Paper detail

Further comments on "Individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of Date City by passive dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): 1." : Inconsistencies in Table 1 2014 Q3 and Figure 4f

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.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.