Various natural and man‐made disasters occur around the world. Many disasters directly damage workplaces and affect business activities, such as production and sales. In such workplaces, the employees are affected physically and mentally: to maintain their health following a disaster, occupational health should respond to their various needs. In ordinary occupational health, the occurrence of adverse health effects is prevented by assessing health risks in the workplace environment and for workers and by reducing the risks acceptable levels. Such an approach is based on the assumption that there are no significant changes in the workplace during the process from risk assessment to risk reduction. However, in the event of disasters, occupational health staff have to predict day‐to‐day changes in employees’ conditions and the occurrence of occupational health needs; subsequently, they take appropriate action. To do so, occupational health staff should learn from experience with past disasters. However, there have been few reports about occupational health activities in the workplace following a disaster. One reason for this is that companies may be reluctant to disclose information about health issues following a disaster if the cause of the disaster is attributable to errors on the part of the company. In the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake, which was an unprecedented disaster that occurred on March 11, 2011, many valuable scientific articles and reports on occupational health have been published through the efforts and cooperation of many stakeholders. Among them, many articles are related to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) of Tokyo Electric Power Company, which occurred as a result of the tsunami that followed the earthquake. Workers affected by the nuclear accident have been categorized as follows: those engaged in stabilization and decommissioning work in the NPP; those involved in evacuation guidance for residents; those engaged in work related to the direct impact of the accident, such as decontamination work of radioactive materials generated by the disaster; and those employed in workplaces affected by the accident, such as evacuation or change in business activities. Some examples of the findings are as follows. Following the disaster, in which a company was found to have been at fault and which affect the lives of many residents, the mental condition of company employees deteriorated as a result of discrimination or slurs.1 The health and safety measures for staff working in municipal offices may have been inadequate compared with those at public institutions under central government control.2 Where many employees are engaged as subcontractors and face multiple health risks, the original company and subcontracting company both need to play a role in maintaining subcontractor employees’ health beyond legal requirements. To fulfill that role, active guidance from government agencies and the involvement of occupational health experts are highly important.3 In this issue of The Journal of Occupational Health, Orui et al report that communication with superiors or managers and consultation with them were significantly associated with low psychological distress following the NPP accident. However, the authors found no significant association between low psychological distress and communication with workplace colleagues where there was forced evacuation following the nuclear accident.4 From their findings, it is evident that superiors or managers should take the initiative in engaging in open communication and active consultation in the event of a disaster. However, psychological distress among managers may not be small especially when they are also victims. Accordingly, occupational health staff should provide technical guidance to managers regarding their expected roles with subordinates; occupational health staff should support managers in being able to play those roles. To ensure that occupational health staff respond properly to needs following a disaster, it is essential that they be clearly positioned in the crisis management organization, not as external supporters; it is imperative that a trusting relationship be established with such staff in workplaces. It is also important to learn from previous disasters. However, it is difficult for individual

中文翻译：

---

灾害中的职业健康：从福岛第一核电站事故中获得的宝贵知识

世界各地都会发生各种自然灾害和人为灾害。许多灾害直接破坏工作场所并影响生产和销售等业务活动。在这样的工作场所，员工的身心都会受到影响：为了在灾难后保持健康，职业健康应该满足他们的各种需求。在普通职业卫生中，通过评估工作场所环境和工人的健康风险并降低可接受的风险水平来防止不良健康影响的发生。这种方法基于这样一个假设，即在从风险评估到风险降低的过程中，工作场所没有发生重大变化。然而，一旦发生灾难，职业健康人员必须预测员工状况的日常变化和职业健康需求的发生；随后，他们采取适当的行动。为此，职业卫生人员应该从过去灾难的经验中学习。然而，关于灾难后工作场所的职业健康活动的报道很少。这样做的一个原因是，如果灾难的原因可归因于公司的错误，则公司可能不愿意披露有关灾难发生后健康问题的信息。以 2011 年 3 月 11 日发生的史无前例的东日本大地震为例，在众多利益相关者的努力和合作下，发表了许多有价值的职业健康科学文章和报告。他们之中，许多文章都与东京电力公司福岛第一核电站（NPP）的事故有关，该事故是由地震后的海啸造成的。受核事故影响的工人分类如下：在核电厂从事稳定和退役工作的工人；参与居民疏散指导的人员；从事与事故直接影响有关的工作，如灾害产生的放射性物质的去污工作；以及在受事故影响的工作场所工作的人员，例如疏散或业务活动的变化。调查结果的一些例子如下。灾难发生后，发现一家公司有过错，并影响了许多居民的生活，公司员工的心理状况因歧视或诽谤而恶化。 1 与中央政府控制的公共机构员工相比，市政办公室工作人员的健康和安全措施可能不够充分。 2 当许多员工被聘为分包商时并且面临多重健康风险，原公司和分包公司都需要在超出法律要求的情况下发挥维护分包员工健康的作用。为了发挥这一作用，政府机构的积极指导和职业健康专家的参与非常重要。 3 在本期《职业健康杂志》中，Orui 等人报告说，与上级或经理的沟通和咨询与核电厂事故后的低心理压力显着相关。然而，作者发现在核事故后被迫疏散的工作场所同事的低心理压力与沟通之间没有显着关联。 4 从他们的调查结果来看，很明显上级或经理应该主动进行公开的沟通和积极的沟通。发生灾害时的咨询。然而，管理者的心理困扰可能并不小，尤其是当他们也是受害者时。因此，职业卫生人员应就其与下属的预期角色向管理人员提供技术指导；职业卫生人员应支持管理人员能够发挥这些作用。为确保职业卫生人员在灾难后对需求做出适当反应，他们必须在危机管理组织中明确定位，而不是作为外部支持者；必须与工作场所的此类工作人员建立信任关系。从以前的灾难中吸取教训也很重要。但是，个人很难