13 ms·
Masao Yoshida, Nuclear Engineer and Chief at Fukushima Plant, Dies at 58
- ddxexex 13y ago"Had he obeyed the order, the whole of north eastern Japan would possibly have been uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries." I'm a bit confused by this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with nuclear weapons, but people still live in these cities today. How does the radiation from a nuclear meltdown (like Chernobyl) differ from the fallout of a nuclear weapon like with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- orthecreedence 13y agoI may be completely ignorant as I'm not an authority on the subject, but I think it's the difference between the radioactive materials being exploded/vaporized vs shot into the atmosphere (without being vaporized/broken down) and distributed in the general area. With the the A-bombs, the radiation that people suffered wasn't from the radioactive materials in the weapon itself, but the radiation from such a huge explosion. With Chernobyl, the radioactive materials were sent into the air and settled around the vicinity, making many parts of it still very radioactive to this day.
- mpyne 13y agoPretty much, but the largest factor was simply the sheer difference in scale between the A-bombs and the reactors at Chernobyl. With the A-bombs there was simply simply less fission fragments and other radioactive products to worry about due to there being far less nuclear fuel and surrounding material that could be irradiated and itself made radioactive.
- 46Bit 13y agoThere is more radioactive material to release from a reactor than a bomb - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases#Chernobyl_compared_with_an_atomic_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_oth.... Whilst a bomb will cause an area to become radioactive itself (through neutron bombardment) that is confined to the local area and I think tends to have short half-lives.
- velodrome 13y agoIt has to do with the amount of radioactive material and half-life. From wikipedia: The Fukushima plants have tons of nuclear fuel, thousands of Fuel Assemblies, more than 6,000 fuel rods in Spent fuel pools. --- Fukushima: 1500-2000 tons of spent fuel rods Little Boy: 0.07 tons (140 lbs) Fat Man: .0068 tons (13.6 lbs) http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/how-much-fuel-is-at-risk-at-fukushima.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/how-much-f...
- daegloe 13y agoMeltdowns have the potential to release far more radioactive material than an atomic bomb. The radioactive material tends to consist of isotopes with high nuclear decay rates. And the material tends to stick around longer, slowly poisoning the environment, as opposed to a bomb blast which quickly scatters the material into the atmosphere.
- cdjk 13y agoThe fallout products of an atomic bomb generally have short half lives. Wikipedia has some interesting graphs comparing the radiation dose of a fission bomb and Chernobyl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout#Half-life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout#Half-life
- mathattack 13y agoThe courage of Japanese managers in the line of duty in situations like this is commendable. Similar examples were found during the Sarin gas bombings.
- toyg 13y agoJapanese operation managers, that is. TEPCO's top brass were almost criminal in their soviet-style coverup/spin exercise.
- mathattack 13y agoTrue. And in the sarin gas bombings it was the line station managers who took the great risks.
- owyn 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire Was just reading about this the other night... During Britain's worst nuclear accident, reactor manager Tom Tuohy climbed on top of the burning reactor to examine it several times during the incident. "Tom Tuohy then ordered everyone out of the reactor building except himself and the Fire Chief in order to shut off all cooling and ventilating air entering the reactor. Tuohy then climbed up several times and reported watching the flames leaping from the discharge face slowly dying away." He lived to the age of 90...
- lostlogin 13y agoJust a recommendation that everyone read the above link. It's incredible. Especially as its a direct quote. Has anyone else done this? Let alone live?
- adamlj 13y agoFukushima disaster has not raised cancer risks [1] We need more nuclear power and less nuclear scaremongering. [1] http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/un-report-fukushima-disaster-no-cancer-risk http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/un-report-fukushim...
- coldtea 13y agoSure, as long is away from our city, and the toxic waste is moved out of our state too.
- 3am 13y ago"UN scientists have concluded that the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster is unlikely to push up cancer rates in Japan. Some scientists remain sceptical of this claim, as the findings of the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) differ from those of several other studies, including a recent World Health Organization (WHO) report that predicted increased cancer risks among people living in areas with the highest radiation levels." That's literally the first paragraph of the article you linked. Doesn't sound like there's consensus on the matter.
- coldtea 13y ago>We need more nuclear power and less nuclear scaremongering. And why not more investment in solar power and renewable energy sources, instead of a potentially dangerous industry that produces extremely toxic waste, and can fuck everything around it in case of a terrorist attack, meltdown, etc?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoHave a look at LFTR, a much safer reactor design that produces much less waste.
- cobrausn 13y agoNuclear power is proven technology. Solar and renewable sources continue to ask for decades of research and funding to hope to be nearly as capable of providing as much power. As an aside, having one does not exclude using / researching the other.
- akandiah 13y ago> Doctors have maintained repeatedly that Yoshida’s illness has had nothing to do with exposure to high doses of radiation. Is there any validity to this claim?
- chc 13y agoIs there any validity to the claim that people develop cancer independent of nuclear power plants? Absolutely. Cancer predates nuclear power by millennia.
- iterationx 13y agohttp://fukushima-diary.com/ http://fukushima-diary.com/ is where i go to get my non-officially sanctioned news about the disaster.
- coldtea 13y agoSure. On the other hand they have been caught lying and downplaying Fukushima several times. Public statements in these kind of highly debated public/political cases also serve the role of "damage control".
- maaku 13y agoI am not an MD, but... The time it takes for most cancers to develop far enough to be picked up by these sorts of diagnosis techniques is far, far longer than the few months which had elapsed between the Fukushima event and his diagnosis.
- Pitarou 13y agoYes, there is. If we see a wave of cancers among Fukushima workers, that would change matters, but as things stand now it seems much, much more likely that Mr Yoshida got sick for reasons that have nothing to do with the radiation. I don't entirely discount the possibility of a cover-up, but grieving relatives who have somebody to blame are kind of hard to silence.
- tptacek 13y agoHere's the NYTimes on the same story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-nuclear-engineer-and-chief-at-fukushima-plant-dies-at-58.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-n... Key graf: "Mr. Yoshida took a leave from Tokyo Electric in late 2011 after receiving a diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Experts have said his illness was not a result of radiation exposure from the accident, given how quickly it came on."
- mattm 13y agoMost likely due to stress
- ekianjo 13y agoDifficult to say. You can get cancer for tons of reasons - we don't know what kind of life he was living and so on, so it's kind of hard to say "most likely" in this kind of situation.
- daliusd 13y agoMost likely no: "Although stress can cause a number of physical health problems, the evidence that it can cause cancer is weak. Some studies have indicated a link between various psychological factors and an increased risk of developing cancer, but others have not." From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress
- mattm 13y agoIf you read this book - http://www.amazon.ca/When-Body-Says-No-Hidden/dp/0676973124 http://www.amazon.ca/When-Body-Says-No-Hidden/dp/0676973124 - you may re-think that.
- afreak 13y agoThis headline is scaremongering at its worst. >The ex-head of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant Masao Yoshida, 58, died at a Tokyo hospital of esophageal cancer on July 9, 2013. Doctors have maintained repeatedly that Yoshida’s illness has had nothing to do with exposure to high doses of radiation. > [...] > On November 28, 2011, Yoshida was admitted to hospital, where cancer was diagnosed. It's fortunate that the article points out that the exposure does not correlate to the incident in the first place, but I get the feeling that the headline given here is link-bait at its worst. As far as I can tell you, you cannot get cancer six months after being exposed to a high degree of radiation. You either die shortly after a large dose or something appears years if not decades later. Cancer is a seemingly random, yet likely event.
- RK 13y agoI just grabbed my radiobiology textbook off the shelf (Radiobiology for the Radiologist, for those keeping score). It claims that the latent period between radiation exposure and the appearance of a malignancy is years. The shortest is for leukemia, which averages 5-7 years. Solid tumors can take decades to appear. This is certainly in line with the doctors' claims.
- D9u 13y agoMr Yoshida is a true hero, and I send my condolences to his family & friends.
- rikacomet 13y agoThis makes for a observation for us all, that life is precious indeed, but at times we must trade that for the many other precious lives. From a Administrative point of view, I would love to get a record of what methods, were used by him, to keep his men in line. Though I do have a Idea, what it would be, but actual facts would be more revealing. From a Human point of view, I would call him a hero, and all his co-workers as well. And take an oath that if time would come for me to take a similar decision, i.e, to "STAY SO OTHERS CAN LIVE" I would in all probability take that. From a Citizen point of view, I feel that, yes nuclear plants are very dangerous, it is to remember that the call of the hour is that I'm a entrepreneur, and the only way I can help make this all better is to do, what we do best: Innovate. And Search for more safer, better, alternate ways of mass electricity production.
- tonylemesmer 13y agoHe sounds like a hero for his actions after the failure at the plant (and I commend him and his team for this), but what about his leadership before which allowed the plant to get into such a situation? I'm not saying it was his fault, I'm merely curious as to how such an important enterprise could be so ill equipped on so many levels.
- ArkyBeagle 13y agoWell, he apologized for it. Things like "how high do we build the levees around New Orleans" are inherently political. When it comes down to it, you pays your money and you takes your chances. You cannot know how high is high enough. Taking over after that disaster was in itself an act of courage. Those old GE reactors just have ... "features" that are dangerous.
- mathrawka 13y agoSpeaking of knowing how high is high enough... Yanosuke Hirai was responsible for forcing a 46-foot wall to be built at a different powerplant. In Fukushima, the 19-foot wall didn't do much to stop the 43-foot tsunami[1] 1: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tena...
- Daiz 13y agoThe headline of this article reminds me of this one article I saw a good while back that basically said "SOME DUDE WHO WORKED ON FUKUSHIMA HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER!" Then at the end of the (short) article it was mentioned that "oh, by the way, doctors are saying that it has nothing to do with Fukushima and he has been a chain smoker for decades. Never mind the blatant link baiting and scaremongering that was the entire rest of the article, it's just what sells!" I'm having a hard time locating that article now, but maybe that's for the better. It's pretty sad how common stuff like this is when it comes to reporting on nuclear energy.
- panacea 13y ago>I'm having a hard time locating that article now Irradiated tubes?
- dangayle 13y agoI read this story this morning. Would make for a good movie.