4 ms·

Not sure why you were down voted. From 2018: > TOKYO — More than seven years after a devastating earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns at a nuclear power pla

Not sure why you were down voted. From 2018: > TOKYO — More than seven years after a devastating earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns at a nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan acknowledged for the first time this week that a worker died from cancer after being exposed to radiation. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/world/asia/japan-fukushima-radiation-cancer-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/world/asia/japan-fukushim... Edit- I don't think this is cleanup specifically but there've been many attributions of cancer to Fukushima, even one by the UN attributing the events to thyroid cancer in children. I guess they changed their mind?

arp242 3y ago
> Not sure why you were down voted Because the article already addresses this.
- hinkley 3y ago
  So it’s the “all articles have shitty titles” argument again? No, I call bullshit. The conclusion is that there were “no effects” not minimal effects. Dead people are > 0. An unsupported conclusion would cost you a letter grade on a college paper. This isn’t college. It’s a study that will affect public policy for many decades.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- yellow_lead 3y ago
  How can the article say no harmful effects then go on to say this? > Among around 170 rescue workers who were exposed to very high levels of radiation, two to three additional cancer cases were expected. The report said that other factors such as stress, heart problems and other illnesses came about as a result of the evacuation. We expect 2-3 of you to get cancer, but overall there's no harmful effects. Edit again: I should've read the fine print, it's "No harmful effects for Fukushima residents", so yeah, a shitty title.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Firemen are residents too. If a horrible fire happens in downtown and no residents die but two firefighters die and one ends up with permanent lung damage, and the city claims everyone is fine? You’re gonna have trouble. I was implying in the top level that treating volunteers and emergency workers as non entities is going to cause long term damage to public safety. And I’m willing to double down on that.
    - orwin 3y ago
      I think the 13 workers who took undue risks (exposure to up to 32 Gy) were old workers from the company who volunteered to go in danger area to secure them, but i don't know if they were local (doesn't matter anyway, they are heroes). And the fact that none of them developed a cataract or blindness, no hypertyroid, and only one got a cancer (for now, radiation cancer can happen after a lot of time) is a small miracle. Workers who were around the danger area but did not enter them were probably banished from flying a plane or working in nuclear for a year or two, but should be fine.

arp242 3y ago

> Not sure why you were down voted Because the article already addresses this.

hinkley 3y ago
So it’s the “all articles have shitty titles” argument again? No, I call bullshit. The conclusion is that there were “no effects” not minimal effects. Dead people are > 0. An unsupported conclusion would cost you a letter grade on a college paper. This isn’t college. It’s a study that will affect public policy for many decades.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
yellow_lead 3y ago
How can the article say no harmful effects then go on to say this? > Among around 170 rescue workers who were exposed to very high levels of radiation, two to three additional cancer cases were expected. The report said that other factors such as stress, heart problems and other illnesses came about as a result of the evacuation. We expect 2-3 of you to get cancer, but overall there's no harmful effects. Edit again: I should've read the fine print, it's "No harmful effects for Fukushima residents", so yeah, a shitty title.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Firemen are residents too. If a horrible fire happens in downtown and no residents die but two firefighters die and one ends up with permanent lung damage, and the city claims everyone is fine? You’re gonna have trouble. I was implying in the top level that treating volunteers and emergency workers as non entities is going to cause long term damage to public safety. And I’m willing to double down on that.
  - orwin 3y ago
    I think the 13 workers who took undue risks (exposure to up to 32 Gy) were old workers from the company who volunteered to go in danger area to secure them, but i don't know if they were local (doesn't matter anyway, they are heroes). And the fact that none of them developed a cataract or blindness, no hypertyroid, and only one got a cancer (for now, radiation cancer can happen after a lot of time) is a small miracle. Workers who were around the danger area but did not enter them were probably banished from flying a plane or working in nuclear for a year or two, but should be fine.