The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]:
1. Page 1, Abstract, lines 12–15: Period of time changed to match time between 1968
and the year in which our data was taken:
“Our data indicates that Minamata disease had spread outside of the central area and
could still be observed recently, almost 50 years after the Chisso Company’s factory
had halted the dumping of mercury polluted waste water back in 1968.” should be changed
to “Our data indicates that Minamata disease had spread outside of the central area,
and could still be observed recently, almost 40 years after the Chisso Company’s factory
had halted the dumping of mercury polluted waste water back in 1968.”.
2. Page 3, paragraph 2, lines 5–7: Restructuring of sentence to make it clearer:
“Applicants seeking recognition were being socially discriminated against and the
lack of a comprehensive pollution survey meant that many residents with health problems
had not sought diagnosis.” should be changed to “Due to social discrimination and
the lack of a comprehensive pollution survey, residents with health problems were
reluctant to seek a diagnosis.”.
3. Page 4, paragraph 2, lines 2–4: Incorrect word replaced by correct one:
“We performed this survey in order to research the prevalence of signs and symptoms
as well as the geometrical and chronological spread of health problems caused by methylmercury.”
should be changed to “We performed this survey in order to research the prevalence
of signs and symptoms, as well as the geographical and chronological spread of health
problems caused by methylmercury.”.
4. Page 6, paragraph 1, lines 5–6: Missing word inserted:
“Those who had been born or had moved to the polluted on or after 1 January 1969 were
classified under the third category (BA1968: n = 30, M/F = 21/9, Age = 37.4 ± 2.3).”
should be changed to “Those who had been born or had moved to the polluted area on
or after 1 January 1969 were classified under the third category (BA1968: n = 30,
M/F = 21/9, Age = 37.4 ± 2.3).”, adding the word ‘area’.
5. Page 6, paragraph 2, lines 2–5: Rearrange order at the end of the paragraph:
“To evaluate this group, we selected 88 out of 227 subjects whose age was lower than
49 from the Control Area (M/F = 40/48, Age = 37.5 ± 6.0), and 84 out of 786 exposed
subjects in the designated area who were born after 31 December 1968 (M/F = 44/40,
Age = 44.8 ± 2.3) and whose age was lower than 49 from the four exposed groups.” should
be changed to “To evaluate this group, we selected 88 out of 227 subjects, whose age
was lower than 49, from the Control Area (M/F = 40/48, Age = 37.5 ± 6.0) and 84 out
of 786 exposed subjects in the designated area, who were born after 31 December 1968
and whose age was lower than 49, from the four exposed groups (M/F = 44/40, Age =
44.8 ± 2.3).”.
6. Page 8, 2.6.2, lines 2–3: Added missing words to clarify better:
“To evaluate the severity of the neurological signs, we added (a) mark(s) to positive
signs and symptoms, and we calculated the total score in the exposed four groups.”
should be changed to “To evaluate the severity of the neurological signs and symptoms,
we added (a) mark(s) to positive signs and symptoms, and we calculated the total score
in the exposed four groups and the control group.”, adding ‘and symptoms’, as well
as ‘and the control group’.
7. Page 21, Section 3.5.2, line 1: Remove “other”:
“The frequency of fish ingestion was closely related to the onset year of other symptoms
(Table 13, Figure 9).” should be changed to “The frequency of fish ingestion was closely
related to the onset year of the symptoms (Table 13, Figure 9).”.
8. Page 23, Table 14: Table title shortened:
“Table 14. Score of signs and onset of symptoms in each area.” should be changed to
“Table 14. Score of signs and onset of symptoms.”.
9. Page 27, Figure 17: Changed “symptoms” to “signs”:
“Figure 17. Prevalence of neurological signs in subjects with and without sensory
disturbance. Except for the prevalence of sensory disturbance, that of other symptoms
was lower in subjects without sensory disturbance than in subjects with sensory disturbance
but was generally higher than the Control Area. The prevalence patterns were similar
in exposed subjects with and without sensory disturbance except for the prevalence
of sensory disturbance.” should be changed to “Figure 17. Prevalence of neurological
signs in subjects with and without sensory disturbance. Except for the prevalence
of sensory disturbance, that of other signs was lower in subjects without sensory
disturbance, than in subjects with sensory disturbance, but was generally higher than
the Control Area. The prevalence patterns were similar in exposed subjects with and
without sensory disturbance except for the prevalence of sensory disturbance.”.
10. Page 32, Figure 18, Missing word inserted:
“Figure 18. Prevalence of symptoms when comparing nine questions common to all five
studies. The prevalence of all characteristic symptoms for Minamata disease was very.
In this study, we used the prevalence of “sensory numbness in both hands” instead
of “numbness of hands and feet.”” should be changed to “Figure 18. Prevalence of symptoms
when comparing nine questions common to all five studies. The prevalence of all characteristic
symptoms for Minamata disease was very high. In this study, we used the prevalence
of “sensory numbness in both hands” instead of “numbness of hands and feet.””, thus
inserting ‘high’ as in ‘very high’ in the first sentence.
11. Page 32, paragraph 2, lines 1–2: The age range data used for ADL comparison was
60–69. This resulted in a change for the value for bodily hygiene from 10.6% to 7.0%.
The scientific results, however, remain the same:
“Although activities of daily living (ADL) of these patients decreased from 60 years
old, 9.1% still needed assistance in eating, 11.6% in bodily hygiene and 10.6% in
using the toilet [11].” should be changed to “Although activities of daily living
(ADL) of these patients decreased from 60 years old, 9.1% still needed assistance
in eating, 11.6% in bodily hygiene, and 7.0% in using the toilet in the age range
of 60–69 [11].”, where the percentage of those using the toilet has been changed from
10.6% to 7.0%, and the words ‘in the age range of 60–69’ have also been added at the
end.
12. Page 32, paragraph 3, lines 5–6: Referenced table numbers corrected:
“Tables 2 and 4, Figures 2 and 3 show that prevalence of specific symptoms as well
as that of non-specific symptoms became higher through methylmercury exposure.” should
be changed to “Tables 3 and 5, Figures 2 and 3 show that prevalence of specific symptoms
as well as that of non-specific symptoms, became higher through methylmercury exposure.”.
13. Page 33, 4.3, lines 7–8: The following sentence should be removed, as its meaning
is incorrect:
This is the first study that dose-response effects were observed in methylmercury
poisoning in Japan.
14. Page 34, 4.6, paragraph 3, lines 1–2: Reworded to clear up possible ambiguity:
“It is difficult to determine whether subjects of BA1968 (as displayed in Figure 14)
had developed their symptoms due to continued exposure after 1968 or if they were
late developing symptoms.” should be changed to “We can understand that subjects of
BA1968 (as displayed in Figure 14) had developed their symptoms due to continued exposure
after 1968. But it is impossible to determine whether subjects who were born before
BA1968 and had developed their symptoms after 1968 had developed their symptoms due
to continued exposure after 1968 or if they were late developing symptoms resulting
from exposure before 1968.”.
15. Page 34, Section 4.7, lines 3–5 Added reference to some international studies:
“Outside of Japan, epidemiological studies have not seen such extreme neurological
signs, but other more mild or latent neurocognitive and behavioral symptoms [23,24].”
should be changed to “Outside of Japan, epidemiological studies with such extreme
neurological signs are rare except for Iraq, Canada, and so on, but many other more
mild or latent neurocognitive and behavioral symptoms have been reported [23,24].”.
16. Page 35, 4.8, paragraph 2, line 1: Reworded to clear up possible ambiguity:
“Secondly, the lifestyle and occupations were not the same among the four groups.”
should be changed to “Secondly, the lifestyle and occupations were not the same between
exposed and control groups.”.
17. Page 36, reference 12. Misspelling corrected:
“12. Sugiura, A. Health conditions among fisheren living in the Minamata disease prevalent
area. Jpn. J. Public Health
1994, 41, 428–440. (In Japanese)” should be changed to “12. Sugiura, A. Health conditions
among fishermen living in the Minamata disease prevalent area. Jpn. J. Public Health
1994, 41, 428–440. (In Japanese)”.
18. Page 36, reference 17. Incorrect reference to “Bristol, UK” removed:
“17. Central Council for Environmental Pollution Control. About Future Measures to
Minamata Disease; The Environmental Agency: Bristol, UK, 1991. (In Japanese)” should
be changed to “17. Central Council for Environmental Pollution Control. About Future
Measures to Minamata Disease; The Environmental Agency: Tokyo, Japan, 1991. (In Japanese)”.
None of the above changes affect the scientific results. The manuscript will be updated
and the original will remain online on the article webpage. We apologize for any inconvenience
caused to our readers.