4.1 Article

Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima

Journal

JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages S82-S101

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/S82

Keywords

Safecast; ionizing radiation; citizen science; public information; media; Fukushima; crowdsourcing

Funding

  1. Shuttleworth Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster, which began on 11 March 2011, provided a crucial opportunity to evaluate the state of preparation on the part the powerplant operator (TEPCO), relevant Japanese government agencies, and international oversight bodies, to gather necessary information on radiation risks quickly and to share it with those tasked with emergency response as well as with the general public. The inadequacy of this preparation and the chaotic nature of inter-agency and inter-governmental communication has been well noted in several official reports on the disaster. In response, Safecast, an international, volunteer-based organization devoted to monitoring and openly sharing information on environmental radiation and other pollutants, was initiated on 12 March 2011, one day following the start of the accident. Since then the group has implemented participatory, open-source, citizen-science-centered radiation mapping solutions developed through a process of collaborative open innovation. The information Safecast provided has proven useful to experts, to policy makers, and to the public. This paper briefly describes the methodology and toolsets Safecast has developed and deployed, as well as organizational and social aspects, and summarizes key results obtained to date. In addition, it discusses appropriate criteria for evaluating the success of citizen-science efforts like Safecast, and places it in context with other non-governmental radiation monitoring efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available