Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Citizen radiation measurements, a longstanding practice in Japan, have tensions with mainstream science. Discrepancies in measurement units (Sieverts/Becquerels) highlight divergent materialities, analyzed through Karen Barad's Agential Realism to understand the conflict's foundational differences.

Long abstract:

Citizen radiation measurements, in which citizens measure radiation around residential areas, is one of the longstanding citizen sciences in Japan that emerged in response to the Chernobyl disaster in the late 1980s. Following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2011, tensions between citizens and mainstream science (government and professional scientists) arose regarding radiation exposure assessments. Discrepancies in interpretations, particularly concerning dose limits, highlight differences in measurement device selection, methods, and targets within citizen science. For example, in terms of radiation protection and exposure control, the government uses Sieverts (Sv) to define off-limits zones and decontamination areas. This sievert standard is used to justify measures such as requiring local residents to evacuate and lifting evacuation orders. However, citizen radiation measurements are taken in Becquerel (Bq) units. They argue that the becquerel contained in the soil should be measured and used to determine contamination levels and evacuation standards. Why does citizen science diverge from mainstream scientific measurements? In this study, I employ Karen Barad's Agential Realism to analyze the materiality and agency of measurement practices in citizen science and government. Focusing on measurement units as “apparatus,” it contrasts Bq-based citizen measurements with Sv-based mainstream scientific measurements, revealing divergent materialities underlying the conflict and realities. Through an agential lens, I explore the ontological implications of measurement choices, shedding light on the foundational differences driving the conflict. It underscores the importance of understanding the materiality of citizen science in addressing societal challenges and fostering inclusive, equitable knowledge systems.