5 ms·

Why were people from IGR found to be at fault at all? From Wikipedia, it sounds so backwards... like, one of the owners seems to have done everything possible t

Why were people from IGR found to be at fault at all? From Wikipedia, it sounds so backwards... like, one of the owners seems to have done everything possible to recoup the radioactive material & warn of the dangers. There's not a word about anything happening to those who prevented the recuperation of radioactive material, only to later fail to guard it. And thieves are only mentioned to say they were not included as defendants.

namdnay 5y ago
Probably because the people who stopped them from retrieving the material were better connected politically... I agree that there's something very fishy in the story
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simonh 5y ago
IGR shouldn't have left the source behind in the first place, but yes beyond that mistake they seem to have done everything they could to get the source secured. They were only penalised for a peripheral issue, the dilapidated state of the building. Presumably the theory is they should not have left the source in a building in that condition, which contributed to the thieves being able to take it.
- 08-15 5y ago
  From https://web.archive.org/web/20140503013539/http://noticias.juridicas.com/articulos/00-Generalidades/200602-325612711062370.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140503013539/http://noticias.j... by way of Google translation: "Meanwhile, the ownership of the clinic's assets was being discussed in court, and the cobalt 60 teletherapy unit was moved to the new facilities and the cesium 137 teletherapy unit was abandoned in its original place due to being seized." Sounds like the root cause was stupid bureaucrats, but that must of course not be admitted in public.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Right, but that equipment should have been moved to the new facility before the old site was handed over to it’s new owners. If they’d done that the equipment couldn’t have been seized. EDIT - All good points below.
    - ratww 5y ago
      In the linked article, IGR and a lawyer both claim that only CNEM could authorise the move. And the "handover" to the new owners was very acrimonious, with the new and old owners fighting in court. What seems clear is that IGR lost access to the location and filed several complaints about the machine being left there. If IGR was securing the machine and trying to get it moved before they were thrown out of the location and prevented from visiting it as they claim, I don't think they're to blame at all. Of course details are fuzzy on that. --- EDIT: According to this court sentence [1], IGR never notified CNEM: > Then, under pressure to leave the site, the IGR transferred its headquarters to another address, and ended up abandoning the obsolete Cesium-137 pump in the old building, without even notifying the CNEN or the State Health Secretariat of the fact. > On 05/04/87, the demolition of the building began, by order of the former partner of IGR, AMAURILLO MONTEIRO DE OLIVEIRA, culminating with the almost total destruction of the original building, which left it without a roof, doors or windows, despite the existence of the aforementioned Cesium-137 pump on the site, without any warnings or notices. --- EDIT2: According again to the court sentence, the demolition was ordered by former partner of IGR, who had to pay 100k for the whole ordeal. > On 05/04/87, the demolition of the building began, by order of the former partner of IGR, AMAURILLO MONTEIRO DE OLIVEIRA, culminating with the almost total destruction of the original building, which left it without a roof, doors or windows, despite the existence of the aforementioned Cesium-137 bomb on the site, without any warnings or notices. --- [1] https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civil-publica-no-caso-do-acidente-radioativo-com-cesio-137-em-goiania https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civ...
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    The bureaucrats were acting at the behest of the landlord / property owners.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
"When IGR moved to its new premises in 1985, it left behind a caesium-137-based teletherapy unit that had been purchased in 1977." It belonged to them so it was first and foremost their responsibility to take care of it and not to leave it behind. The Wikipedia page is too succinct to know what were the reasons for the courts to prevent removal later on but it does say that it was the court that took the decision to finally post a guard on site (albeit obviously a poor one), not the owners.
- virgilp 5y ago
  From Wikipedia it feels like maybe the court placed a guard on site to *prevent* IGR from collecting anything from the premises (there was an ongoing dispute on the property) > The fate of the abandoned site was disputed in court between IGR and the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, then owner of the premises My understanding is that this is how the court got involved, not because of any radioactive materials; IGR owner tried to make the court aware & let him retrieve the radioactive materials but had no luck. It is admittedly unclear if the guard was posted to protect the radioactive materials or just the building in general. However, do note that guard is also not one of the named defendants (if it was his responsibility specifically to protect the capsule, I argue that he failed big time and should've been prosecuted for it; if he was just told "guard the building", it's a different issue in my mind). -- [edit] Also it seems that IGR were _forced_ to leave the caesium behind, in the first place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29148480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29148480
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Again, there isn't enough details to go beyond speculation. The only thing that seems clear-ish is that IGR considered that the device belonged to them according to their actions as described. If so it is very reasonable that they be held to account. This does not mean that there aren't other responsibilities or that officials/the government tried to cover their asses later on. The Wikipedia article does mention, though that the National Nuclear Energy Commission ended up being ordered to pay compensation to the victims, which at face value sounds like an acknowledgement that they also bore some responsibility. It also says that the thieves were not involved in the civil suit without mention of anything else. This may be an important point because the goal of a civil suit is to get money so there may be little point in suing poor people... They are obviously guilty of theft (criminal), and damage to property (criminal and civil), beyond that it's quite unclear and they did pay a heavy price.
refurb 5y ago
When shit goes horribly wrong due to a system failure you’ll often find someone gets blamed and it’s usually the least politically influential and/or those with the deepest pockets.
ratww 5y ago
According to page 2 of the 2000 court sentence [1], it seems that IGR were absolved: > B) I exclude the FEDERAL UNION, CARLOS DE FIGUEIREDO BEZERRIL and CRISEIDE CASTRO DOURADO, ORLANDO ALVES TEIXEIRA from the procedural relationship due to passive illegitimacy (art. 3º, c/c art. 267, VI, of the CPC); However it seems it's not clear if it was a clerical error or something more complex than that. [1] https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civil-publica-no-caso-do-acidente-radioativo-com-cesio-137-em-goiania/2 https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civ...

namdnay 5y ago

Probably because the people who stopped them from retrieving the material were better connected politically... I agree that there's something very fishy in the story

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

IGR shouldn't have left the source behind in the first place, but yes beyond that mistake they seem to have done everything they could to get the source secured. They were only penalised for a peripheral issue, the dilapidated state of the building. Presumably the theory is they should not have left the source in a building in that condition, which contributed to the thieves being able to take it.

08-15 5y ago
From https://web.archive.org/web/20140503013539/http://noticias.juridicas.com/articulos/00-Generalidades/200602-325612711062370.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140503013539/http://noticias.j... by way of Google translation: "Meanwhile, the ownership of the clinic's assets was being discussed in court, and the cobalt 60 teletherapy unit was moved to the new facilities and the cesium 137 teletherapy unit was abandoned in its original place due to being seized." Sounds like the root cause was stupid bureaucrats, but that must of course not be admitted in public.
- simonh 5y ago
  Right, but that equipment should have been moved to the new facility before the old site was handed over to it’s new owners. If they’d done that the equipment couldn’t have been seized. EDIT - All good points below.
  - ratww 5y ago
    In the linked article, IGR and a lawyer both claim that only CNEM could authorise the move. And the "handover" to the new owners was very acrimonious, with the new and old owners fighting in court. What seems clear is that IGR lost access to the location and filed several complaints about the machine being left there. If IGR was securing the machine and trying to get it moved before they were thrown out of the location and prevented from visiting it as they claim, I don't think they're to blame at all. Of course details are fuzzy on that. --- EDIT: According to this court sentence [1], IGR never notified CNEM: > Then, under pressure to leave the site, the IGR transferred its headquarters to another address, and ended up abandoning the obsolete Cesium-137 pump in the old building, without even notifying the CNEN or the State Health Secretariat of the fact. > On 05/04/87, the demolition of the building began, by order of the former partner of IGR, AMAURILLO MONTEIRO DE OLIVEIRA, culminating with the almost total destruction of the original building, which left it without a roof, doors or windows, despite the existence of the aforementioned Cesium-137 pump on the site, without any warnings or notices. --- EDIT2: According again to the court sentence, the demolition was ordered by former partner of IGR, who had to pay 100k for the whole ordeal. > On 05/04/87, the demolition of the building began, by order of the former partner of IGR, AMAURILLO MONTEIRO DE OLIVEIRA, culminating with the almost total destruction of the original building, which left it without a roof, doors or windows, despite the existence of the aforementioned Cesium-137 bomb on the site, without any warnings or notices. --- [1] https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civil-publica-no-caso-do-acidente-radioativo-com-cesio-137-em-goiania https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civ...
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The bureaucrats were acting at the behest of the landlord / property owners.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

"When IGR moved to its new premises in 1985, it left behind a caesium-137-based teletherapy unit that had been purchased in 1977." It belonged to them so it was first and foremost their responsibility to take care of it and not to leave it behind. The Wikipedia page is too succinct to know what were the reasons for the courts to prevent removal later on but it does say that it was the court that took the decision to finally post a guard on site (albeit obviously a poor one), not the owners.

virgilp 5y ago
From Wikipedia it feels like maybe the court placed a guard on site to *prevent* IGR from collecting anything from the premises (there was an ongoing dispute on the property) > The fate of the abandoned site was disputed in court between IGR and the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, then owner of the premises My understanding is that this is how the court got involved, not because of any radioactive materials; IGR owner tried to make the court aware & let him retrieve the radioactive materials but had no luck. It is admittedly unclear if the guard was posted to protect the radioactive materials or just the building in general. However, do note that guard is also not one of the named defendants (if it was his responsibility specifically to protect the capsule, I argue that he failed big time and should've been prosecuted for it; if he was just told "guard the building", it's a different issue in my mind). -- [edit] Also it seems that IGR were _forced_ to leave the caesium behind, in the first place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29148480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29148480
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Again, there isn't enough details to go beyond speculation. The only thing that seems clear-ish is that IGR considered that the device belonged to them according to their actions as described. If so it is very reasonable that they be held to account. This does not mean that there aren't other responsibilities or that officials/the government tried to cover their asses later on. The Wikipedia article does mention, though that the National Nuclear Energy Commission ended up being ordered to pay compensation to the victims, which at face value sounds like an acknowledgement that they also bore some responsibility. It also says that the thieves were not involved in the civil suit without mention of anything else. This may be an important point because the goal of a civil suit is to get money so there may be little point in suing poor people... They are obviously guilty of theft (criminal), and damage to property (criminal and civil), beyond that it's quite unclear and they did pay a heavy price.

refurb 5y ago

When shit goes horribly wrong due to a system failure you’ll often find someone gets blamed and it’s usually the least politically influential and/or those with the deepest pockets.

ratww 5y ago

According to page 2 of the 2000 court sentence [1], it seems that IGR were absolved: > B) I exclude the FEDERAL UNION, CARLOS DE FIGUEIREDO BEZERRIL and CRISEIDE CASTRO DOURADO, ORLANDO ALVES TEIXEIRA from the procedural relationship due to passive illegitimacy (art. 3º, c/c art. 267, VI, of the CPC); However it seems it's not clear if it was a clerical error or something more complex than that. [1] https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civil-publica-no-caso-do-acidente-radioativo-com-cesio-137-em-goiania/2 https://jus.com.br/jurisprudencia/16292/sentenca-na-acao-civ...