 151 cited in this article.

The current description in the article reads: "However, the authors of a dose-response relationship study from 2023 also claimed that the incidence of thyroid cancer may be underreported due to societal and political pressure." [151]

This is incorrect and does not reflect the conclusion of our paper.

The actual conclusion of our study was: "The linear dose–response of thyroid cancer incidence showed that childhood thyroid cancer in Fukushima originated from radiation exposure. The observed EAR/Gy in Fukushima, which was 50–100 times higher than in Chernobyl, indicated that UNSCEAR substantially underestimated the thyroid dose compared with Chernobyl. The increased incidence of thyroid cancer in Fukushima was found to arise from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl."

Reference: Kato T, Yamada K, Hongyo T. *Area Dose–Response and Radiation Origin of Childhood Thyroid Cancer in Fukushima Based on Thyroid Dose in UNSCEAR 2020/2021: High 131I Exposure Comparable to Chernobyl.* Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4583. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184583

I kindly request that the incorrect description be corrected so that the article accurately reflects the conclusion of our study.

Thank you for your assistance. Katotoshiko (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kato,

Out of an abundance of caution for misinformation, I will remove this from the article until further review by myself or other editors. I believe you may also edit the article in accordance with WP:COI though there may be additional (automatic) restrictions on this article that I am unsure of. Czarking0 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current article incorrectly states that our 2023 study claimed that the incidence of thyroid cancer was underreported due to societal and political pressure. Our paper did not make such a claim. In fact:

• We did not question the incidence data published by Fukushima Prefecture.
• We concluded that UNSCEAR 2020/2021 thyroid dose estimates were underestimated because of the lack of reliable direct thyroid dose measurements.
• The article therefore misrepresents our findings by confusing incidence with dose estimation.

I suggest replacing the current sentence with the following, which accurately reflects the study’s conclusion:

"The authors of a 2023 dose–response study reported that thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima Prefecture increased linearly with the average thyroid dose estimated by UNSCEAR 2020/2021, and concluded that the underestimated thyroid dose suggests that the increased thyroid cancer arose from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl."

Reference: T. Kato et al. Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4583. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184583 Katotoshiko (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am following up because this edit request was previously marked as answered, but the inclusion of the study has not yet been resolved. Just following up to ask if there has been any further discussion or decision regarding the inclusion of this study. I understand that reviews can take time, but I would appreciate any update or reconsideration of the request. I propose replacing the removed sentence with the following, which accurately reflects the study and is neutrally phrased:

"A 2023 dose–response study by Kato et al. reported that thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima Prefecture increased linearly with the average thyroid dose estimated by UNSCEAR 2020/2021, and concluded that the increased thyroid cancer arose from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl."

Reference: Kato T, Yamada K, Hongyo T. Area Dose–Response and Radiation Origin of Childhood Thyroid Cancer in Fukushima Based on Thyroid Dose in UNSCEAR 2020/2021: High 131I Exposure Comparable to Chernobyl. Cancers. 2023;15(18):4583. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184583 Katotoshiko (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is COI request not a protected edit request. I believe Kato is following proper procedure Czarking0 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a COI declared anywhere, but maybe I missed it. Also, COI requests should use {{Edit COI}} not {{edit semi-protected}}. meamemg (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI is that the requesting user claims to be the other of the study. You can't expect new users to know all the different edit request tags Czarking0 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the following text in the article:

"However, the authors of a dose-response relationship study from 2023 also claimed that the incidence of thyroid cancer may be underreported due to societal and political pressure." [151]

to:

"A 2023 dose–response relationship study by Kato et al. reported that thyroid cancer incidence in Fukushima Prefecture increased linearly with the average thyroid dose estimated by UNSCEAR 2020/2021, and concluded that the increased thyroid cancer arose from radioactive iodine exposure comparable to that in Chernobyl." [151] Katotoshiko (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is COI request not a protected edit request. I believe Kato is following proper procedure Czarking0 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now I am inclined to leave this out of the article. I understand what you are saying here that UNSCEAR 2020/2021 underestimated the dose, but that the observed incidence scaled linearly with the estimated dose. I'll also note that your study relies on taking a correction factor from observation of the Chernobyl data and presents an odds-ratio at the 95% CI. I see six citations and one published correction. From reading your article, my main take away is that over-diagnosis is hard to estimate and that there is no scientific consensus on the level of over diagnosis. On a possibly related note, can you elaborate on why your study only considers 10-year-old children? Or maybe I misunderstood that? Czarking0 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the careful reading of my article. To clarify, UNSCEAR provides estimated thyroid dose data for adults, 10-year-old children, and 1-year-old infants. The reference to age 10 was used as a representative example for the dose–response calculation, but the analysis covered the full population included in the Fukushima screening data, i.e., residents aged 0–18 years in 2011. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. Katotoshiko (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I missed that important context. I still stand by my conclusions that removing referenced to this study in this article is the best course of action right now, but others might disagree? Czarking0 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally found the citation through the "Cited by" function in CrossRef/PubMed, where the Wikipedia article was listed at the time, though it no longer appears there.

Regarding the removal, I would prefer that the reference remain, since the study is peer-reviewed and directly relevant to the topic. While I respect your perspective, I could not find specific reasons for deletion, and I find it difficult to understand removing it without such justification. Of course, I am open to consensus from other editors. Katotoshiko (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate reason for removing it was preventing misinformation. My reason for keeping it out now is unconnected to the fact that it was in the article beforehand. "peer-reviewed and directly relevant to the topic" - agreed however, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of sources that meet this criteria and the article should not include all of them. I don't think the conclusions of this study significantly shift what should be stated in the two paragraphs and table starting with The World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and researchers from other groups and ending with baseline rates which it the part of the article to which I believe this study would belong. Czarking0 (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your concern about “misinformation.” Our paper used only UNSCEAR 2020/2021 thyroid dose estimates and FHMS screening reports, and the incidence–dose relationship can be independently reproduced. The study adds value because it shows a significant linear dose–response (p ≤ 0.01) using UNSCEAR’s own estimates, and reports an EAR/Gy about 60–140 times higher than in Chernobyl, suggesting that UNSCEAR may have underestimated Fukushima doses. This contribution is not duplicated in the WHO, UNSCEAR, or other sources already cited. Katotoshiko (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future use, can I ask how you even came to find your work cited on this page? Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have been late of answering your question. I found via link listed in my paper in Cancers.

Just following up to ask if there has been any further discussion or decision regarding the inclusion of this study. I understand that reviews can take time, but I would appreciate any update on the current status. Katotoshiko (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There has not been further discussion you can check the discussion history for the entire topic here. I think my current comment "I don't think the conclusions of this study significantly shift what should be stated in the two paragraphs" represents the matter as it currently stands but others are welcome to disagree with me and I may just be mistaken. Czarking0 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a COI edit request. I am the author of the cited paper, so I will not edit the page directly. I request review and implementation by uninvolved editors. Thank you.

I reviewed the answers and Czarking0 has reasonable explanations for their refusal. I'm not going to interfere with the discretion that they exercised when declining the request. Also, the proposed rewrite has a bit of a Captain Obvious vibe. Excess radiation causes cancer and any person with a basic school biology and/or physics background should know it. Closing. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]