4 ms·

According to the linked sources in Portuguese, CNEN (the government nuclear energy authority) knew about the Cesium machine from the moment the address of IGR (

by ratww 5y ago

According to the linked sources in Portuguese, CNEN (the government nuclear energy authority) knew about the Cesium machine from the moment the address of IGR (the owners of the machine) changed. IGN and a lawyer expert in the matter claimed that the authorisation for moving the machine could only come from CNEN. If anything, that's gross negligence from CNEN. IGR seemed very exasperated during the whole process, if they were really fighting court orders that prevented them from having access to the place (and the machine). -- EDIT: However, according to this court sentence [2], it seems that IGR never told anything to CNEM: > Then, under pressure to leave the site, the IGR transferred its headquarters to another address, and ended up abandoning the obsolete Cesium-137 bomb 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 bomb on the site, without any warnings or notices. -- [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040309113338/http://www.jornalopcao.com.br/index.asp?secao=Op%E7%E3oCultural&subsecao=Suplementos&idjornal=67 https://web.archive.org/web/20040309113338/http://www.jornal... [2] 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...

mytailorisrich 5y ago
Sure and, as already mentioned, the Wikipedia article does mention that the CNEN ended up being liable for compensation. But sending a letter, even letters, to the CNEN does not absolve the owner's responsibility. It just shows that several organisations seem not to have done what they should have.
- ratww 5y ago
  The claim by IGR, however, was that the removal was impossible without authorisation from CNEN, and that they legally lost access to the location and the machine. If this was indeed true and they acted on it, then it would absolve them. However a judge disagreed, so they also had to pay 100k. --- EDIT: On the second page of the document above, the judge mentions that owners of IGR were free from paying. Only the nuclear physicist (Flamarion) and a former partner who ordered the demolition (Amaurillo) had to pony up the 100k.

by ratww 5y ago

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Sure and, as already mentioned, the Wikipedia article does mention that the CNEN ended up being liable for compensation. But sending a letter, even letters, to the CNEN does not absolve the owner's responsibility. It just shows that several organisations seem not to have done what they should have.

ratww 5y ago
The claim by IGR, however, was that the removal was impossible without authorisation from CNEN, and that they legally lost access to the location and the machine. If this was indeed true and they acted on it, then it would absolve them. However a judge disagreed, so they also had to pay 100k. --- EDIT: On the second page of the document above, the judge mentions that owners of IGR were free from paying. Only the nuclear physicist (Flamarion) and a former partner who ordered the demolition (Amaurillo) had to pony up the 100k.