1. Open and User Innovation during the
Fukushima Nuclear Crisis
Nicholas Tenhue
nicholas.tenhue@masterschool.eitictlabs.eu
tenhue@kth.se
881221-T574
1

2. Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2. The Event ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3. Government Reaction ..................................................................................................................... 4
4. The Community Reaction ............................................................................................................... 4
4.1. Social media ................................................................................................................................ 5
4.2. Making Sense of Official Radiation Data ................................................................................... 5
CASE STUDY A: Japan Radiation Open Data .............................................................................. 5
4.3. Data Visualisation ....................................................................................................................... 6
CASE STUDY B: Rama C. Hoetzlein ............................................................................................ 7
4.4. Crisis maps .................................................................................................................................. 7
4.5. Open Source Hardware ............................................................................................................... 8
CASE STUDY C: Safecast ............................................................................................................. 9
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 10
6. References ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2

3. 1. Introduction
In recent years the world has seen a number of natural disasters and human generated crises;
the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, 2001 Twin Towers attack, 2008 Cyclone Nargis, 2010 Haiti
earthquake just to name a few. There are usually a number of systems in place to help
governments and official bodies react appropriately to disaster situations. Unfortunately,
these systems are not always totally robust and they can fail. Information is not always
readily available to people or places that need it. In some cases the information coming from
official sources can be inaccurate, or important facts may even be withheld intentionally.
Sometimes official bodies simply cannot cope with the situation by themselves.
This report focuses on the types of open and user innovations that occurred due to the
Fukushima nuclear crisis and how we might be able to better facilitate innovation in future
times of crisis. The paper is structured in the fashion described as follows. In Section 2, the
sequence of events that led to the nuclear crisis is described. Section 3 has an overview of the
government’s response to the nuclear crisis. In Section 4, community reactions to disasters
are touched upon, then depth descriptions of the types of open and user innovations during
the Fukushima nuclear crisis are presented; this includes a number of case studies of notable
examples. Information for these case studies was obtained through a combination of
interviews with the developers, innovators, and their websites. In Section 5, conclusions are
drawn about what happened, and possible ways that we can encourage and enable users to
innovate in future crisis situations are discussed.
2. The Event
At 14:46 JST on 11th March 2011 a 9.0 Mw
earthquake occurred off the coast of the Tōhoku
region of Japan causing a tsunami, this led to mass
destruction across the coastline. This resulted in the
release of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima-
daiichi nuclear power plant（福島第一原子力発電
所） [1]. Pumps that circulated coolant throughout
the nuclear reactor failed, and as a consequence the
reactors began to overheat. Efforts to counter this
reaction were too little too late and a number of
reactors went through a full meltdown. Several
hydrogen explosions occurred within the structures
that house the reactors, causing releases of
radioactive fallout. The radioactive materials
caesium-134, caesium-137, and iodine-131 were Figure 1 – A map of the earthquake’s intensity
released [2]. Soon after the disaster, trace amounts
of these materials could be detected around the globe. Even as recently as August 2012 fish
were caught that had 250 times the government safety limit of caesium [3].
3

4. 3. Government Reaction
The government had numerous crisis response systems in anticipation of such a disaster.
Some, such as the Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) [4] system, executed as anticipated, and
the proper warnings were raised. However, the radioactivity reporting systems functioned
less effectively than they should have. The System for Prediction of Environmental
Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) [5] performed badly, as it failed to predict the
diffusion of radioactivity due to power shortages to sensors and other factors. The
government reaction to the disaster came under scrutiny when they failed to inform the public
about the severity of the accident [6] and that vital information was not readily available.
Official radiation data was available from MEXT, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, & Technology in Japan (文部科学省) [7], through their website. The data came from
sensor stations around nuclear facilities dotted around Japan. Yet, documentation of historical
values was not available to the public from official sources at this time. This lack of
information, combined with distrust of information from the government led to a number of
innovations from independent groups and individuals. This year it was revealed that the
Japanese government did not even keep records of a number of major decision making
meetings following the quake [8], although keeping detailed records is considered vital
during disaster situations.
4. The Community Reaction
If we look at disaster situations throughout history we can see examples of how people are
determined to assist others, give support, and attempt to better the situation in extraordinary
and inventive ways [9]. We can see benevolent goings-on during all stages of disaster
recovery within local communities [10], the events that unfolded after the Tōhoku were no
different in this respect. The very same kinds of benevolent acts can be found within online
communities, too [11]. Information technology and the internet afford new modes of
communication and collaboration during crises; unfortunately the efficacy responses are still
not fully realised. New tools are allowing the public to not only consume, but also to produce
and share their innovations, using our cognitive surplus for the better [12].
The online community was shocked and surprised by the events of the tsunami and nuclear
disaster that followed. The public wanted to get a better idea of what the consequences of the
radiation escaping from the Fukushima nuclear power plant meant. In crisis situations getting
the right information is vital. Unfortunately, the information coming from official sources
tended to be hard to understand or hard to reach. The public came up with a number of
innovations during the Fukushima nuclear crisis, both within Japan and the international
community. The open and user innovations occurred on different timescales, some happened
mere days after the disaster, while some only really took off many months after the
earthquake. Independently functioning people and groups had a very powerful effect with the
counter disaster systems they developed. Looking into how and why each and every system
came into existence would be a colossal task, but by looking at the types of responses that
occurred, we can try to understand what happened. The following sections highlight the
actions that were taken by the public in an attempt to satisfy their needs.
4

5. 4.1. Social media
Members of the public tend to circulate official responses
among themselves through peer communication. They can
also feed information directly from effected areas. This was
done primarily through the medium of social media.
According to a number of reports people were very effective
in their use of social media after the earthquake [13, 14].
Telephone networks were disrupted and suffered greatly due
Figure 2 - Japanese flag with the top
to excess traffic, thus people resorted to social media. trending #prayforjapan hashtag
People tended to use services that they were already familiar
with. Facebook [15], Twitter [16] and Mixi [17] were all popular platforms during the crisis.
In fact, the number of re-tweets shot up by twenty times the normal level directly after the
earthquake [18]. Twitter is popular as an ad-hoc crisis communications platform because it
has fast information delivery with a selectively transparent user base [19]. By using hash tags
users and developers could communicate effectively. The end result was a platform that
allowed developers to form active projects and let users know about them. Communication is
essential in times of crisis, and general social media served that purpose better than any other
mode of communication.
4.2. Making Sense of Official Radiation Data
As mentioned previously, official sources had made data available to the public. But, there
were a number of issues with getting the data in a usable form. The following case study
highlights one situation where an individual took matters into his own hands and made usable
data for all to access.
CASE STUDY A: Japan Radiation Open Data
A User Experience Designer and Information Visualisation enthusiast from Germany called
Marian Steinbach was shocked by the tsunami and nuclear catastrophe. He wanted to know
what the radiation readings that were coming out of Fukushima really meant. He has the
initiative to take action almost as soon at the accident occurred. When looking for data
sources, he came across the website for the SPEEDI sensor network [5]. Data was available
to the public, but there were two main problems. The site was attracting massive traffic, so
the heavy load stopped the page from loading. Also, no documentation of historical values
was available, so nobody could compare values across time. Marian reached out to other
developers to discuss ways they could let people know whether they were safe or not.
In response Marian set out to develop a method to get machine readable data on the incident.
He created a Google Docs spread sheet [20] and manually updated the radiation values every
20 minutes. This was, of course, quite cumbersome, so he asked a number of people around
the globe to assist in this effort to share the workload. People were willing to help, and the
radiation values were being updated around the clock. There were a few problems with
malicious users that would add false results and destroy data, hence some data was lost. A
decent version control system would have been necessary to manage edits properly.
5

6. In the meantime Marian wrote a web scraper (web data extraction tool) to automate the
process of copying the values from the official SPEEDI network. He then sourced values into
a database that he then published as an open data download. The database can still be found
at his website [21], which is still updated with the most recent data values as they are
released. What started out as a crowdsourcing exercise, evolved into a data extraction and
storage one. Even after this shift, people still tried editing the Google spread sheet long after
the data was being automatically recorded. This was due to poor communication channels.
Even though Marian released all available historical values to the public, many sensor
stations (specifically the ones closest to Fukushima-daiichi nuclear power plant) did not
report any values due to technical issues. They did not start to report values until around Q1
2012. More recently the SPEEDI network website has added a ‘monitoring data download’
link to allow the public to access historical values, however the site only allows people to
download statistics from one sensor at a time with a maximum data range of six months .
There were a number of derivations that were born from ‘Japan Radiation Open Data’. A
number of people were able to make visualisations and, some were even able to confirm that
the development of radiation levels were concurrent with the half-life of the types of
radioactive isotopes that were believed to have been released.
Similar web scraping efforts of official sources were also made by the ad-hoc group
‘radmonitor311’ [22], who deserve a notable mention.
4.3. Data Visualisation
Representing raw data in a meaningful way is essential; otherwise we cannot make any sense
of it. This is where data visualisation plays a vital part. Media reports of radiation readings
were notoriously difficult for a layperson to understand. There was a great amount of
confusion when reporting levels of radiation. Different media sources reported radiation in
millisieverts (1 mSv = 0.001 Sievert), others in microsieverts (1 μSv = 0.000001 Sievert).
Some also reported per hour units while others reported per year units. It is important to
normalise comparisons so they are all based on the same scale, the media did a bad job of this
and much confusion was encountered.
The inadequate mass media news broadcasts drove individuals to create their own content to
help aid understanding of the situation. The primary objective of many innovators of data
visualisations during the nuclear crisis was accurate public education. A number of novel
ways of representing radiation information were developed such as ‘micro sievert’, a simple
visualisation of environmental radiation levels in the Kanto area [23], and ‘Global Pulse’,
visualisations by Miguel Rios, of the global flow of tweets in the wake of the disaster [24].
It should be noted that crisis visualisation has a big impact on societal reactions, thus it comes
with a large amount of responsibility to make sure data is interpreted correctly. There is a risk
that the social structure of a country could change in response to the information people have
access to, whether that information is credible or not.
6

7. CASE STUDY B: Rama C. Hoetzlein
Rama C. Hoetzlein is a computer scientist and knowledge engineer working in the areas of
artificial intelligence and graphics. Troubled by the immensity of the casualties involved in
the tsunami, Rama was unable to focus on his own work. He wanted to see what he could do
to help. His inspiration came from initial rough sketches of radiation levels over time created
by other user innovators, though these lacked proper radiation unit information. This, coupled
with the data available from Marian Steinbach’s ‘Japan Radiation Open Data’, led him to
create content for the public.
To begin with Rama was taking data from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)
website [25] and translating it manually. This occurred for the first three days after the
disaster. He then came across Marian’s work and used the more user friendly data source. He
hoped to offer a visual way to show the risks related to radiation dosage by correlating events
that unfolded with actual radiation levels. A contaminant map was then posted to Wikipedia
on March 17th; an updated map was also created on March 30th when further data had been
generated. Both maps and further insight into their creation can be found at Rama’s website
[26]. He also created an animated information graphic of regional effects of Fukushima
radiation for the dates March 8th to March 31st [27].
By representing the data in an understandable format it was discovered that Tokyo, the
capital of Japan that lies around 200km from the power plant, was not getting significantly
more radiation than any other big city around the world. However, he was also able to show
that millions of people within a 20km (the initial evacuation zone recommended by the
government was 20km) to 100km radius of the plant were actually receiving levels of
radiation that are deemed unsafe for nuclear workers by international standards.
Rama feels that his visualisations have had more of an effect in countries outside Japan. By
giving real data out to the public, a lot of the scaremongering from other sensationalist
sources was quelled. He was contacted by many individuals, a department of health, and even
a worker on a submarine. The most rewarding feedback was from people in Japan who
thanked Rama for helping them, their families, and friends.
The biggest challenge for future disaster situations is getting the science correct. Typically
open and user innovations are done by engineers that come up with interesting ideas and want
to try them out. Unless there are professionals working within the field working on the
innovation, a lot of mistakes can easily be made.
4.4. Crisis maps
A crisis map is an open and intuitive way of letting people know what is going on during a
time of crisis. The age of mobile internet has really allowed this phenomenon to kick off over
the last five years. During the Fukushima nuclear crisis, these maps were used to give
readings of radiation levels around Japan. A lot of crisis mapping efforts rely on
crowdsourced information. However, at the beginning of the disaster many of the crisis maps
developed by users were in fact aggregated from government sources and international
7

8. organisations. This was due to the fact that the public
were not armed with the correct equipment to make
readings. It took some time after the earthquake before
crowdsourced readings really made a big impact in the
radiation crisis mapping effort. The reasons for this are
discussed in Section 4.5.
Cosm (previously named Pachube) supported hundreds
of radiation associated feeds that helped to monitor
conditions in real-time [28]. This enabled crisis mappers
to access data for their maps [29, 30]. Later in the
Figure 3 - Japan Radiation Map
disaster many people joined in on this effort to create
more data points with their own Geiger counters.
One issue with crowdsourced data is that it relies entirely on the honour system, where people
are expected to supply reliable and valid results. This was not always the case, sometimes
malicious results were submitted in order to try and disrupt the system, other times people
accidentally submitted false values due to the fact that they did not know how to operate their
equipment properly. Nevertheless, false reports are usually easily filtered out through the
sheer volume of proper results compared to false ones. This is the beauty of the crowd.
4.5. Open Source Hardware
There were a number of open source hardware developments after the earthquake; since it is
a fairly novel model the main body of Section 4.5 will describe the phenomenon before going
on to describe its applications in Japan. Open source hardware is a fairly new concept that is
still in its infancy when compared to open source software. The open source hardware
community is around seven years old; it is spearheaded by the Open Source Hardware
Association (OSHWA) [31], the first organisation created to defend open source hardware
and promote best practices. The definition of open source hardware is itself still a work in
progress, it is important to note that defining what the term means is vital since licences can
have differing levels of openness. Similarly to open source software, it might take some time
and test cases for legal clarity to materialise in open source hardware [32].
Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that
anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that
design. The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the
preferred format for making modifications to it. Ideally, open source hardware uses
readily-available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure,
unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of individuals
to make and use hardware. Open source hardware gives people the freedom to control
their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open
exchange of designs.
- Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles 1.0
8

9. There are a number of factors that have led to the boom in open source hardware. Firstly,
Moore’s law [33] has allowed for sufficient technological advances to accommodate for the
types of systems that we need for people to design and develop products by themselves.
Secondly, tools such as 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC mills, soldering irons etc. have
become more affordable. Being able to access plans without the tools to materialise them
would mean that innovators could not make anything. Thirdly, the internet has opened up a
whole world of collaborative practice. Given the opportunity, people will create and share.
Lastly, collaborative locations such as hackerspaces, tech shop (small factories that anyone
can become a member of and use), and fabrication laboratories (fab labs) have created a place
for shared space and tools. These places also add a knowledge layer, where people can come
together and teach each other about different specialisations. Before there were only a few
dozen hackerspaces, but after the boom in 2009 the total number has increased to over seven
hundred hackerspaces worldwide. Public factories such as Shapeways [34] and Ponoko [35]
have also opened up the opportunity to make custom products by uploading designs and
having them made and mailed to the designer of the product.
Open source hardware is very attractive to user innovators because of the fact that you do not
have to start from scratch. This applies not only to the plans for hardware, but also for open
source hardware tools. Arduino [36], a microcontroller that powers most DIY hardware
projects, is a prime example of an open source tool that seriously lowers the barrier for entry
and cuts out a lot of the time that would otherwise be spent by the user building a similar
device from scratch.
In essence, by making plans available to the public a series of self-sustaining opportunities
for innovation can be created. If the hardware that is derived from the original open hardware
is kept open, there is a huge potential for further improvement through distributed innovation.
By allowing users to adapt devices we can open a well of untapped potential in citizen
research and development, this can save vast amounts of money when compared to
centralised research. By opening their own products companies invite a vast amount of public
feedback, allowing for improvements in future versions of their hardware. Conversely, when
design and construction are separated in this manner, in the case of an issue, it is not always
obvious whether the fault is in the design or the construction [37].
CASE STUDY C: Safecast
After the beginning of the nuclear crisis there was a shortage of Geiger counters in Japan.
Demand within Japan was incredibly high, as were the prices for these detectors. Many
people wanted to make their own readings in order to check if the levels of radiation in their
area were within safe limits. In response there were a number of open source radiation
monitor designs released to the public [38, 39, 40, 41]. Even a huge open source hardware
company based in China called Seeed Studio Depot [42] launched a collaborative effort to
design an open source Geiger counter. However, one group called Safecast [43] (previously
known as RDTN.org) stood out among the rest.
The story started when ‘Akiba’ Chris of the Tokyo hackerspace was able to acquire two
radiation monitors through the hackerspace network. He then hacked them and connected
9

10. them to an open source hardware Arduino platform [44], from
which they then broadcast the data for everyone to access.
The Tokyo hackerspace continued on to collaborate closely
with Safecast throughout their start-up phase.
Meanwhile, Safecast worked in parallel on two projects.
Firstly, Safecast (at that time RDTN.org) used the
crowdfunding site Kickstarter to get 606 backers, raising a
total of $36,900 in order to purchase their first batch of Geiger
counters. These were used with Cosm (at that time Pachube)
to open source the data produced. Secondly, they partnered
with Bunnie Huang who began work on designing a cheap
radiation monitor suitable for civilian use. The resulting
design was a functional open source prototype [45] that can Figure 4 - Prototype Safecast
Geiger counter
be easily programmed on a laptop by connecting the device
though a USB port. The devices used by Safecast have been used to collect over three and a
half million open data points since launch. It should be noted that the crowsourced data sets
were not meant to replace official data, but instead provide additional context for the public
to have access to.
A second round of Kickstarter funding raised $104,268 for a limited edition of the Safecast
Geiger counter. They have also released mobile applications to visualise collected data on
crisis maps. The group is now moving into creating real-time maps of air pollution [46].
5. Conclusions
The examples above are by no means a comprehensive list of innovations. This report only
highlighted a small segment of all the user innovation that occurred in response to the nuclear
disaster at Fukushima-daiichi nuclear power plant. It seems that nearly all open and user
innovations that arose from the crisis were concerned with creating social value through
educating people within and outside of Japan, empowering others to help, and ensuring the
safety of those near the power plant. Many solutions that people came up with were effective
and efficient, but there are obviously many obstacles that need to be overcome if we want to
enable people to respond in innovative ways to future disaster and crisis situations.
Crisis innovations happen on a different timescale to what we usually see in regular open and
user innovation. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to categorise this type of innovation
within frameworks like the phases of consumer-innovation mentioned by Hippel et al. [47].
Whist the variety of challenges we face increases due to the changing landscape of our
society (natural disasters, terrorism, and manmade accidents), so do the chances to join forces
with others through novel collaboration and communication technologies. We must find new
ways of conceptualising and evaluating potential uses for these technologies in crisis
management and response [48].
10

11. By being more open with data, Governments would be able to harness the power of the
crowd to alleviate some of pressure to do everything centrally. If official bodies can
recognise citizens as an influential, self-organising, and intelligent force, technology and
innovation can play a transformational role in crises [49]. Many people working on data from
Japan were manually extracting figures from government PDF reports and websites; this is
not efficient, especially when time for response is of the essence. There needs to be a better
format for the release of information for decent technological innovation to take place.
Twitter has become a crisis platform by accident. The powers that be have had a hard time
trying to work out how to make use of or control this fact [50]. Crisis media is definitely an
untapped fountain of information for both users and governments, and a possible target for
innovation in future crisis situations.
As mentioned before, educating the public with proper facts is paramount in disaster and
crisis situations, but it is also a big challenge. Media outlets used high budgets to produce
incredible visualisations of things like reactor cores but they failed to portray any substantive
data through them. This encouraged a number of people innovate with the data was openly
available. One of Rama Hoetzlein’s main complaints was that media sources did not use any
of the high quality informative visualisations produced by data visualisation enthusiasts.
Independent sources are important when representing data from crisis situations. By
decentralising the flow of information a broader picture of the situation can be painted. This
is why crisis maps can be so important. Platforms like Ushahidi [51], originally a platform
created to map reports of violence in Kenya, seem like a conceivable type of solution for the
future of crisis mapping. Since 2008, it has evolved into a place where anyone is able to
crowsource information specifically in areas where information is difficult to obtain.
Information can come from SMS, email, Twitter and other web sources can be used to gather
data. A service like this, with proper integration across all popular social networks, is needed.
It should be noted that the mode of reporting should be tailored to cultural trends and
available technology in that area. For example SMS would most likely be the reporting
method of choice in Nigeria, whereas people in North America would probably turn to
Twitter. However, there is a need for design and social mechanisms to inspect the legitimacy
of data sourced from the crowd [52]. Some form of automated mediation or double validation
of crowdsourced results could be possible solutions for this issue.
The crisis in Japan sparked a lot of research into radiation detection devices. An off the shelf
HD webcam that was transformed into a Geiger counter, with possible applications in
consumer hardware as an open source modification kit [53], is a prime example of the
interesting innovations to emerge from this disaster. We are truly stepping into the era of low
cost detection devices.
Current open hardware efforts are very much dispersed; we need to create a better structure in
order to have a well-organized response to emergencies. In terms of open source hardware
applications for future crisis situations we can identify a number of factors that need to be in
place for successful innovation. The types of devices for each type of possible crisis situation
11

12. needs to be defined. Plans for emergency devices for these situations must be available and
accessible through understandable and usable sources. The toolkits for each geographical area
should be defined based upon the resources available in that area. Hackerspaces should be
used as hubs for innovation during crises. They have played a very important role in disaster
relief over the last few years due to their huge array of skills and contacts within the
hackerspace network. Since designs for new products are commonly encoded in computer-
aided design (CAD) files [54], people from all around the world the can contribute to
customising a design to fit the needs of a particular crisis. Lastly, distribution channels for
getting these devices to areas in need must be accessible.
It is important to recognise that the entire pipeline for all open and user innovation in crises
needs to be working to be entirely successful. Data collection needs to be scientifically
accurate; users must be educated how to use hardware correctly. The hardware needs to be
accessible and functioning well. Crowdsourced data should be centralised, and efforts should
be made to ensure that people can reach the data. The results need to be displayed in ways
that can be easily understood. If any components are missing we end up with a bottleneck in
the problem that we are trying to solve. Getting this perfect mix of factors to fall into place in
a crisis, a situation with so many uncontrollable variables, is an enormous task. Far more
research is required to learn how to harness the power of the crowd and citizen innovators.
By opening up, governments and citizens can complement each other’s efforts for a more
timely response to disasters. By putting the correct tools and knowledge into the hands of the
general population, we can encourage a self-sustaining propensity for innovation in times of
crisis.
12

13. 6. References
[1] Tokyo Electric Power Company. Current situation of Fukushima Daiichi and Daini
nuclear power station [Online]. Available: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/index-
e.html
[2] Debora MacKenzie. 2011. Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels [Online].
New Scientist. Available: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-
radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html
[3] Hiroko Tabuchi. 2012. Fish Off Japan’s Coast Said to Contain Elevated Levels of Cesium
[Online]. The New York Times. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/fish-off-fukushima-japan-show-elevated-
levels-of-cesium.html?_r=0
[4] Japan Meteorological Agency. Earthquake Early Warning. Available:
http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/EEW/kaisetsu/.
[5] Nuclear Safety Technology Center. The System for Prediction of Environment
Emergency Dose Information(SPEEDI). Available: http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/.
[6] Martin Fackler. 2012. Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis [Online]. The
New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-
considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html
[7] Ministry of Education,Culture,Sports,Science & Technology in Japan. [Online].
Available: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/
[8] BBC News Asia. 2012. Japan did not keep records of nuclear disaster meetings [Online].
Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16754891
[9] Leysia Palen and Sarah Vieweg. 2008. The emergence of online widescale interaction in
unexpected events: assistance, alliance & retreat. CSCW '08. ACM, New York, NY, USA,
117-126.
[10] DYNES, R. 1970. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Heath Lexington, Lexington, MA.
[11] Leysia Palen and Sophia B. Liu. 2007. Citizen communications in crisis: anticipating a
future of ICT-supported public participation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 727-736.
[12] Clay Shirky. 2011. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.
Penguin. ISBN: 0141041609.
[13] F. N. Shigyo. 2011. The Great East Japan Earthquake: How Net Users Utilized Social
Media? The NHK Monthly Report on Broadcast Research, 61(8):2_13.
13

14. [14] Y. N. Yoshitsugu. 2011. Roles of social media at the time of major disasters observed in
The Great East Japan Earthquake: twitter as an example. The NHK Monthly Report on
Broadcast Research, 61(7):16_23.
[15] Facebook. Available: http://www.facebook.com/.
[16] Twitter. Available: https://twitter.com/.
[17] Mixi. Available: http://mixi.jp/.
[18] Mai Miyabe, Asako Miura, and Eiji Aramaki. 2012. Use trend analysis of twitter after
the great east japan earthquake. CSCW '12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 175-178.
[19] QUALMAN, E. 2009. Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live
and Do Business. Wiley.
[20] Marian Steinbach. 2011. A Crowdsourced Japan Radiation Spreadsheet [Online].
Available: http://www.sendung.de/2011-03-15/a-crowdsourced-japan-radiation-spreadsheet/.
[21] Marian Steinbach. 2011. Japan Radiation Open Data, Measurement Data [Online].
Available: http://www.sendung.de/japan-radiation-open-data/.
[22] radmonitor311. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/radmonitor311/top_english.
[23] micro Sievert. Available: http://microsievert.net/.
[24] Miguel Rios. Global Pulse [Online]. http://blog.twitter.com/2011/06/global-pulse.html.
[25] Tokyo Electric Power Company. Available: http://www.tepco.co.jp/index-j.html.
[26] Rama Hoetzlein. 2011. Fukushima Nuclear Accident- Radiation Comparison Map
[Online]. Available: http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/2011/fukushima-radiation-
comparison-map/.
[27] Rama Hoetzlein. 2011. Fukushima Radiation – Regional Effects Animation [Online].
Available: http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/2011/fukushima-radiation-regional-effects-
animation/.
[28] COSM. Geiger [Online]. Available: http://community.cosm.com/taxonomy/term/221.
[29] Japan Radiation Map. Available: /.
[30] Haiyan Zhang. 2011. Japan Geigermap [Online]. Available: http://japan.failedrobot.com/.
[31] Open Source Hardware Association. Available: http://www.oshwa.org/.
[32] Aaron Weiss. 2008. Open source hardware: freedom you can hold?. netWorker 12, 3
(September 2008), 26-33.
[33] Gordon E. Moore. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits.
Electronics, Volume 38, Number 8, April 19, 1965.
14

15. [34] Shapeways. Available: http://www.shapeways.com/.
[35] Ponoko. Available: http://www.ponoko.com/.
[36] Arduino. Available: http://www.arduino.cc/.
[37] David A. Mellis and Leah Buechley. 2011. Scaffolding creativity with open-source
hardware. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (C&C '11).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373-374.
[38] DIYGeigerCounter. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/home.
[39] Yapan.org. 2011. レシピ 39：自分の生活環境の放射線量を計測したい [Online
blog]. Available: http://www.yapan.org/main/2011/03/measure_radiation_dose.html.
[40] Open Geiger Project. Available: http://opengeiger.com/.
[41] The Libelium Team. 2011. Geiger Counter - Radiation Sensor Board for Arduino.
Available: http://www.cooking-hacks.com/index.php/documentation/tutorials/geiger-counter-
arduino-radiation-sensor-board.
[42] Seed Studio Depot. Seeed Open Hardware Facilitator. Available:
http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/.
[43] Safecast. Available: http://blog.safecast.org/.
[44] ‘Akiba’ Chris. 2011. Tokyo Hackerspace/RDTN Geiger Shield – Dev History [Online].
Available: http://www.tokyohackerspace.org/ja/blog/tokyo-hackerspacerdtn-geiger-shield-
dev-history.
[45] Bunnie Huang. 2011. Safecast Geiger Counter Reference Design [Online]. Bunnie:
studios. Available: http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2218.
[46] Amar Toor. 2011. Safecast to create real-time maps of air quality in Los Angeles
[Online]. Available: http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367078/safecast-to-create-real-
time-maps-of-air-quality-in-los-angeles.
[47] Hippel et al. 2011. The Age of the Consumer-Innovator [Online]. MIT Sloan
Management Review. September 21, 2011. Available:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367078/safecast-to-create-real-time-maps-of-air-
quality-in-los-angeles.
[48] Volkmar Pipek, Leysia Palen, and Jonas Landgren. 2012. Workshop summary:
collaboration & crisis informatics (CCI'2012). CSCW '12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13-
14.
[49] Leysia Palen, Kenneth M. Anderson, Gloria Mark, James Martin, Douglas Sicker,
Martha Palmer, and Dirk Grunwald. 2010. A vision for technology-mediated support for
15

16. public participation & assistance in mass emergencies & disasters. British Computer Society,
Swinton, UK.
[50] Rebecca Goolsby. 2010. Social media as crisis platform: The future of community
maps/crisis maps. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 1, 1, Article 7.
[51] Ushahidi. Available: http://ushahidi.com/.
[52] Leysia Palen, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, and Sophia B. Liu. 2007. Online forums supporting
grassroots participation in emergency preparedness and response. Commun. ACM 50, 3
(March 2007), 54-58.
[53] Thomas Auzinger, Ralf Habel, Andreas Musilek, Dieter Hainz, and Michael Wimmer.
2012. GeigerCam: measuring radioactivity with webcams. SIGGRAPH '12. New York, NY,
USA, , Article 40.
[54] Von Hippel, E. 2009. Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 29-40.
16