You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Food Sanitation Act and Minamata Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nihon eiseigaku zasshi Japanese journal of hygiene, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1265/jjh.71.100 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nobuo Ishihara |
| Abstract |
Immediately after the official recognition of Minamata disease (1956.5.l) a study group at Kumamoto University suggested that Minamata disease was caused by food poisoning. The next year, this suggestion was accepted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW). Prior to the decision to apply the Food Sanitation Act (FSA), the local government asked MHW for the application of FSA. Soon after, the chief of the Public Health Bureau replied to the local government that the application of FSA to the Minamata area was impossible. Epidemiological investigations of residents and polluted areas, therefore, were not carried out. Data essential for the screening for exposed residents were unavailable. The criteria for the screening were presented. The Environmental Agency (EA) presented the criteria in the form of notice in 1971, which were revised in 1977. Notwithstanding the clear difference between the original and revised criteria, EA insisted that these two sets of criteria were quite similar. This insistence by EA and the absence of epidemiological data on residents and polluted area resulted in the present confusion about Minamata disease. The application of FSA was stopped by bureaucrats who had no interest in the environmental problems and by several scientists patronized by stakeholders (Chisso, Japanese Association of Chemical Industries, MHW and EA). Stakeholders suppressed science. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 29% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 29% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,777,586
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Nihon eiseigaku zasshi Japanese journal of hygiene
#57
of 241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,226
of 399,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nihon eiseigaku zasshi Japanese journal of hygiene
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.