Subcontractor Tells Fukushima Workers To Hide Radiation Exposure 439
First time accepted submitter fredprado writes "Apparently at least one subcontractor hired to clean up the Fukushima site has been urging their workers to put their radiation detectors lined under lead shieldings.
A diagram can be seen here. The authorities decided not to prosecute him, even after one employee presenting them recordings of him trying to talk the said employee into it."
seems fine to me (Score:5, Funny)
makes sense; those things are probably expensive and, I gather, are sensitive to radiation. Don't want to risk damaging them.
Re:seems fine to me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
By similar logic, people should drive at night with their headlights off. If they can't be seen, it makes it harder for other drivers to hit them.
That's good advice in some places.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably Springfield, capital of Illinois. People drive stupidly here. There's a local joke about a man from New York visiting Chicago. The New Yorker gets in a cab, and the cab driver promptly runs a red light.
"You ran a red light!"
"It's ok, I'm from Springfield!" A mile down the road and he runs another. "YOU RAN ANOTHR ONE!!!" the excited passenger exclaims.
"Don't worry, I'm from Springfield".
The next light is green, and the cab driver slams on the brakes. "WTF did you do that for???" the passenger asks.
Re:seems fine to me (Score:5, Funny)
By similar logic, people should drive at night with their headlights off. If they can't be seen, it makes it harder for other drivers to hit them.
Right. I think you're catching on. An extra advantage is, when your lights are on, the light going out pushes your car backwards. That's alright if you want it, but if you turn off your lights, you can literally save gas. And gas is our most valuable natural resource.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't want to risk damaging them.
Of course. Much better to damage cheaper, more expendable, replaceable components.
And of course, it's much better to talk about this detector issue than the 36 percent Of Fukushima kids who have abnormal thyroid growths. We don't want people to think there may be negative consequences to nuclear power.
1. "It is extremely rare to find cysts and thyroid nodules in children."
2. "This is an extremely large number of abnormalities to find in children."
3. "You would not expect abnormalities to appear so early — within the first year or so — therefore one can assume that they must have received a high dose of [radiation]."
4. "It is impossible to know, from what [officials in Japan] are saying, what these lesions are."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, pediatrician, about the implications of the study.
http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-children-have-abnormal-thyroid-growths-2012-7 [businessinsider.com]
Radioactive Whales (Score:3)
hopefully, when they measure high radiation in whales, they will finally stop eating them.
Wouldnt that be ironic.
This is why we need more unions and more workers r (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need more unions and more workers rights.
and they should be able to use contractors and subcontractors to get out being liable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Insightful)
And how are they supposed to do that? Individual workers calling their Senators up on the phone, each one of them telling the Senator something slightly different from the last one? Senators don't take phone calls from workers. They take phone calls from executives.
Actually, they don't take phone calls from either. They take phone calls from lobbyists, people with whom they have a relationship and who have worked with them before. Corporate management has plenty of money to hire them. Individual workers don't.
They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>And how are they supposed to do that? Individual workers calling their Senators up on the phone
Sure why not.
Also remind the Senator that he's up for relection, and you're inclined not to vote for him if he passes laws that screw you.
>>>They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech; they can no longer hire lobbyists, else they lose their license to ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech; they can no longer hire lobbyists
Lobbyists are simply people. Corporations are headed up by CEOs. Are you going to make it illegal for them to contact their reps?
The only problems with your ideas is that they would be gross violations of the first amendment, and are more dangerous than the issues they are trying to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech
And how do you expect to do that?
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Some lobbying takes the form of fundraising, but that goes into campaign coffers and the FEC tracks it closely to ensure that it doesn't end up in the candidates' personal accounts.
You mean that the FEC ensures that every penny that the candidate doesn't have to spend on his own campaign has to be disposed of some other way?
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, far from it. But it's not even close to the "legalized bribe" that most people who don't work in Washington imagine it is.
Having been a candidate for public office before, I will say it is hard to turn down campaign donations from groups that offer enough money to finance your campaign. And I've had offers from groups that I most certainly didn't agree with for money I could have desperately used in order to finance my campaign.
While the laws have changed somewhat since this practice was happening, there was in the past an option for federal office holders (Senate & U.S. House) to be able to pocket excess campaign donations after they were defeated in an election or went into retirement. This still is the case for some state and municipal office seekers (and certainly was in my case when running for municipal office). I had to report all of the donations of course and file formal reports on all of the income and expenses (which typically break even if you are being serious about a campaign), but if a "generous donation" was to fall in your lap, it certainly could end up being something very much like a legalized bribe.
I do agree though with the fact that lobbyists do much more than handing out huge piles of money. They do tend to be experts on the topics they advocate about and can be very useful in terms of being able to understand what a particular constituency group or industry group thinks about a particular piece of legislation. As long as you understand the bias that the bring to the table, they can also be useful for obtaining information about that particular topic they are advocating for as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to pocket excess campaign cash ended quite some time ago, in 1989. The FEC has spent a long time tightening the laws. They're still far from perfect, of course.
Candidates do from time to time get big donations from groups who disagree with them, and they need to look closely at just what's going on there. It's illegal to promise to vote for their pet bill in exchange. About the most you can do is an unspoken opportunity to take their meeting, though you have to pretend it's a coincidence rather
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK we have Health and Safety guys to enforce that kind of thing. It is their job to protect workers and nothing else. Their authority overrules other managers in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Communists?
Re: (Score:2)
We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
And then we should make it compulsory for workers to join such a group and garnish their salary!
Lobbyists for all!
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like that has already happened:
Japan's health ministry said on Sunday it would investigate the reports, Reuters reported.
Japanese law has set an annual radiation exposure safety threshold of 50 millisieverts for nuclear plant workers during normal operations.
I don't see anything in the linked articles which indicates there has been a decision to not prosecute him though. FUD headline.
Re: (Score:2)
The authorities decided not to prosecute him
Re: (Score:3)
Illegal pooling of power? I guess you can make anything illegal, but from say a Rothbardian natural rights point of view (I'm guessing you're a libertarian) there is absolutely nothing wrong with banding together in contract negotiations (unless there are pre-existing contractual promises not to do so). Nor even stipulating in those negotiations that all employees have to be union ...
Now of course a lot of current employment law is not exactly Rothbardian, but that's an orthogonal issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, the only way to get worker rights codified in LAW has been for workers to join together and give the politicians the choice between that and a communist revolution.
Also, I'm not sure exactly what laws you're referring to when you declare pooling of power to be illegal. Care to elaborate?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the nice thing about the free market. If you don't like something your employer tells you to do, you don't have to work for them. In fact, with a free enough society, you can tell others what your employer tried to tell you to do which will either:
A) Cause the employer's customers not to support him and therefore he goes bust.
B) Cause the employees to all quit their job or demand higher pay to work.
C) Cause the employer to change his orders to prevent A or B from happening.
Doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free market Capitalism is fundamentally broken. Adam Smith wasn't a futurist. He had no vision. Ayn Rand was just a little woman afraid of a nasty dictator. Get over your fear, and learn to face facts. Adam couldn't, Ayn couldn't. Can you?
Re:Doesn't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people have recognized this.
And many intellectuals have come to recognize Karl Marx as what he was: A great economist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right that it was abused, but I would argue that no country has ever implemented communism as Marx talked about it. IE it has never been tried.
Further, there is nothing about Marx's communism that necessarily requires keeping people in the dark in an authoritarian system. IIRC
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What I believe you are forgetting is that humans aren't machinery. The right employees can make and break a company. Companies who believe that employees are disposable and you can find another usually don't stay in business for very long.
And, no, I'm not talking about head CEOs or people with "vision" for the company but everyday, common, employees. If an employee adds no value compared to their cost, of course they will be replaced with someone who does, so the goal as an employee
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have to step in to defend Adam Smith here. He actually did see the problems that inevitably come with employers having more power than workers, and (as he did with everything) went on at some length about it. If half the people wearing Adam Smith ties had actually read The Wealth of Nations, they'd call him a commie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth noting that Smith strongly advocated market regulation. He warned that inadequate or incompetent regulation of the market would lead to exactly the sorts of problems we're having now. He further warned against anything like corporate personhood as that would remove moral thinking from economic decisions.
The so-called proponents of Smith's Capitalism are VERY selective about which parts they implement and 100% of his warnings have fallen on deaf ears. They are just as bad as the fundamentalist Jihadists who like to skip over all the bits about not killing 'people of the book'.
Re: (Score:3)
This outlook is common, and unfortunately it is fundamentally bigoted.
"I am deserving of this job, but that brown skinned person is not! He's willing to work for less than me, and live in worse conditions than me, therefor I'm a better person. Having to compete with people who demand less sucks."
It does suck, but globalization fundamentally equalizes things. You forget that you live on 30-50K a year, while billions of people live on under $5000 a year. If some of those people currently living in such horrib
Re: (Score:3)
Really. It doesn't. Globalism Breaks Capitalism. Period. It's that simple. You are completing on the global stage. Your employer is not. You can't win. You can't keep up. They will import desperate workers from impoverished countries. You will compete with them for food and shelter. Automation makes you disposable and obsolete. You can't work elsewhere, because there are very few jobs (automation) and there are lots of people to do those jobs (globalism).
Well, I have to disagree. The problem isn't that developed world workers are competing on the global stage, but that they aren't competing. I can't speak for the obstacles that hinder employment in other countries, but the US has imposed substantial barriers to employing US citizens.
For example, Social Security increases the cost of US labor by about 15%. That's about a tenth of the difference in cost between a US worker and a Chinese worker of similar skills. Similar losses come from how the US does hea
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhhhh! He doesn't know that. It's funny when they're bred to attack the very thing that might help them.
Probably thinks that NAFTA is about free trade too.
Actually (Score:2)
The State != corporation. It is quite possible for the vast majority of people to use the Gov't for the benefit of all. In point of fact, it's the only hope. You need a large entity to stand up to the awesome power we allow the 1% to have. Conservatives threaten us with the grim specter of a repressive Government, but where as my Government might oppress
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With all due respect, you ought to get your story straight. If it IS fundamentally broken, it's because of its own built-in failings, not because it is being distorted by government. That's pretty much by the definition of the terms of the argument. Otherwise, there is a problem with logic.
If, on the other hand, it is NOT fundamentally broken, then you have to explain why it is no
Re:Doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. On the contrary. You need a government to tell COMPANIES what they can and cannot do.
Governments are supposed to represent the citizens, therefore they should do whatever best helps their citizens.
If that means companies have to comply to all kinds of rules and regulations then I see no problem in that. Companies wouldn't mind either, because they are not living things. Managers and shareholders might not like it, but they're citizens like everybody else, and their well-being is no less of more important than that of anybody else.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A) Protect its citizens from force (foreign attack, murder, theft, etc.)
B) Protect its citizens from fraud (misrepresentation, civil court system, etc.)
In a free market, companies have a single goal:
Make a profit.
How do they do that? By having people pay for services/goods. Why do they pay for goods and services? Because they improve people's quality of living. If they did not, they wouldn't be bought and the company would go
Re:Doesn't work. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
>>>A) Protect its citizens from force (foreign attack, murder, theft, etc.)
>>> B) Protect its citizens from fraud (misrepresentation, civil court system, etc.)
If A and B is all the government does, then that means no more corporations in the USA, since the government would not be issuing incorporation licenses. That sounds like a good plan to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Raj deserves the job, but I also deserve to be able to buy all goods I need for myself at the same prices Raj does. Only then we are on equal footing with corporations.
But if a corporation can outsource labor to Raj, paying him pennies, but then sell the products to me for First World prices, and pocket the difference? That's fucked up for both me and Raj, and it's not really a free market, either. And that's what globalization is in practice today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe, Bob, and Frank should make the decision on whether their interests align (i.e. to unionize and bargain collectively), not you or I with abstract arguments. Historical and present-day evidence shows that unionization increases wages, benefits, and working conditions across the board. "United we stand, divided we fall" and all that.
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely. Although Unions have their own problems that they bring to the table, the general effect is to improve the worker's conditions, safety, wages, etc. As long as they are watched as closely as the Corporations (and to be honest they watch each other), then some balance can be struck where everyone benefits. Without Unions, Corporations are free to abuse their workers without check.
Yes, as people will point out, the worker's are free to quit if they want to - and if they are aware of the problems in the first place - but that is not always a viable alternative in a society and economy where finding a job is practically like winning the lottery at times.
Left to themselves, I think most corporations *will* misuse and abuse their workers in the name of profit.
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:4, Informative)
Collective bargaining is an absolutely silly way to conduct business.
Of course it is. That's why Wal-Mart loses so much money and has no influence on its suppliers by buying in bulk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Japan already has both.
What they also have, same as the USA, is government in the pockets of large corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly enough though (in spite of visual appearances from space), Japan is actually a part of North America [wikipedia.org], from perhaps an unusual point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
America is also the name of the country, in case you haven't got a clue about the place.
Still, sometimes it is useful to thump some people in the head to remind them that the Slashdot readership isn't only from Michigan (the original home of Slashdot).
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:4, Funny)
America is also the name of the country
Yeah, if Sarah Palin taught you geography.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:4, Informative)
I am pretty fine with the way you chose to call your country, you can choose to be called as you wish imo, but your saying that there is no continent with such name only shows how badly US education has become.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always hated grammar.
Re: (Score:3)
You must hate communicating.
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic corporations should also be illegal.
Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why we need more unions and more workers rights.
and they should be able to use contractors and subcontractors to get out being liable.
Actually, in the US, this kind of ridiculously dangerous behavior would be covered by OSHA laws.
OSHA laws which only exist thanks to unions.
That Poster... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a serious allegation. And there's more coverage [nbcnews.com] than one article in Japanese.
However... I wonder how "effective" that little bit of lead shielding would actually be at "hiding" radiation exposure.
A tiny little shielding that you can wear like that won't deflect a whole lot of certain kinds of radiation. If you have a dosimeter reading from behind the shielding, it's likely possible that officials will "correct" the reading, based on the radiation deflection characteristics of the shield, and the r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That Poster... (Score:5, Informative)
The lead is likely very effective at reducing recorded exposure - probably cutting it by 75-90%. Most of the radiation in a typical fission product incident is beta radiation, which will be substantially attenuated by 1 mm of lead (the beta particles won't get through, but probably 1-2% of their energy may get through as bremmstrahlung X-rays). Gamma rays, will also be attenuated but only by a few % (high energy direct photons won't be significantly affected, but photons scattered from concrete, etc. will be of much lower energy, so will tend to be heavily attenuated).
There are plenty of radiation suits that offer 0.1 or 0.2 mm lead equivalent protection (they don't usually contain lead for environmental reasons, bismuth is usually used instead). These are quite useful for protection against beta energy, even if they do nothing for gamma. However, the sheer weight of even a 0.2 mm lead suit makes it only barely practical (though I understand the US military have bought a lot of them).
However, lead boots are a sensible precaution - most of the radiation in a Fukushima type incident is in the form of water soluble or suspended particles, which pool on the floor in puddles. Severe radiation injury to the feet from beta emitters is possible - 1mm lead equivalent rubber boots are tolerable to wear, and would offer substantial protection to the feet.
Don't panic (Score:5, Funny)
one good result: (Score:5, Interesting)
the Japanese people will no longer blindly trust their government
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty condescending of you to suggest they have been "blindly trusting" anyone up until now.
And I am somewhat unclear on how the fact that a company forced its employees to lie and put them at risk is going to make them distrustful of the government?
Re: (Score:3)
It is pretty condescending of you to suggest they have been "blindly trusting" anyone up until now.
And I am somewhat unclear on how the fact that a company forced its employees to lie and put them at risk is going to make them distrustful of the government?
As someone who lives in Japan, I can truly say that at least up till 3/11 the Japanese majority was exactly blindly trusting the government. And the few that did not trust the government,did not care. This is all changing now. Well there are still many that don't care, but at least there are a good percentage of people really starting to questioning the system, ready to take the red pill and unplug.
Re:one good result: (Score:5, Insightful)
it's ok to think the government would do a poor job at providing for our health
but it's insane to think corporations would do a better job
therefore, you choose government
for example, those europeans with universal healthcare live longer than americans, and pay less for their healthcare
because the american model is not about our health, it is about maximizing profit
Re: (Score:2)
Why are corporations the only alternative? Why wouldn't you prefer rely on yourself?
If you think that Americans live shorter lives than Europeans because of the respective health care systems, how do you explain that Japanese immigrants to America live longer than Japanese in Japan (who live longer than Europeans)?
Re:one good result: (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I have better things to be doing. (Like posting on Slashdot.) The problem with self-reliance is that it requires you to be an expert at everything you do. Not just proficient, but an expert. If the healthcare company includes a screw-you clause and you miss it, then you are screwed. Think of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The insurance companies sold many people hurricane insurance. A lot of people lost their houses to the storm surge, which the insurance claimed was "flood damage" and, if you didn't have flood insurance, you were out of luck [usatoday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, insurances can be tricky and sometimes companies find loopholes to screw you, but, on the other hand, governments are incapable of providing a service with similar or better quality in high population countries. The only countries where public health care really works are countries where the population is relatively small.
Furthermore nothing prevents you from saving the money and using for treatment
Re:one good result: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, insurances can be tricky and sometimes companies find loopholes to screw you, but, on the other hand, governments are incapable of providing a service with similar or better quality in high population countries. The only countries where public health care really works are countries where the population is relatively small.
This is manifestly false. As GP noted, all first world countries with public healthcare show better bang for the buck in that department than does US with its privatized healthcare model. This is regardless of whether they are countries of 3 million or 80 million.
Re: (Score:3)
Again reality says otherwise. States do not have the same resources of the Union and lack its autonomy.
And yet Canadian healthcare system was started by and is still managed by the provinces. Go ahead, look it up.
Additionally states are forced to attend to any citizen of the union
What made you believe that? The states can certainly restrict treatment to their citizens if need be.
. Lets say a state manages to create a functional model of health care which is much better than the other states approach and actually works. People with serious issues would migrate to said state increasing the costs until the system would collapse.
Again, Canada managed to do just that and survive. Saskatchewan was the first province to introduce universal healthcare, and it took 15 years for other provinces to catch up. But it turned out that once the first province was willing to run the experiment, and it proved to work, others had much more
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, you can just waltz in and move to another State easily in any democratic country, and depending on the costs of the treatment it is far cheaper to rent an address in a relatively low cost area just to be treated in that state.
You are trying to defend that something that has never been done, to achieve universal
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you prefer to rely on yourself in a moment of weakness - such as injury or illness - rather than cashing in on the benefits of living in a society? Why pretend that you're alone when you're not?
Re: (Score:2)
"The cohort of Japanese men in the Honolulu Heart Program studies has a life expectancy that is longer than their counterparts in Japan, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any attempt to make adjustments for the different lifestyle the cohort had, for example, being in internment camps might contribute to a longer lifetime, also, the cohort were not exposed to the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs which may result in a lower lifetime for the Japanese people in Ja
Re:one good result: (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask the working poor who can't afford health insurance how that private medicine thing is working out.
There is nothing more evil or idiotic than blind ideology.
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, it would be a lot easier to refute anti nuclear fears as being overly paranoid if we stopped giving them reasons to be just that. The situation would be have been under much better control and (slightly) less of a PR disaster if they would just stop with the lies.
Health effects in children (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Health effects in children (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try trying to play that angle down by the professor there. I note she didn't seem to offer any alternative explanation.
Virtually all the children living near Chernobyl had to have their thyroids removed. It is a known effect of getting radioactive iodine in the body, especially children's bodies. Fukushima put lots of iodine in the surrounding area. There is no other reasonable explanation.
Apparently we underestimated the speed with which these cysts develop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
She doesn't have to. It's only been ~1 year since the incident and it relates to the release of iodine, which not only decays extremely rapidly but was counteracted quickly with the distribution of iodine tablets. Not only that, thyroid exams aren't exactly common anywhere. I imagine you'd see interesting things if you did similar examinations in random locations around the US.
If there's an abnormal thyroid nodules and cysts that are not cancerous, one of the obvious first places to look is at the iodine tablets. It's not hard to imagine the parents being very diligent at administering those.
So yeah, no need to panic just yet.
The authorities decided not to prosecute (Score:4, Insightful)
Government coverup. Just like they lied about how much radiation there really was. (Turns out they cut their readings by 1/3rd.) Or how the government claimed the air quality at the burning WTC wreckage was "safe" even though it wasn't. Governments don't protect the people; they lie, inveigle, and deny.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the alternative? The government can't say what would be best for the people: "Run!"
Re: (Score:2)
I also read an article in the July issue of Popular Science that says that right after the disaster, the Japanese government doubled the amount they listed as the "safe" amount of radiation per year.
I would love it if we started switching to the micro nuke power plants, but how can we? The world governments' first reaction to a nuclear disaster is to lie and cover up.
Moral Credibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore I am forced to conclude that the human race in 2012 does not have the moral credibility to be trusted to operate nuclear fission reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
say what ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical for technocrats (Score:2, Interesting)
This is actually pretty typical when technocrats are in charge. Because they have huge stockpiles of paid-for dosimeters that workers use every day, but which saturate at very low levels, they decide they're going to use those by putting them behind a shield and then adjusting the readings correspondingly. Makes sense, except they give absolutely no consideration to appearances. Ignorant journalists and nutty lefty conspiracy theorists then have a field day.
Typical for Slashtards (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try at a plausible explanation. So just show
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that what he's claiming just wouldn't work, because lead shielding attenuates different kinds of radiation at wildly different rates, so there's no way to calculate the workers' actual radiation exposure from the readings the dosimeter behind the shielding gives.