BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Yutaka Hamaoka appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We point out numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate statements in M. Miyazaki and H. Hayano, Journal of Radiological Protection 37, 1 (2016).
This Letter to the Editor points out several inconsistencies found in the paper written by Makoto Miyazaki and Ryugo Hayano published as J. Radiol. Prot. 37(2017) 623-634. This Letter to the Editor had been in the stage of "is ready to accept" from November 17, 2018 to March 23, 2020 when it has been accepted for publication. Onto this Letter to the Editor, an additional Letter to the Editor on the same paper has been added. The added Letter to the Editor has been provisionally accepted on April 7, 2020.
We point out serious inconsistencies of the first paper of the series, written by Makoto Miyazaki and Ryugo Hayano, which discusses the correlation between the personal doses of the citizens of Date City measured by glass badges with the ambient dose rates measured by six airborne surveys. The last of the six airborne survey was made in the period of 2014 Q3 (from October 2014 to December 2014). The real number of participants of the period is about 14,500; however, in Table 1 2014 Q3 it is written that the number of participants is 21,080 and in Fig. 4f 21,052. We conclude that the analysis of the paper with respect to Table 1 2014 Q3 and Fig. 4f are done without using real correct data and we cannot obtain any meaningful information from the table and figure. Since the period 2014 Q3 is also included in Fig. 5 of the second paper of the series, it is quite possible that Fig. 5 of the second paper is made on the basis of, at least partially, false data and is not reliable.