论文标题
进一步评论“在福岛NPP事故发生后5至51个月对日期城市所有日期城市的所有外部剂量监测（系列）：1。” ：表1 2014年第三季度和图4F中的不一致之处
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
论文作者
论文摘要
我们指出了该系列的第一篇论文的严重矛盾之处，该论文由Miyazaki和Ryugo Hayano撰写，该论文讨论了通过玻璃徽章测量的日期城市公民的个人剂量与六个空中调查测量的环境剂量率之间的相关性。六个空降调查中的最后一次是在2014年第三季度（2014年10月至2014年12月）进行的。该时期的实际参与者人数约为14,500；但是，在表1 2014年第三季度中，写道参与者的数量为21,080，在图4F 21,052中。我们得出的结论是，关于表1 2014 Q3和图4F的论文的分析是在不使用实际正确数据的情况下完成的，我们无法从表格和图形中获得任何有意义的信息。由于该系列第二篇论文的图5也包括2014年第三季度以来，第二篇论文的图5很可能是根据至少部分部分的错误数据制作的，并且不可靠。
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.
