Senior Citizens Lining Up to Tackle Fukushima 242
Some have compared them to kamikazes, but the more than 200 elderly volunteers who want clean up the Fukushima power station say they are just being practical. 72-year-old retired engineer Yasuteru Yamada says: "I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live. Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer." So far the government is hesitant to let the volunteers into the power station but Yamada and the others have been lobbying for the right to aid in the clean up. He says: "At this moment I can say that I am talking with many key government and Tepco people. But I am sorry I can't say any more at this moment. It is on the way but it is a very, very sensitive issue politically."
Inspiring and selfless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:5, Informative)
You need look no further than 9/11 first responders. Of course, the politicians then tried to stiff them after using 9/11 imagery for commercials.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/12/jon_stewarts_campaign_for_the.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:5, Insightful)
Tried to stiff them? the republicans blocked giving them aid at EVERY TURN! democrats asked for stupid as hell restrictions... and in the end... they flipped a giant fuck you to every 9/11 responder....
to get your aid, you haveto have a background check to see if you are a terrorist... WTF is that?
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:5, Informative)
It's the same thing with the soldiers they eagerly send to war, isn't it? It's standard operating procedure for disposable workers, and a recurring theme ever since the Continental Army was demobilized in 1783.
It's all pats on the back, and out of one side of their mouths it's all "Thanks for putting your life on the line", and "you're defending freedom", etc. while simultaneously they're winding to give a giant boot up your collective asses.
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always a new generation of suckers for the Yankie Doodle talk about serving your country. If you try to tell these people that as vets the government will throw them away like an empty plastic water bottle instead of hearing your warning they will call you a "libUral".
Re: (Score:2)
Also, thanks to the Veterans' Preference Act [wikipedia.org], I am entitled to (but have never used) preferential hiring for federal civil-service jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Read up on the Bonus Army riots of 1932 [wikipedia.org] and the background/history of US compensation to armed forces members. Your experience is historically speaking an anomaly. I'm glad the government is treating veterans well these days, but it appears that such treatment is rare.
Re: (Score:2)
It works out well for people who leave the service relatively sound of mind and body.
Unfortunately, there are many who don't, and frequently they are the ones who do not have the needs incurred by their service met after they leave.
Positive anecdotal experiences do not negate the negative ones, and vice versa. There is more than one side to military service, because there is more than one person who has served in the military.
Re: (Score:2)
But if there's one thing I'd change, it would be this: Spend a little more time & money on psychological screening of recruits. I don't see any other way to weed out potential basket cases. I can't imagine that any amount of live-fire exercises can prepare you to face an enemy that you know
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear engineers, most of them, have been supporting a deadly industry which will inevitable harm people.
Whaaat? Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how much planning an engineering goes on to produce a single nuclear plant? Do you have any idea how many engineers have dedicated their lives to creating a 100% safe and clean reactor? And do you know how close they are to achieving these kinds of goals?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nuclear engineers, most of them, have been supporting a deadly industry which will inevitable harm people. It is good that some are willing to step up and take responsibility, but it is much more like cleaning up a mess they have contributed to than the heroism of soldiers.
*cough* *cough* *splutter*
As a former Nuclear Engineer, turned code monkey, let me call you an ignorant bigot.
Nuclear Engineers and Scientists know very well how to design safe nuclear power plants. What we end up having to live with
All industry is deadly (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuclear engineers, most of them, have been supporting a deadly industry which will inevitable harm people.
That's true of almost every industry you could care to mention. A coal burning power plant will release more radiation every year than a normally operating nuclear plant will in its lifetime.
Speaking of coal, all the minerals we depend upon for our way of life are provided to us by miners. They do dangerous work deep underground and, no matter how safe we make it, some of them will die. Our entire way of life is built on their blood; our lives are indebted to theirs.
You might then ask,what the point of industry is then if it's so dangerous and deadly? Well, it builds us a civilisation that is largely free of the constraints of a life built on subsistence agriculture. It's less deadly but still not perfect, just better in some ways.
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:4, Informative)
The firefighters who stayed at ground zero for months weren't being 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' practical like these old Japanese guys. A week after 9/11 when the rescue operation turned into a recovery operation, the mayor tried ordering NYFD to stop looking for bodies and report back to work since 'the needs of the living outweigh the needs of the dead'.
They didn't, and 10 years later you hear some of them complaining about needing more benefits because they fouled up their respiratory system.
Re: (Score:2)
About 20 years ago, I had a cat run away from home, and it made me very sad. I searched all over for her, but eventually I had to move on. And it hurt a lot to have to accept that, because there was still hope that she was alive somewhere since all she did was run away. At this point she's obviously dead, but even now, just thinking about it hurts a little, since I have no idea if she was hit by a car, mauled by a dog, drowned, starved, or just pass
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if there is a population here in the States that would be willing to take a compelling risk like this.
Provided that they intend to keep exposure within reasonable limits (which appears to be the case) then smoking, working in a coal mine, or just having an unhealthy diet would all qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so going to take up asbestos siding removal when I'm 90. Hell, I'll do that and X-Ray tech. Suck on that risk management!
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there is a population here in the States that would be willing to take a compelling risk like this.
Provided that they intend to keep exposure within reasonable limits (which appears to be the case) then smoking, working in a coal mine, or just having an unhealthy diet would all qualify.
I think smoking and unhealthy diet are generally seen as a reasonable trade-off between immediate pleasure and long-term effects. Most of the time unconsciously, moreover. So they're not really relevant here, unless you consider cleaning up Fukushima an immediate pleasure.
As for coal miners, more often than not they don't do it by choice.
I agree that there's a big difference, and I certainly wouldn't want to belittle their altruistic intent - but I was answering the question as stated, which was about risk. The examples I gave are highly relevant in that respect.
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:4, Insightful)
We're presumably talking about long-term cancer risk here, not acute radiation poisoning.
Re: (Score:2)
The post-Chernoble cleanup was by soldiers who were told there was no risk, not by nuclear engineers who know the risks and know how to use a dosimeter.
Re: (Score:3)
Provided that they intend to keep exposure within reasonable limits (which appears to be the case) then smoking, working in a coal mine, or just having an unhealthy diet would all qualify.
Do you really think that either of those things in some way compares with exposure to nuclear radiation?
It is true that a radiation dose of (say) 100 to 250mSv is considerably less dangerous than taking up smoking, however since they can both cause cancer I think it is a useful comparison to make.
I'm thinking this must be one of those cases where you've been banging a drum for a while and just accidentally went too far.
My only regret is that I missed out sunbathing.
President Carter (Score:3)
The point that these retired worker make about lower cancer risk is a good one. If there are Japanese speaking retired nuclear workers around the world, getting them to step in would make a lot of sense. There may even be room for non-Japanese speakers as a part of a crew with a translator
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:4, Interesting)
Their strength is their weakness. The same nobility that inspired these geezers (and i use that term with respect) to volunteer will prevent anyone in government or management from allowing them to go through with it. If they do it, some of them will certainly develop cancer or other serious maladies, and Japan's black eye would only get worse if they were seen sending in their most revered citizens in to die cleaning up a mess caused by some whippersnapper 40 year olds and their slipshod safety procedures.
No, the only thing that would float is if the Tepco management team themselves "volunteered" to do the clean up, as penance for the disaster they caused.
Re: (Score:2)
except that the reactor was built in the 1960's and 70's. The people who made the fundamental design decisions about how large and earthquake and tsunami to build for are the ones at the post retirement age that would be volunteering.
Nuclear engineer extended career (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since nuclear accidents are inevitable, it would be good to get a hotshot team of retired engineers prepared for any emergency at any reactor.
That's an awesome idea.
This should be a professional requirement in the field.
That's a terrible idea. And completely undermines the integrity of any team(s) you create.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I'd go. There are many who would. Probably all of them older veterans, like me. I'd rather live peacefully, but to help my country recover from something so serious as a major nuclear accident? I'm up for it. I have children and grandchildren. I'd do anything to make certain that they can live normal lives.
+5 Inspiring (Score:3, Insightful)
Good on you, mate. I'm too young yet and haven't had my kids yet either, but some day I hope to follow your example for positive attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
The vets also know NBC decon and would be less fearful due to training and discipline. They have experience including work/rest cycles in hot conditions, and internalized ability to work rapidly in teams.
The old M17 masks and chemsuits were acceptable, though staying in MOPP 4 for 12 house sucked ass. You could hang in Tyvek with a SCBA more easily than a chem suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOPP [wikipedia.org]
The military set off nukes near essentially unprotected troops to prove (it did) the practicality of nuclear w
you're doing it wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time it is proof positive that the central theme of the modern rabid capitalist, that only profit can motivate necessary work, is bunk.
Profit motivated leaving no corner uncut but a sense of civic duty motivates fixing the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Show them the hideous, slow, wretched process of Very Old Age and a quicker death for a cause should be no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Unequivocally I would say yes (Score:2)
and you would find many of them from the very same families our soldiers, police officers, and fire fighters, come from. There still are many people who make this country great, far too many write them off because these are also people with very strong values who do not bend to others views of those values. My parent's neighbor is in late sixties and works for FEMA going to about every disaster that pops up. He doesn't stop till they make him take time off. He could live comfortably never lifting a finger b
Courage is not enough. (Score:2)
I wonder if there is a population here in the States that would be willing to take a compelling risk like this.
You have to ask whether these elderly volunteers have the necessary skills. You have to ask whether they have the strength and endurance needed for the job. You have to ask how vulnerable they are to radiation and other hazards. The rate of attrition.
If you do not ask these questions, what you have is a feel-good PR stunt, not a plan to secure the reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt that if a similar situation happened in the US or canada an adequate number of people could be found who would volunteer. Not everyone eligible would volunteer of course, but you don't need a million 70 year olds to try and fix 5 nuclear reactors at 1 facility. If you don't have enough free volunteers, offer cash, which of course increases the number of volunteers.
In Japan they have healthcare, they have confidence that the state will take care of them if, in 10 years, they *do* get cancer
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Virtually everyone in the US hates all that knee-jerk reaction, but realistically at the voting booths are two-party system has left use with a choice between dumb and dumber. The POLITICIANS put those things in place and it's not even fair to say "You elected them!" anymore because those are basically the only choice anyone has these days. I personally vote Libertarian when I get the chance but out of the entire ballot last time I only had ONE that was even listed anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Inspiring and selfless (Score:4, Funny)
Is a more-than-two-party system better? I don't see evidence of that when looking at other countries.
I'd like to think that it'd give lobbyists fits. Right now, they only have to bribe *two* candidates...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard rumors that Yeltsin had a high exposure to solvents and disinfectants. Is that true??
Kamikazes vs Heroes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of kamikazes, even if they're the good kind now. I'm not exactly familiar with the radiation levels inside/around the plant now, but even if cancer takes a long time to develop, if they take a large dose, walking ghost will get them in a week or two, and it won't be pretty or painless...
Either way, they are heroes.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of kamikazes, even if they're the good kind now.
As opposed to?
The Kamikaze fought for their country as did every other soldier fighting for his in WW2. The fact that they were on a suicide mission, is no different than what many special forces groups did in WW2. Fighting your enemy with no hope for your own life is not anything new.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I got your point myself, after I posted. I spoke with a decidedly western point of view, for whom the Kamikaze were a deadly threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have it on good authority that the Japanese regarded the kamikazes (in WWII and elsewhere) as heroes.
Re: (Score:2)
There was NOTHING unheroic about being a Kamikaze. It's as much "sacrifice for the group" as diving on a grenade (which is Medal of Honor stuff in the US). It took a great deal of self-mastery to get that mission done.
Do note that conventional attacks have a loss rate too. One trades lives and equipment for military result. Kamikaze attacks remove the need to recover the attacking force, remove any chance of capture and interrogation (POWs are useless to the war effort, so the Bushido code of fighting to th
Japan Solves Aging Population Problem! (Score:3)
I'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
72 year old? (Score:4, Interesting)
"I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live. Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer."
Isn't the "time to cancer" a function of both exposure AND age? It would seem sensible that the senior citizens' cells are already damaged by old age, so exposure to radiation would have a head start as opposed to a 20 year old.
IANARH (I am not anything relevant here) so I'm really curious about this question.
Re:72 year old? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think we really know... But either way you look at it, cancer is going to take fewer years away from a 72yr old than a 30yr old.
I have to say, though, that you have to have a bit of a death wish to volunteer to take that big a chance on getting cancer. Especially since I think their '20 years to develop' estimate is off by 18 or 19 years.
Re:72 year old? (Score:4, Interesting)
Detecting cancer in a year or two in a 72 year old is probably already pre-existing; it takes time to develop to detectability, much less life-threatening size.
It also depends on how much dosage they allow these seniors to get - if they follow current guidlines, even the more expedient 'emergency' levels, it might only raise their chances 5%.
Then again, it might kill an existing cancer(though not likely). You just don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think the risk is so great? There are plenty of people who moved back to their homes in the zone of alienation that, contrary to popular expectations, don't seem to be dying too fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they do. If it wasn't 'so great', this volunteering to take the chance wouldn't mean anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like a cultural trait than a stereotype. On the other hand, have you seen the demographics? Seniors are still in the work force because even if they wanted to hire just young people, there just aren't that many.
Re:72 year old? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seniors are still in the work force because they need the money.
I was very surprised to learn (from my Japanese language partner in Japan) that 'retirement' means quitting your really nice desk job and getting a crappy manual labor job like bagging groceries. I found this out by offering congratulations when she said her husband was 'retiring'. It was the same conversation that I learned that retirement is not optional when you hit a certain age. (His company it was 60 yrs old. Hers is 65.)
Re: (Score:2)
IANARH (I am not anything relevant here)
Is there any use at all for using a single instance of a made-up acronym so obscure that you have to immediately spell it out afterwards?
Call it justification for when you don't know why. (Score:2)
I see this guy's statement about cancer and his age as a simple justification when the bigger reason is too hard for many to grasp. As in, there are just some things than cannot be explained, they are just are. Self sacrificing people are special for reasons they cannot usually communicate.
Go Japan! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people will probably just see a huge Corporation taking advantage if these people are allowed to do what they plan on doing, but I have to say that I'm impressed.
Practically sacrificing for the greater good is an admirable attribute. I have to thank these Japanese Seniors for restoring my faith in humanity.
"Some have compared them to kamikazes" (Score:2, Insightful)
[citation needed][weasel words]
If you're going to add some bullshit controversy to get your story posted on Slashdot, at least compare them to Apple zealots.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the original proposer makes the statement that they are not like Kamikaze because they are coming back. They are not going there to die. http://yosukeyanase.blogspot.com/2011/05/veteran-engineers-call-for-volunteers.html [blogspot.com]
So it's quite possible that all the talk of kamikaze in response to this is directly from his words... Or that he was responding to that talk already.
Re:"Some have compared them to kamikazes" (Score:4, Insightful)
You might call him a nuclear zealot, but it is true that the younger people won't get any benefit from the Fukushima plant, only poison and sickness and perhaps death.
Re: (Score:2)
You might call him a nuclear zealot, but it is true that the younger people won't get any benefit from the Fukushima plant, only poison and sickness and perhaps death.
Oh FFS mdsolar, cut the crap.
Those younger people are living the result of their grandparents hard work.
Just by being born and living past 5 years old, they have already benefited enormously from the "vast supply of electricity" created by Fukushima power.
Japan will rebuild with safer and more robust technology.
What they won't be able to do is solve their power shortage by sticking wind farms and solar plants all over the island.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lower chance too (Score:5, Informative)
Older people have lower rates of celldivision, and thus probably have a lower chance on cancer (for the same dose).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One of the hallmarks of cancer cells are mutations that make them divide like crazy and never stop. The baseline division rate before they became cancerous doesn't really matter much by that point.
Re:Lower chance too (Score:4, Informative)
That is true, but has nothing to do with my remark.
The genome is simply more vulnerable while copying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To a degree, it does, as transcription errors occur during mitosis, and that's when things go wrong. Lower division rates mean less opportunities for an irrecoverable error to occur, because if the DNA is damaged during normal life, it's either repaired, or the cell simply triggers apoptosis and self-destructs.
It doesn't eliminate the chance, but it might lower it.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know as much as we should about the effects of radiation exposure in older adults. There are believable mechanisms that could make them more vulnerable and equally believable mechanisms that would make them less vulnerable.
Re: (Score:2)
So according to Robert Weinberg via the MIT 7.012 class from 2004 available via OpenCourseWare (and iTunes etc.), which is completely and utterly fascinating and I recommend it to any computer geek interested in Biology now that it has become an information science, the average number of cell divisions in a human being over the course of their lifetime is on the order of 10^11 divisions PER DAY. Most of this will be in your gut and bone marrow, etc. The human genome is about 750MB in size, so if you multipl
Radition suits more dangerious the radition (Score:2)
Given the death of one worker at the planet, it suggests that working in restrictive radiation suits in stressful conditions all day it probably more dangerous then the radiation, especially for people who are older and no longer in ideal health.
Makes sense on many levels (Score:3)
What you don't understand seems like magic (Score:5, Interesting)
Stories of the "heroism" of the workers at the plant have confounded Americans, it seems.
While I am sure there is plenty of actual heroism going on, I start to think part of it is just a matter of being level-headed about it.
It reminds me of the idea that to the uneducated, science seems like magic. Similarly, it seems that belief in science to the uneducated seems heroic.
These citizens should be applauded, not for their heroism - for in reality they are risking nothing - but for their willingness to conclude that they are risking nothing, and therefore can save others and improve their world with knowledge and intelligence instead of give in to fear and commercially driven FUD at the detriment of society.
News Flash from Japan: Brave, Brave souls make smart decisions based on facts instead of media FUD! Pictures (You Gotta see these pictures!) at 11!
Let me guess, you're an atheist? (Score:2)
My apologies if you are not ;-) The only thing more insufferable than a born again Christian is a dyed in the wool atheist. Yes, these older Japanese citizens know the facts and have weighed the positives and negatives of their offer. Yes their decision is aided by scientific and medical facts. But, that does not diminish any of the heroism. Rather, it actually adds to it. What do you mean that they are risking nothing? They are offering the ultimate sacrifice any human being can make, i.e. to lose their li
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the bravery is in willingly betting your life that you are right and the gibbering morons in the media are all wrong.
Disney have already trademarked... (Score:2)
"Nuke Cowboys"
with Clint Eastwood in the role of Yasuteru Yamada and Tommy Lee Jones as Michio Ito.
Seriously though - if these lads are on the level I am highly impressed by their sense of honour to the younger engineers.
And it helps with the medical and pension costs (Score:2)
that an aging population brings. Two birds, one stone.
Examine your reaction to the story (Score:2)
They may have seemingly have less to lose than a younger person but hang on! Seemingly touching let's think about this. What have we got?
1) One human life considered less important than another
2) Does this raise stereotypes from the 2nd World war? Or would the response be similar in other countries? Back then we thought the Kamikazee did it for the emperor. What does this mean in context? What do gen Y Japanese think of the old folk?
3) Actually an older person has been exposed to more radiation already...
Yasteru's Yamada's site in multiple languages (Score:2)
If you want to go sign up.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US we have a political faction hell bent on denying elderly people access to the very programs they funded with tax money their entire lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful now... (Score:2)
They voted for a pyramid scheme... They paid into the pyramid scheme... Now, they are surprised that there is no money.
Now what kind of inflammatory talk is that? The unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are only slightly over the entire 'GDP' of the entire world. How could that money possibly not materialize?
Correction. (Score:2)
Oh, crap, didn't proofread well enough. Correction:
The unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are only slightly over twice the 'GDP' of the entire world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly young people? (Score:2)
Is the practice of recruiting silly young people into the military any better?
When they die, they lose their life expectation of maybe 70 years, while older people would lose a bit less.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's very important to bring out something which most folks seems to be overlooking. There seems to be a presumption that these old folks, *if* they live long enough, *would get cancer* from working in the reactor.
For example, the parents' comment, "To assume someone will perish in a given lifetime, opens doors we may not want to venture through"
I think what he/she is saying is that it's dangerous to assume that someone who is 70 or 72 can do this job because they'll die anyhow before the cancer se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they could use the rad-hardened chips they used in, say, SOHO, and a bot could conceivably carry a bit of plate shielding in addition. Using maybe motion capture and force feedback, control would be feasible too, and there would be no real obstacles to using bots to clean everything up.
Except thrift and greed. To grab a line from Braveheart: "Not the archers. My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. The dead cost nothing."
An extreme par
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)