Four years after the Fukushima accident, TC screening data from the first and second round (up to December 2014) were compared with the Japanese nationwide annual TC incidence, and with the incidence in one area of Fukushima prefecture selected as reference (Tsuda et al., 2016). The authors reported that the observed number of TCs was substantially higher than the expected number based on national and regional incidence data, and concluded that this increase could be attributed to ionizing radiation exposure from the accident. This ecological study has been strongly criticized by scientists around the world because of serious methodology limitations; further, the study conclusions are not supported by the results (Davis, 2016, Jorgensen, 2016, Korblein, 2016, Shibata, 2016, Suzuki, 2016, Takahashi et al., 2016, Takamura, 2016, Wakeford et al., 2016). Limitations of ecological study design are well-known, although the authors did not acknowledge the issue of ecologic fallacy. Another criticism was that the data from the Fukushima screening program are not directly comparable with the cancer registry data from the rest of Japan where systematic advanced ultrasound technology is not used to detect cases. The authors of these criticisms suggested that though the increased TC number could be associated with the exposure from radioactive fallout, a more plausible conclusion would be that the screening program is finding an anticipated increase in TC detection across the Fukushima prefecture. Indeed, Tsuda and colleagues did not consider the latent properties of TC, nor the fact that a prevalent cancer detected by screening might have had first preclinical manifestations of abnormality before the nuclear accident.Thereafter, several researchers have analysed the relationship between radiation exposure (with different estimated exposure levels, mostly using an external dose) and TC prevalence and incidence in residents aged ≤18 years in the Fukushima prefecture at time of the disaster (Kato, 2019, Nakaya et al., 2018, Ohira et al., 2019a, Ohira et al., 2020, Ohira et al., 2019b, Ohira et al., 2016, Ohira et al., 2018, Suzuki et al., 2016, Toki et al., 2020, Yamamoto et al., 2019), but no radiation-related risks have been demonstrated to date.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020321851
ちなみにこの分野の雑誌にはあまり詳しくないけど、IF3.5で最高峰なの?
ちなみに自分が引用した雑誌は7.9だった。
]]>私、最近の漫画は一通りチェックしてるけど
Wizard's Soul は間違いなくベスト3に入る面白さだから。
ちょっとマジでフラッパー編集部に抗議のメール書く。
あー最終巻もクッソ面白かったわー
ていうか最終巻って知らずに買って読んだからもっと大事に読めばよかったわー
1,2,3巻はもう30回ぐらい読み返してるけどやっぱりおもしろい。
TCGあるあるネタと心理戦が楽しくて、しかも女の子キャラが可愛いすぎるんだよなー
こんなTCS漫画が読みたいにベストマッチなんだよなー
打ち切り決めた馬鹿はどこのどいつだよ。本気でトマト投げつけたい。
つい今朝までWizard's Soulはアニメ化してグッズ展開まであると思ってたのになー
ていうか、客観的に見てもふたば民の選ぶこのマンガがすごい8位とかいうビッグタイトルなんだが??
ネットの評価もだいたい絶賛なんだが?
あーほんと世の中に絶望するまであるわ。
どうして本当に実力のある作品が注目されないで編集部ごり押しコピペ作品ばっかり日の目を見るの??
Wizard's Soulとかコンセプトもストーリーもキャラも最高じゃんさー
私がこれまで読んだ漫画の中で唯一「ゆびさきミルクティー」に匹敵する面白さだったんだけど。
あーほんとありえないありえない
私のサラリーマン生活10年で貯めた貯金でKADOKAWAの株全力買いしたらシリーズ復活すっかなー
あーほんと信じられない。
まなかー!俺だー!完結を打ち消してくれー!
]]>