4 ms·
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
by 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 agoFiremen 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 agoI 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.