Direct and indirect health effects of the nuclear power plant disasters: a review for health care professionals : IJS Global Health

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Review Article

Direct and indirect health effects of the nuclear power plant disasters: a review for health care professionals

Okano, Ichiro MDa,b; Rosenberg, Ashley MDc; Dworkin, Myles MDd; Murthy, Vijayashree MDa; Jayaraman, Sudha MD, MSce; Takabe, Kazuaki MD, PhD, FACSa,f,g,

Author Information
International Journal of Surgery: Global Health: September 2022 - Volume 5 - Issue 5 - p e71
doi: 10.1097/GH9.0000000000000071
  • Open


There are ~450 nuclear power plants currently operating worldwide with 50 more under construction1. There are 118 plants operating in North America, 99 in the United States and 19 in Canada, accounting for 20% of the total electric energy in both countries2. The United States generates the greatest amount of electricity from nuclear plants in the world, 50% more than the second leading country France1. Until 2011, Japan generated ~30% of its electricity from nuclear reactors3. This decreased to ~2% after the 2011 tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear accident and shifted the public’s opinion against nuclear power4.

Nuclear power is an essential source of modern energy but has a potential risk for mass disaster. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies nuclear accidents into groups from 1 to 7, with 1 being benign anomalies and 7 being Major Accidents resulting in massive release of radioactive material5 (Fig. 1). The worst nuclear accident to occur in the United States, the Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania is classified as group 5 or an “Accident with Wider Consequences.” Two examples of group 7 or “Major Accidents” are events that occurred at Chernobyl, Ukraine, and Fukushima, Japan.

Figure 1:
Numerical rating indicating the significance of nuclear or radiologic events. 1=Anomaly; 2=incident; 3=serious incident; 4=accident with local consequences; 5=accident with wider consequences; 6=serious accident; 7=major accident. (Adapted from the INES rating descriptions.

“Major Accidents” require urgent mass evacuation of people in affected areas and are associated with long-term radioactive contamination of surrounding areas. In contrast, the Three Mile Island accident (group 5) involved emission of gaseous radioactive nuclei with relatively short half-life without heavy metal nuclei. This meant that ~195,000 people evacuated within a 20-mile radius, were able to return to their homes within a few weeks6. The “Major Accidents” (group 7) in Chernobyl and Fukushima were more extreme, essentially permanently displacing over 250,000 people in Chernobyl since 1986 and 150,000 in Fukushima since 20117. As of January 1, 2018, ~370 km2 around the nuclear plant remains designated as an evacuation area due to the ongoing issues with radiation exposure8 (Fig. 2).

Figure 2:
Location and designated evacuation zone around Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on April 1, 2017. Source: Data from Ministry of Economy, Trade, Industry, Japan, including all 3 category of evacuation orders. Area shaded in green: areas to which evacuation orders are ready to be lifted; area shaded in yellow: areas in which residents are not permitted to live; area shaded in black: long-term evacuation area.

The direct health effects of these disasters have been extensively investigated over the last decade9–11. In addition, there have been reports about secondary health problems caused by evacuation such as outbreaks of communicable diseases, mental stress, and cardiovascular diseases12,13. In this review, we briefly summarize the effects of chronic radiation exposure associated with a nuclear plant disaster, secondary health-related issues caused by evacuation, and the influence of disaster-modified ecosystems after nuclear accidents which can be useful for health care workers in disaster environments.


On January 26, 2018, the search was conducted on electronic databases (PubMed and Medline) using the keyword “large nuclear power plant disaster.” Inclusion criteria was original articles and government agency reports that focused on radiation and health effects after Fukushima disaster in early 2011, and the papers that full text was accessible. Focus was placed on immediate health effects that affected humans following a nuclear disaster as well as long-term effects. Effects on wildlife population and environment were also included. Total of 144 publications were identified with the keyword, where 35 were excluded because they were published before 2011, 16 were excluded because they were review articles, and 10 were excluded because only the abstracts were accessible.

Results and discussions

Eighty-three publications were identified in the review. The results are summarized in categories based on direct health effects such as direct immediate health effects, indirect health effects such as related to evacuation, cancer, behavioral, and psychosocial effects and indirect health effects such as proliferation of wildlife and effect on local human populations and other infectious diseases.

Direct health effects related to nuclear power plant disasters

Immediate health effects

The effects of ionizing radiation on human health through occupational and medical radiation exposure, as well as atomic bomb survivors, has been investigated and reported by many studies14–16. Short-term health effect of radiation is known as “acute radiation syndrome.” This involves a cutaneous radiation injury defined as local skin injury at the irradiated or contaminated body parts17,18, and a systemic response caused by cell damage in multiple organ systems. Acute radiation syndrome primarily affects employees at nuclear plants or those who live near highly radioactive sites. However, the bigger health concern amongst the general population and rescue workers following a nuclear plant disaster are the long-term effects of radiation exposure, including cancer, behavioral and psycho-social issues and health problems related to evacuation19,20.

Radiation exposure causes health problems through either exposure or contamination. Radiation “exposure” is defined as receiving energy of ionized radiation waves or particles from external radioactive sources16. If the dose is large, delivered in a short time and penetrates the entire body, it has the potential to result in acute radiation syndrome. This occurred in the past in survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs and first responders to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster21. “Contamination” is defined as extended direct contact with radioactive material, which may be via taking material into the body (internal contamination) or placing them on the skin (external contamination)22. Internal contamination often goes unnoticed and has the potential to lead to chronic exposure following a nuclear accident23. Both exposure and contamination cause health problems when the radiation dose is high. For survivors of atomic bombs and workers in highly radioactive environments, the effect of radiation exposure is the main concern24,25. Meanwhile, internal contamination is the primary concern for the general population surrounding nuclear plant accidents26.

Long-term health effects

Health effects related to evacuation. Evacuation imparts significant health risk on patients. Previous reports have demonstrated that people in temporary disaster shelters are at risk for various acute medical conditions like deep vein thrombosis27,28, respiratory infections29,30, viral enterocolitis31, and dehydration32. Evacuation is also associated with the onset of chronic illness including hypertension33, hyperlipidemia34, diabetes mellitus35, metabolic syndrome36, chronic kidney disease37, liver dysfunction38, and obesity39, as well as further deterioration of various chronic illnesses34,40. For elderly people, the stress of evacuation can lead to overall decrease of function41 and even death. Hasegawa et al13 reported that more than 50 elderly people living in hospitals or nursing facilities died of hypothermia, exacerbation of medical illnesses or dehydration, during the evacuation of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, even though there was no direct radiation injuries reported.

Cancer. There is a high prevalence of cancer amongst individuals exposed to high doses of radiation and further, the likelihood of cancer is correlated with the dose of radiation14,24,25,42. Meanwhile, patients subject to internal contamination usually are exposed to lower radiation doses for extended periods. This makes estimation of disease likelihood more complex, due to the minor cell and DNA damage repair mechanism43,44 and the elimination of radioactive materials from organ systems44–48.

In Chernobyl, a higher incidence of cancer has been observed 20 years after the accident, among children and adolescents who were exposed to radioactive fallout48. Radioactive fallout contains a number of potentially harmful nuclei including Iodine (I-131) and Cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137). Radioactive Iodine (I-131) commonly accumulates in thyroid tissue leading to thyroid cancer. Some researchers suggest that this may be in part due to low baseline iodine intake in affected area, which make individuals more vulnerable to radioactive iodine49–51. It is estimated that more than 6000 cases of thyroid cancer of all ages were caused by the Chernobyl disaster52. In Fukushima, radiation doses to the public were lower than at Chernobyl. Thyroid screening for children and adolescents under 18 has been conducted. In a 4-year continuous survey involving 300,476 people, 113 cases of thyroid cancer have been identified, most of which are thought to be unrelated to radiation exposure53. Coordinated efforts are underway to avoid overdiagnosis that may result from the use of highly sensitive ultrasound equipment and examination protocols which can cause its own health consequences. Furthermore, they also stated the results of thyroid screening in distant areas in Japan were similar to the result of Fukushima54.

The other radioactive nuclei for concern in general population are Cs-134 and Cs-137. These were released largely after Chernobyl and Fukushima and have long half-lives. Radioactive Cs is primarily deposited in muscle tissue in previous animal studies46,55,56. The data of low-level internal contamination with radioactive cesium for cancer occurrence is limited. It is reported that slight but statistically significant dose-correlated increase of cancer incidence was observed among people who lived in radioactive cesium contaminated areas in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident57. Regarding Fukushima, no report has been conducted regarding the relation between radioactive cesium contamination and cancer incidence, but continuous monitoring is needed. High incidence of nonthyroid malignant solid organ tumors, has been noted up to 10 years following radiation exposure14.

Behavioral and psycho-social health effects. Radioactive cesium has been reported to accumulate in neural tissues58. The relation between contamination and cognitive impairment or other neurological disorder is still controversial. Reports have shown that clean-up workers in Chernobyl and people living in highly contaminated areas have a higher incidence of difficulty sleeping, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and medically unexplained somatic symptoms59. It is very difficult to determine whether the etiology of these symptoms are related to radiation exposure or purely psychological. Behavioral and psycho-social consequences are common after any mass disaster event60–62 and hence it is possible that nuclear plant disasters create greater psychological stress compared to other tragedies, due to fear of an invisible threat, ambiguous information about the event, and/or forced evacuation12,63,64.

Indirect health effects related to nuclear power plant disaster

Proliferation of wildlife and effect on local human populations

While the genetic effects of chronic low level radiation contamination is still under debate, the lack of human pressure in the evacuation area seems to have led to uncontrolled proliferation of large mammals, including erk, deer, and wild boar, such as noted after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster65. In Fukushima, the local government has also found that farmers have increasingly trapped wild boar since the nuclear plant disaster in 201166 (Fig. 3). In fact, herds of wild boars were observed in abandoned farmlands in many evacuation zones, which is very unusual in any other part of Japan. Drop in commercial trade and domestic consumption of wild boar meat from the entire Fukushima prefecture (due to abnormal radiodensity in wild boar meat and decrease in the number of licensed hunters) have limited population control66–68. In Chernobyl, predators such as wolves helped control proliferation of wildlife to some extent, but in Japan no significant predator for wild boar exists, hence, human activity and limited food supply are the only regulatory factors65. This lack of population control seems to also affect animal behavior. Wild boars, which typically have a territory of ~2.5 km2, have been reported to have a 4–5 time larger range after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, compared with nonevacuation zones and have become diurnal instead of nocturnal66. The increase in number of such wildlife and changes in behavior raise the risk of human-wildlife conflicts in these areas.

Figure 3:
The number of wild boars extirpated for harmfulness. Y-axis denotes radioactive Cesium 137 levels in becquerel per kilogram. Yellow arrow denotes the year of occurrence of the nuclear plant disaster (based upon data from Fukushima Prefecture, Japan).

The wild boar, a fertile animal requiring only 1.5 years for reproductive maturation, can have an average litter of 4–5 piglets. Without human pressure, wild boar can explosively increase their number and break out to neighboring areas69,70. Adult boars are strong and fast and can reach speeds up to 40 km/h, leap 1 m high, and lift over 70 kg objects with their sharp tusks71. Wild boars rarely attack humans, but injuries and deaths have been reported72–78. Attacking boars first charge victims from the back leading to puncture wounds and victims typically have multiple injuries in the posterior aspect of their lower extremities, especially the thigh. Severe anorectal injuries caused by wild boar have also been reported78 (Fig. 4).

Figure 4:
A 83-year-old male farmer attacked by young male wild boar 35 km far from evacuation zone in Fukushima, Japan. The patient sustained hemorrhagic shock, pneumothorax, multiple wounds in bilateral gluteal region and posterior aspect of legs, laceration of right sciatic nerve, and rectal injury. A, Multiple puncture wounds in both buttocks and bleeding from rectum. B, Lacerated wound in right thigh. C, Penetrating wound in perineum. D, Computed tomography scan at the level of rectum shows free air bubbles around rectum (yellow arrowheads). E, Computed tomography scan shows part of tusk in subcutaneous layer of right buttock (arrow). F, Part of wild boar’s tusk removed from the wound.

There are also several important patient related factors including age and comorbidities with relation to outcomes with boar attacks. In fact, 64% of agricultural workers are over 65 and 32% are over 7579 (Fig. 5). Age related physical limitations may make people more vulnerable to wildlife attack and poorer outcomes as seen in geriatric trauma around the world. Furthermore, elderly people are more likely to have comorbidities, which puts them at a higher risk for postinjury complications80.

Figure 5:
Age distribution of agricultural worker and whole labor force in Japan. Dominance of elderly seen in the proportion of agricultural workers in Japan compared with total labor force and general population. (Based upon data from Statistic Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and Statistic Department, Minister’s Secretariat, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan.)

Other health effects from wildlife

Wildlife may serve as a reservoir for pathogens. Wild boars carry many pathogens such as hepatitis E, tuberculosis, leptospirosis, and trichinellosis81. Moreover, large mammals are hosts for ticks, which is a reservoir of tick-borne disease like Rickettsia82. Movila et al83 reported an abundance of adult ticks in the evacuation zone of Chernobyl. No direct relation between nuclear plant disaster and tick-borne disease have been reported, but health care workers in surrounding areas should be aware of a potential increase in wildlife related infectious diseases, especially during the resettlement period.


Nuclear plant disasters may result in various immediate and long-term health effects including behavioral and social consequences. Extensive environmental impact also leads to additional unanticipated effects on wildlife making resettlement more complicated. Health care workers should be aware of these potential threats after a nuclear plant accident in the short and long-term.

Ethical approval


Sources of funding

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grant 5T32CA108456 to V.M., and US National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant P30CA016056 to Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication.

Author contribution

I.O. conceptualized, collected and interpreted data, and prepared the manuscript. K.T. provided supervision of the design of the work and interpretation of the data. I.O., A.R., M.D., V.M., S.J., and K.T. provided critical revisions of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

The authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest with regard to the content of this report.

Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)





1. IAEA. PRIS (Power Reactor Information System). 2018. Available at: Accessed January 26, 2018.
2. IEA. Energy Statistics of OECD Countries 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. Available at:
3. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear power in Japan. Available at: Accessed June 30, 2021.
4. World Nuclear Association. Fukushima Daiichi accident. Available at: Accessed June 30, 2021.
5. International Atomic Emergy Agency. The Use of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) for Event Communication. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2014.
6. Cutter S, Barnes K. Evacuation behavior and Three Mile Island. Disasters 1982;6:116–24.
7. UNICEF. The human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident a strategy for recovery. UN, editor. 2002.
8. JR Agency. Great East Japan earthquake. Available at: Accessed June 30, 2021.
9. Kamiya K, Ozasa K, Akiba S, et al. Long-term effects of radiation exposure on health. Lancet 2015;386:469–78.
10. Dörr H, Meineke V. Acute radiation syndrome caused by accidental radiation exposure—therapeutic principles. BMC Med 2011;9:126.
11. Grammaticos P, Giannoula E, Fountos GP. Acute radiation syndrome and chronic radiation syndrome. Hell J Nucl Med 2013;16:56–9.
12. Hasegawa A, Ohira T, Maeda M, et al. Emergency responses and health consequences after the Fukushima accident; evacuation and relocation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2016;28:237–44.
13. Hasegawa A, Tanigawa K, Ohtsuru A, et al. Health effects of radiation and other health problems in the aftermath of nuclear accidents, with an emphasis on Fukushima. Lancet 2015;386:479–88.
14. Little MP. Cancer and non-cancer effects in Japanese atomic bomb survivors. J Radiol Prot 2009;29(2a):A43–59.
15. Little MP. Risks associated with ionizing radiation. Br Med Bull 2003;68:259–75.
16. Christensen DM, Iddins CJ, Sugarman SL. Ionizing radiation injuries and illnesses. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2014;32:245–65.
17. Peter RU, Gottlöber P. Management of cutaneous radiation injuries: diagnostic and therapeutic principles of the cutaneous radiation syndrome. Mil Med 2002;167(suppl 2):110–2.
18. Ward KA, Jaimes JP, Coots NV. Cutaneous manifestations of acute radiation exposure: a review. Int J Dermatol 2012;51:1282–91.
19. Yoshida-Komiya H, Goto A, Yasumura S, et al. Immediate mental consequences of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima nuclear power plant accident on mothers experiencing miscarriage, abortion, and stillbirth: the Fukushima health management survey. Fukushima J Med Sci 2015;61:66–71.
20. Matsuoka Y, Nishi D, Nakaya N, et al. Concern over radiation exposure and psychological distress among rescue workers following the Great East Japan Earthquake. BMC Public Health 2012;12:249.
21. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: Accessed June 30, 2021.
22. Densow D. Are there “common denominators” in different radiation exposure scenarios as a target for predictive assessment? Stem Cells 1995;13(suppl 1):307–17.
23. Alkhomashi N, Monged MH. Long-term assessment of contaminated articles from the Chernobyl reactor. J Environ Radioact 2015;144:52–6.
24. Sasaki MS, Tachibana A, Takeda S. Cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation: artificial neural networks inference from atomic bomb survivors. J Radiat Res 2014;55:391–406.
25. Imaizumi M, Ohishi W, Nakashima E, et al. Association of radiation dose with prevalence of thyroid nodules among atomic bomb survivors exposed in childhood (2007-2011). JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:228–36.
26. Tsubokura M, Kato S, Nomura S, et al. Reduction of high levels of internal radio-contamination by dietary intervention in residents of areas affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster: a case series. PLoS One 2014;9:e100302.
27. Ueda S, Hanzawa K, Shibata M, et al. High prevalence of deep vein thrombosis in tsunami-flooded shelters established after the great East-Japan earthquake. Tohoku J Exp Med 2012;227:199–202.
28. Shibata M, Hanzawa K, Ueda S, et al. Deep venous thrombosis among disaster shelter inhabitants following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan: a descriptive study. Phlebology 2014;29:257–66.
29. Kawano T, Hasegawa K, Watase H, et al. Infectious disease frequency among evacuees at shelters after the great eastern Japan earthquake and tsunami: a retrospective study. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2014;8:58–64.
30. Daito H, Suzuki M, Shiihara J, et al. Impact of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on pneumonia hospitalisations and mortality among adults in northern Miyagi, Japan: a multicentre observational study. Thorax 2013;68:544–50.
31. Yee EL, Palacio H, Atmar RL, et al. Widespread outbreak of norovirus gastroenteritis among evacuees of Hurricane Katrina residing in a large “megashelter” in Houston, Texas: lessons learned for prevention. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:1032–9.
32. Greenough PG, Lappi MD, Hsu EB, et al. Burden of disease and health status among Hurricane Katrina-displaced persons in shelters: a population-based cluster sample. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:426–32.
33. Ohira T, Hosoya M, Yasumura S, et al. Evacuation and risk of hypertension after the Great East Japan Earthquake: the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Hypertension 2016;68:558–64.
34. Nomura S, Blangiardo M, Tsubokura M, et al. Postnuclear disaster evacuation and chronic health in adults in Fukushima, Japan: a long-term retrospective analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010080.
35. Satoh H, Ohira T, Hosoya M, et al. Evacuation after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident is a cause of diabetes: results from the Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Diabetes Res 2015;2015:627390.
36. Hashimoto S, Nagai M, Fukuma S, et al. Influence of post-disaster evacuation on incidence of metabolic syndrome. J Atheroscler Thromb 2017;24:327–37.
37. Hayashi Y, Nagai M, Ohira T, et al. The impact of evacuation on the incidence of chronic kidney disease after the Great East Japan Earthquake: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Clin Exp Nephrol 2017;21:995–1002.
38. Takahashi A, Ohira T, Hosoya M, et al. Effect of evacuation on liver function after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident: the Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Epidemiol 2017;27:180–5.
39. Ohira T, Hosoya M, Yasumura S, et al. Effect of evacuation on body weight after the great East Japan Earthquake. Am J Prev Med 2016;50:553–60.
40. Jhung MA, Shehab N, Rohr-Allegrini C, et al. Chronic disease and disasters medication demands of Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Am J Prev Med 2007;33:207–10.
41. Yabuki S, Ouchi K, Kikuchi S, et al. Pain, quality of life and activity in aged evacuees living in temporary housing after the Great East Japan earthquake of 11 March 2011: a cross-sectional study in Minamisoma City, Fukushima Prefecture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:246.
42. Takamura N, Orita M, Saenko V, et al. Radiation and risk of thyroid cancer: Fukushima and Chernobyl. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016;4:647.
43. Gastaldo J, Viau M, Bouchot M, et al. Induction and repair rate of DNA damage: a unified model for describing effects of external and internal irradiation and contamination with heavy metals. J Theor Biol 2008;251:68–81.
44. García O, Mandina T. DNA damage evaluated by the comet assay in lymphocytes of children with 137Cs internal contamination caused by the Chernobyl accident. Mutat Res 2005;565:191–7.
45. Gulakov AV. Accumulation and distribution of (137)Cs and (90)Sr in the body of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) found on the territory with radioactive contamination. J Environ Radioact 2014;127:171–5.
46. Sato I, Okada K, Sasaki J, et al. Distribution of radioactive cesium and stable cesium in cattle kept on a highly contaminated area of Fukushima nuclear accident. Anim Sci J 2015;86:716–20.
47. Leggett RW, Williams LR, Melo DR, et al. A physiologically based biokinetic model for cesium in the human body. Sci Total Environ 2003;317:235–55.
48. Cardis E, Howe G, Ron E, et al. Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident: 20 years on. J Radiol Prot 2006;26:127–40.
49. Shakhtarin VV, Tsyb AF, Stepanenko VF, et al. Iodine deficiency, radiation dose, and the risk of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents in the Bryansk region of Russia following the Chernobyl power station accident. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:584–91.
50. Shiraishi K, Ko S, Sahoo SK, et al. Dietary iodine intake in residents of northwestern regions of ukraine contaminated by the chernobyl accident. Health Phys 2006;90:11–5.
51. Zimmermann MB, Galetti V. Iodine intake as a risk factor for thyroid cancer: a comprehensive review of animal and human studies. Thyroid Res 2015;8:8.
52. Ricarte-Filho JC, Li S, Garcia-Rendueles ME, et al. Identification of kinase fusion oncogenes in post-Chernobyl radiation-induced thyroid cancers. J Clin Invest 2013;123:4935–44.
53. Saenko VA, Thomas GA, Yamashita S. Meeting report: the 5th International expert symposium in Fukushima on radiation and health. Environ Health 2017;16:3.
54. Ohira T, Takahashi H, Yasumura S, et al. Comparison of childhood thyroid cancer prevalence among 3 areas based on external radiation dose after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: The Fukushima health management survey. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4472.
55. Hood SL, Comar CL. Metabolism of cesium-137 in rats and farm animals. Arch Biochem Biophys 1953;45:423–33.
56. Okada K, Sato I, Deguchi Y, et al. Distribution of radioactive cesium in edible parts of cattle. Anim Sci J 2013;84:798–801.
57. Alinaghizadeh H, Wålinder R, Vingård E, et al. Total cancer incidence in relation to 137Cs fallout in the most contaminated counties in Sweden after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident: a register-based study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011924.
58. Nelson A, Ullberg S, Kristoffersson H, et al. Distribution of Radiocesium in Mice. Acta Radiologica 1961;55:374–84.
59. Bromet EJ, Havenaar JM, Guey LT. A 25 year retrospective review of the psychological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2011;23:297–305.
60. Kuwabara H, Araki T, Yamasaki S, et al. Regional differences in post-traumatic stress symptoms among children after the 2011 tsunami in Higashi-Matsushima, Japan. Brain Dev 2015;37:130–6.
61. Freedy JR, Simpson WM Jr. Disaster-related physical and mental health: a role for the family physician. Am Fam Physician 2007;75:841–6.
62. Davidson JR, McFarlane AC. The extent and impact of mental health problems after disaster. J Clin Psychiatry 2006;67(suppl 2):9–14.
63. Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Mashiko H, et al. Psychological distress after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident: results of a mental health and lifestyle survey through the Fukushima Health Management Survey in FY2011 and FY2012. Fukushima J Med Sci 2014;60:57–67.
64. Yoshida K, Shinkawa T, Urata H, et al. Psychological distress of residents in Kawauchi village, Fukushima Prefecture after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: the Fukushima Health Management Survey. PeerJ 2016;4:e2353.
65. Deryabina TG, Kuchmel SV, Nagorskaya LL, et al. Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl. Curr Biol 2015;25:R824–6.
66. Fukushima Prefecture. The administrative plan of wild boar in Fukushima Prefecture. 2015.
67. Enviroment TMot. The Guideline for Wildlife Specific Management Plan: Wild Boar. 2010.
68. Fukushima Prefecture. The result of radioactive nuclide measurement in wildlife, Fukushima Prefecture; 2017.
69. Keuling O, Baubet E, Duscher A, et al. Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. Eur J Wildlife Res 2013;59:805–14.
70. Keuling O, Strauß E, Siebert U. Regulating wild boar populations is “somebody else’s problem”!-Human dimension in wild boar management. Sci Total Environ 2016;554:311–9.
71. Heptner V, Nasimovitch A, Bannikov A. Sus (Sus) scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 Mammals of the Soviet Union: Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla Vol 1 1 (translation from the 1961 Moscow edition). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation; 1988:19–82.
72. Sprem N, Skavić P, Dezdek D, et al. The wild boar attack—a case report of a wild boar inflicted injury and treatment. Coll Antropol 2014;38:1211–2.
73. Kose O, Guler F, Baz AB, et al. Management of a wild boar wound: a case report. Wilderness Environ Med 2011;22:242–5.
74. Gunduz A, Turedi S, Nuhoglu I, et al. Wild boar attacks. Wilderness Environ Med 2007;18:117–9.
75. Tumram NK, Dhawne SG, Ambade VN, et al. Fatal tusk injuries from a wild boar attack. Med Leg J 2015;83:54–6.
76. Shetty M, Menezes RG, Kanchan T, et al. Fatal craniocerebral injury from wild boar attack. Wilderness Environ Med 2008;19:222–3.
77. Manipady S, Menezes RG, Bastia BK. Death by attack from a wild boar. J Clin Forensic Med 2006;13:89–91.
78. Okano I, Midorikawa Y, Kushima N, et al. Penetrating anorectal injury caused by a wild boar attack: a case report. Wilderness Environ Med 2018;29:375–9.
79. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry aand Fisheries of Japan. The result of agricultural and forestrial census in 2015. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan; 2016.
80. Herron J, Hutchinson R, Lecky F, et al. The impact of age on major orthopaedic trauma: an analysis of the United Kingdom Trauma Audit Research Network database. Bone Joint J 2017;99-b:1677–80.
81. Meng XJ, Lindsay DS, Sriranganathan N. Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 2009;364:2697–707.
82. Someya A, Ito R, Maeda A, et al. Detection of rickettsial DNA in ticks and wild boars in Kyoto City, Japan. J Vet Med Sci 2015;77:37–43.
83. Movila A, Deriabina T, Morozov A, et al. Abundance of adult ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exclusion zone. J Parasitol 2012;98:883–4.

Nuclear power plant disasters; Nuclear power disaster effects; Accidents in nuclear power plants; Healthcare workers impact; Behavioral and psychosocial problems; Wild boar

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd.