Ok, this is interesting for two reasons: First, once again, it was said in a sister thread, no mention of the workers. Especially the 13 who were exposed to up

Ok, this is interesting for two reasons: First, once again, it was said in a sister thread, no mention of the workers. Especially the 13 who were exposed to up to 32 gray. Those were "heroes" at the time, they volonteered, and like all "heroes", were quickly forgotten. I imagine getting those doses prevents you from being near a reactor, at a hospital or flying a plane, so they likely had to loose their jobs, but also be harder to treat at hospitals and endanger themselves when taking the plane for vacations. The fact that "only" one died and that none of the other yet suffer from anything is good (the report indicated cataracts and blindness are more probably than hyperthyroid, so that's great for them). I would like to know if they receive a pension and are now retired, or if they still work. (also i think its evidence that privatization and subcontracting in the nuclear industry is the dumbest thing you can do. I can imagine doing that at 50yo for the country i live in. For a subcontracting company? please, let the administrators and the execs do that) -------------- Second, sorry it's my left brain who does that: What are the plan in case another fukushima hit then? 2k people (between 1600 and 1900) died during fukushima evacuation. Mostly displaced ederly, but the panic killed small children. Displacement stress could have added up too, being on the ground could be view as a stigma (i've hear its less true than for the two atomic bombs and Chernobyl - where sightly irradiated people were pariahs - but still), and suicide are not counted on this stat, but the death count could be higher. This is evidence than even without a core catcher and an old, pretty poor design, we have time to think and slow down the evacuation, take our time to do it correctly, and maybe redraw the exclusion zone once the reactor is stopped and data come in. In both direction: i wouldn't have minded at all making the exclusion zone on the shore and in the sea bigger, and the one inland smaller, as soon as 2013.