Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Masao Yoshida, Director of Fukushima Daichii Nuclear Plant, Has Died

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the thanks-for-saving-the-countryside dept.

Japan 119

Doofus writes "Masao Yoshida, director of the Daichii Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, has passed away. Colleagues and politicos in Japan praised his disobedience during the post-tsunami meltdown and credited him with preventing much more widespread and intense damage. From the article: 'On March 12, a day after the tsunami, Mr. Yoshida ignored an order from Tepco headquarters to stop pumping seawater into a reactor to try and cool it because of concerns that ocean water would corrode the equipment. Tepco initially said it would penalize Mr. Yoshida even though Sakae Muto, then a vice president at the utility, said it was a technically appropriate decision. Mr. Yoshida received no more than a verbal reprimand after then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan defended the plant chief, the Yomiuri newspaper reported. "I bow in respect for his leadership and decision-making," Kan said Tuesday in a message posted on his Twitter account.'"

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Waiting for the sequel... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240235)

Mecha Yoshi will rise from the depths of the seawater pump reservoir and destroy us all.

Re:Waiting for the sequel... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240595)

Fuck you, Shima.

So a CEO tryed a mr burns I think in an emergency (2, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44240385)

In an emergency the on site staff should full control over what is going on.

Re:So a CEO tryed a mr burns I think in an emergen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240507)

Have you ever written a grammatically correct sentence in your entire life?

Re:So a CEO tryed a mr burns I think in an emergen (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240999)

Have you ever thought about the possibility, that there are some people visiting slashdot, whose native language is NOT english?
And take that a bit further. Have you ever thought about the possibility, that such people MAY NOT be speaking english perfectly? ...or am I feeding a troll again?

Re:So a CEO tryed a mr burns I think in an emergen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241549)

More often than you do.

Far, Far more often than you could.

Re:So a CEO tryed a mr burns I think in an emergen (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44241021)

In an emergency the on site staff should full control over what is going on.

u japanize?

also, it was reported that it probably isn't radiation from the accident, as the illness is the type that would have had to mature for years if it was from radiation.

that's not to say of course that there wasn't a covered up radioactive godzilla attack earlier!

Re:So a CEO tryed a mr burns I think in an emergen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241533)

Seppuku

Blame Fukushima (3, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#44240493)

Every case of cancer in Japan for the next 200 years is going to be blamed on Fukushima.

Re:Blame Fukushima (-1, Flamebait)

sageres (561626) | about a year ago | (#44240569)

That's great! It means we (the Americans) won't be blamed due to atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44240889)

Except they haven't in this case. Anyway, the damage is done: they're already backing away from clean relatively safe nuclear power.

Re:Blame Fukushima (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241001)

Nuclear power isn't safe. It *could* be done safe, but not in a world of corporate greed and bought politicians and regulatory agencys.

Re:Blame Fukushima (2)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#44241627)

"It *could* be done safe"

But not 100% safe on the coast of Japan which is subject to large earthquakes and tsunamis

Re:Blame Fukushima (3, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#44241971)

100% safety is impossible anywhere.

Fukushima would've been a non-issue as well if the backup generators had actually been logically placed.

Re:Blame Fukushima (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44244701)

Nope. Turns out that the earthquake damaged the cooling system so even with power it may not have worked. At the time they did actually get emergency cooling system on to the site but they failed to work because due to the damage caused by the tsunami they failed to notice that a bleed-off valve on the coolant pipe was open. They pumped in a lot of water with fire engines but most of it ended up in storage tanks instead of the reactor, leading to the eventual hydrogen explosions.

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44249171)

So they send a lot of water to storage tanks but these guys get called "Heros"?

I don't get it... :s

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44247691)

100% safety is impossible anywhere.

Fukushima would've been a non-issue as well if the backup generators had actually been logically placed.

They would have been little use, with many earthquake damaged cooling pipes leading to the reactor vessel.

Nuclear reactors are inherently dangerous and impossible to stop once a complete melt through occurs, as did at least three times at Fukushima, unprecedented.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44242481)

could have been done safely there too, in the U.S. generators for nuke power plants on great lakes are WAY up in the air, more than 30' off the ground and in rooms with floodproof doors and air intake through pipe in roof JUST IN CASE some incredible earthquake cause a tsumami-in-a-lake situation, which is so far fetched and absurd yet done anyway.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241967)

Define safe. I'll help you start. Safe is some arbitrary threshold that you have set where a piece of technology doesn't concern you. For example, you might think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not safe while flying in an airplane is safe. This is because you are not concerned about the risk, not because there is a 0% probability of a plane crash.

The neat thing about this is that it can be measured! You can actually calculate the safety of different technologies. Now, what you need to do is define an argument for setting a specific safety threshold. If that argument is well founded then you don't even need to argue the pros and cons of nuclear power. You can simply test whether it is above that threshold or below it.

Have at it! But please, stop this binary safe vs. unsafe rhetoric. It helps nobody and is just an obfuscation tactic. I've worked as a safety engineer. I didn't say whether things were safe or unsafe, I defined PRA set thresholds when I analyzed it quantitatively and thresholds based on barriers to failure when I analyzed it qualitatively. At certain thresholds, actions would be taken to enhance safety. This is how grown ups analyze safety.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

Fyzzler (1058716) | about a year ago | (#44244253)

My rule of thumb is to compare a risk to the chance of being hit by lighting. If it is lower than lightning, I don't worry about it. If it is higher, I take a closer look.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44245625)

According to a piece of trivia I read yesterday, where lightning strikes a person, it has a greater than 80% chance of hitting a man over a woman. It extrapolated that it may be due to men being more likely to indulge in risk-taking behaviour than women.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#44242609)

What is "safe"? Coal plants aren't safe. Petroleum isn't safe. Bicycles aren't safe. Solar power isn't safe.

Re:Blame Fukushima (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44241197)

Japan has a long history of anti-nuclear movements. Like most of the world it went off the technology when it turned out to be insanely expensive in the late 70s and 80s, but even in the hayday of the 50s and 60s there was a strong anti-nuclear movement.

The cost of Fukushima has destroyed any hope of nuclear power ever being economical in Japan. No-one trusts TEPCO to run plants any more, no-one wants to invest in new nuclear, even energy companies don't want to take on the risk. What shareholder would back something that might ultimately destroy all profits and nationalize the company?

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242063)

To be fair, if there was one country I'd give a pass to be nervous around nuclear technology, it would be the only country to have been on the receiving end of nuclear weaponry...

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year ago | (#44243391)

The Marshall Islands [wikipedia.org] , Tahiti [wikipedia.org] , the U.S. [wikipedia.org] , or Russia [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44243527)

Yeah, because many tens of thousands people were incinerated in each one of those 'attacks', right?

facepalm.jpg

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44244091)

Lots of people died of cancer years later. It is not as awesome as mass incineration but dead is dead.

Re:Blame Fukushima (4, Insightful)

citylivin (1250770) | about a year ago | (#44241681)

"clean relatively safe nuclear power."

I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be.

Nuclear apologists need to wake up. Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown, I for one will still fight against nuclear power.

You have an industry that deploys proven flawed designs from 40-60 years ago, and then runs the plants way longer than recommended lifetimes. The way the world currently does nuclear power, more accidents are inevitable.

Re:Blame Fukushima (2, Insightful)

loshwomp (468955) | about a year ago | (#44242073)

Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown, I for one will still fight against nuclear power.

The right time to fight against nuclear power is the day after the last coal plant shuts down, because back in the real world, when nuclear shuts down, coal replaces it (immediately!) nearly 1 for 1, and coal kills many, many more people even when it is working nominally. (Coal generation also releases much more radiation into the atmosphere.)

Alternative energy proponents: Save it. I love 'em, too, and I back that up with the 7 kW of thermal and photovoltaics on my roof, but it doesn't change the fact that coal (and gas) are what ramp up (in real time) when nukes shut down. Examples abound.

Germany? Building new coal plants as it blathers about shutting down the nukes.

Japan? Partially made up for their nuclear shortfall with conservation (good!) but mostly with increased imports of coal (and especially LNG, brought to you by fracking).

Now that the last San Onofre units are offline, California will be compensating (forever) with additional coal and natural gas generation.

Re:Blame Fukushima (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44244653)

Germany using more coal and gas has nothing to do with the shut down of nuclear plants. It is all to do with the very good feed-in tariffs for renewables making it hard for power companies to compete. They stop trying to use more expensive but cleaner forms of energy, including the remaining nuclear plants, and instead go for the cheapest options which are goal and gas.

Renewables currently make up about 40% of Germany's energy mix, and 40% of that is individuals with solar PV. It's really impressive how much they have done in so little time, and it's because the feed-in tariffs really make investing in your own clean energy attractive. During a peak last year they got up to 60% purely renewable energy for a few hours, and power companies were actually having to pay to dump energy into the grid because they were producing too much. Germany also exports a lot of. energy.

During this transition, which will last until about 2022, there is going to be more carbon emissions from coal and gas plants. At the end of it though Germany will be a majority renewable supply country and the need for coal and gas will be reduced to lower levels than before the nuclear shut-down. It takes time for the grid to be upgraded to support this, and it takes time for new forms of cleaner energy to come online. It's a huge project, but Germany is leading the world in many respects and will be the one making huge profits by exporting the technology and know-how in the next few decades.

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44243745)

Not Human error. Human greed!

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44244665)

"clean relatively safe nuclear power."

I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be.

Nuclear apologists need to wake up. Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown, I for one will still fight against nuclear power.

You have an industry that deploys proven flawed designs from 40-60 years ago, and then runs the plants way longer than recommended lifetimes. The way the world currently does nuclear power, more accidents are inevitable.

This is because of the anti-nuke folks not wanting any new plants built, even though the alternatives cannot hope to match the level of power production. If new plants were allowed to be built, then the old ones could be retired. I'm not sure the "industry" wants to run multi-decade equipment, but they don't have a choice as people want reliable power, but the other options (coal, gas, solar, hydro) can't produce enough gigawatts at a given price point.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | about a year ago | (#44244929)

So basically a technology that "resulted in a place being uninhabitable" thousands of times known as coal is perfectly OK in your book, and natural gas lifting which has done the same for roughly a hundred cities is also OK, but nuclear which has done this twice is Mr Evil?

So your whole argument is 2 > 100 > 50000+ ?

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about a year ago | (#44245973)

"I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be." Bullshit. If it were so "uninhabitable", then why has mother nature taken over Chernobyl? Why have the areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were flattened by nuclear strikes been rebuilt? Why do people continue to live in places where the *background* radiation levels are higher than the Chernobyl average? It is immoral to saddle future generations with problems that we could fix, or could at least lay in motion the plans to fix. Why do people perpetuate the myth that anywhere that has been "afflicted" by "noocyoulahr" must ultimately end up a barren wasteland? It's insane and a huge lie. It is. "Nuclear apologists need to wake up. " I beg to differ. The rabid "renewable" loonies need to wake up. So do the supporters of frightful fracking. If we are to maintain progress in improving technological equality while at the same time becoming sustainable, then we cannot use large scale renewables to power our energy grids. We sure as hell can't use oil, coal or gas (for very good reasons). Which leaves nuclear fission. A system that by design contains all of the waste it produces into a nice neat little block. I challenge you to find that can provide stable electricity around the clock, with all of it's waste contained and can do it without deeply damaging the surrounding environment. My money says you won't find anything in our arsenal today to beat nuclear fission. Heck, you won't find anything that will be in our arsenal in 50 years that will beat it. "Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown" I don't think human error is the problem. Human greed and human ego are the problems. The people who design, build, run, maintain and decommission these reactors are not going to be village idiots with no training. It's rather like the airlines, pilots don't generally make mistakes like confusing up and down. If an accident does happen, it's normally because of a faulty component, bad design/engineering or some unforeseen circumstances occurring. Planes have pilots and reactors have operators to make sure that when these things happen, actions are taken to mitigate the problem as much as possible. Most, if not all people I have spoken with about the Fukushima event believe that it was a disaster. I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I believe that it was a triumph of good engineering that saved a great deal of lives that would have been lost if the reactors weren't so well designed and some *really bad* had happened. No, the disaster was not in the actions of the plant staff but in the way the media and political systems made a mountain out of a molehill, creating needless panic, chaos and disrupting hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly. "I for one will still fight against nuclear power." Please allow me one intentional ad hominem my dear sir. "You bloody fool". It is utterly absurd to fight against something that you actually agree with! I don't think you fight against nuclear fission power itself, but against political systems and the "hangers on" that seem bent on holding us back from developing and building power plants that could generate electricity more cleanly than anything we have ever created before.

Re:Blame Fukushima (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about a year ago | (#44245979)

"I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be." Bullshit. If it were so "uninhabitable", then why has mother nature taken over Chernobyl? Why have the areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were flattened by nuclear strikes been rebuilt? Why do people continue to live in places where the *background* radiation levels are higher than the Chernobyl average? It is immoral to saddle future generations with problems that we could fix, or could at least lay in motion the plans to fix. Why do people perpetuate the myth that anywhere that has been "afflicted" by "noocyoulahr" must ultimately end up a barren wasteland? It's insane and a huge lie. It is. "Nuclear apologists need to wake up. " I beg to differ. The rabid "renewable" loonies need to wake up. So do the supporters of frightful fracking. If we are to maintain progress in improving technological equality while at the same time becoming sustainable, then we cannot use large scale renewables to power our energy grids. We sure as hell can't use oil, coal or gas (for very good reasons). Which leaves nuclear fission. A system that by design contains all of the waste it produces into a nice neat little block. I challenge you to find that can provide stable electricity around the clock, with all of it's waste contained and can do it without deeply damaging the surrounding environment. My money says you won't find anything in our arsenal today to beat nuclear fission. Heck, you won't find anything that will be in our arsenal in 50 years that will beat it. "Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown" I don't think human error is the problem. Human greed and human ego are the problems. The people who design, build, run, maintain and decommission these reactors are not going to be village idiots with no training. It's rather like the airlines, pilots don't generally make mistakes like confusing up and down. If an accident does happen, it's normally because of a faulty component, bad design/engineering or some unforeseen circumstances occurring. Planes have pilots and reactors have operators to make sure that when these things happen, actions are taken to mitigate the problem as much as possible. Most, if not all people I have spoken with about the Fukushima event believe that it was a disaster. I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I believe that it was a triumph of good engineering that saved a great deal of lives that would have been lost if the reactors weren't so well designed and some *really bad* had happened. No, the disaster was not in the actions of the plant staff but in the way the media and political systems made a mountain out of a molehill, creating needless panic, chaos and disrupting hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly. "I for one will still fight against nuclear power." Please allow me one intentional ad hominem my dear sir. "You bloody fool". It is utterly absurd to fight against something that you actually agree with! I don't think you fight against nuclear fission power itself, but against political systems and the "hangers on" that seem bent on holding us back from developing and building power plants that could generate electricity more cleanly than anything we have ever created before.

Argh! It removed the formatting! I had structured my comment so nicely as well. If you can read that wall of text without going insane, you dear reader deserve a gold star and a pat on the head. BAD SLASHDOT! BAD!

Re:Blame Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241799)

The parent post was brought to you by the nuclear industry, or their many apologists here on Slashdot.

Still no deaths (0, Troll)

brian0918 (638904) | about a year ago | (#44240535)

Still no deaths due to radiation. Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).

Re:Still no deaths (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240681)

Yeah, because the US Navy's nuclear propulsion program and France's government run nuclear power program have had SO many problems...

Wake up, the only way to SAFELY run a reactor is to put operational safety ahead of making money. Ironically you will probably make more money that way...

Re:Still no deaths (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240741)

Alas, another ungrateful fool, complains about power but still uses it.

Re:Still no deaths (1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44241571)

"Wake up, the only way to SAFELY run a reactor is to put operational safety ahead of making money"

But that is not highly profitable.

Can we at least use minimum wage workers and temps?

Re:Still no deaths (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44246481)

US Navy's nuclear propulsion program and France's government run nuclear power program

The common point between the two is that they are not managed by private entities for which profit is more important than safety.

Well at least it had been the case for France nuclear program. Now that it was turned private for the sake of free market (an EU mantra), I am scared for the future.

Re:Still no deaths (1)

brian0918 (638904) | about a year ago | (#44246499)

Your mistake is in simultaneously believing two falsehoods: that it's not in one's long-term financial interest to make a safe product; and that politicians are not interested in making money (or that they have some "greater public welfare" in mind).

Re:Still no deaths (1)

brian0918 (638904) | about a year ago | (#44246517)

And as two counterexamples to those falsehoods, I refer you to Bernie Madoff, who destroyed his life, and countless career politicians who have destroyed the lives of others to their own short-term benefit.

Re:Still no deaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240749)

Still no deaths due to radiation. Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).

Karen Silkwood [wikipedia.org] might have a different opinion on corporate nuclear safety, if she were still alive.

Re:Still no deaths (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44240875)

Because nobody ever suffocated in a deep dark pit mining coal.

Re: Still no deaths (1)

TheGavster (774657) | about a year ago | (#44240883)

Poor industrial hygiene isn't particular to the nuclear industry. In fact, the energy density is so much higher, you need to do a lot less of the dangerous mining and processing for nuclear fuels per unit energy. Her actual cause of death being a car accident also seems to point to a hazard which, while a lot could be done to improve things, has nothing to do with nuclear power.

Re:Still no deaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241075)

Still no deaths due to radiation. Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).

Karen Silkwood [wikipedia.org] might have a different opinion on corporate nuclear safety, if she were still alive.

But, she's NOT still alive. Therefore, we can't prove any statement on whether or not she has a different opinion on corporate nuclear safety (unless proven elsewhere that her being dead implies she has no opinion on the matter, which is outside the scope of this discussion). So, as we have no concrete statement against it, it's definitely the safest energy source yet known, if run by corporations! That's how logic works!

Re:Still no deaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44243501)

Know how a DVD [imdb.com] works?

Re:Still no deaths (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44245671)

Other views of the corporate [imdb.com] ethics of running a nuclear facility. (Yes, I know this account if fictional.)

Re:Still no deaths (1)

Roman Coder (413112) | about a year ago | (#44241019)

Its disingenuous to remove Chernobyl from the "Still no deaths due to radiation" statement.

Deaths due to the explosion and initial radiation release [wikipedia.org]

Any accident that causes rescue operators to die from radiation sickness is relevant.

Re:Still no deaths (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#44241337)

I don't think that was what he meant.

Re:Still no deaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44243695)

Still fewer deaths than people who have died when falling while installing solar panels or people killed in dam accidents.
Even if you go with the Chernobyl numbers that includes all cancer cases including those from smoking nuclear power costs less lives per generated kW/h than other known sources.

Re:Still no deaths (1)

Roman Coder (413112) | about a year ago | (#44244457)

True I suppose, but if someone falls off the roof while installing a solar panel, that doesn't make the whole city the house was in uninhabitable for decades/centuries. Its not just a straight kW/h test.

Re:Still no deaths (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241957)

Again . . . The parent post was brought to you by the nuclear industry, or their many apologists here on Slashdot.

Oh sure, blame the government boogeyman (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44242701)

Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).

Are you seriously arguing that the public sector is inherently less responsible than the private sector, based on a single data-point?

Maybe you should look more into what caused the Fukushima disaster: It was a serious of bad design decisions for the active cooling system all made by General Electric and TEPCO, failure to report and explain design changes that made them even less safe, falsification of safety records, and failure to heed engineer warnings about flood risks from tsunamis.

Three Mile Island happened because of workers failing to obey safety regulations, bad design in relying on turbines still being active for cooling, and bad design of the indicator light for the stuck valve -- all failures in the private sector side of things.

Of course, those are only two points of a data. I'd be a hypocrite if I insisted with such a small sample set that this demonstrated that the private industry was less responsible. However, I think that's more than enough to say that the notion that nuclear power is safe unless the government comes in and screws things up is demonstrably false. Private industry is just as capable of screwing up nuclear power.

Also, in review of all of these disasters, there was nothing inherently economic about the nature of them -- all were human failures led by failure to follow established procedures, failures of engineering, and/or cost-cutting or blame-avoiding. These kind of failures are rife in both the private and public sectors. Blaming "teh gubbermint" is just intellectual laziness and/or the product of viewing the world through a partisan lens.

Re:Still no deaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44243033)

Still no deaths due to radiation. Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).

That's an impressively clever way to swipe the Hanford site "hot potato"problem [wikipedia.org] under the carpet.
I applaud the PR person who provided you with that sentence.

Re:Still no deaths (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44244755)

What is this bizarre obsession with deaths as the only meaningful statistic? The same thing applies to evaluating war it seem. Ignore the huge numbers of people injured, often cripplingly, and ignore the huge cost. Deaths are the only metric.

Also, in the case of Fukushima the government wasn't running the show, TEPCO was.

Tepco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240539)

"The illness was unrelated to the radiation exposure after the nuclear accident, according to Tepco".
Well, we surely believe anything Tepco says, don't we?

Re:Tepco (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44240631)

If you want to make the preposterous claim that Yoshida's esophageal cancer was induced by the radiation released in the Fukushima incident, fine, go ahead, make a fool of yourself. His cancer went symptomatic mere months after the incident, which is a timeframe that makes it all but certain that the neoplastic changes leading to the malignant growth in his esophagus had been going on for years before that and that the timing is mere coincidence. Although there have been cases of fast-acting radiation-induced cancer, such cases are associated with massive doses of radiation leading to severe acute radiation poisoning, which, AFAIK, he hadn't experienced (from what I know, only two workers were treated for acute radiation poisoning, and he was not one of them), and the fast-acting cancer usually happens to be leukemia (and it takes at least year and two to develop anyway, not months), whereas other kinds of tumors (hint! Hint! Esophageal cancer!) take something like ten years to develop, at the minimum.

Re:Tepco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240783)

Where did you read that? I said that Tepco obviously is a corrupt, lying piece of shit corporation and that nobody should trust anything that comes out of it until it is torn apart and all the top level managers are in jail.

I can think of a lot of things Tepco might have done wrong that caused his cancer - all of them unrelated to Fukushima.

Re:Tepco (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241121)

So he must have been in some carcinogenic environment a long time before Fuckyoushima. And that could not have been in any way related to his career of nuclear engineer. Besides, esophageal cancer is so common in old men of 58 years.

Excessive hyperbole begets sarcastic responses.

More to the point, acute radiation exposure is known to suppress immune system responses, including those that slow the growth of cancers. Fuckyoushima may not have been the origin of his cancer, but it probably accelerated the disease. Which, as you point out, is usually a long and lingering one, not a death this soon after initial diagnosis.

Re:Tepco (2, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44241293)

Fuckyoushima may not have been the origin of his cancer, but it probably accelerated the disease.

If that is the case, it's much more likely that the suppression of his immunity system's ability to fight cancer was a result of psychological stress [nih.gov] (which he was exposed to) associated with the incident and the government's meddling into his culpability, rather than a result of acute radiation poisoning (which he didn't experience anyway).

Re: Tepco (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241995)

Elselvier press...anyone got a login to read the full article? or $31.50

Re:Tepco (4, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#44241775)

Besides, esophageal cancer is so common in old men of 58 years.

Yes, esophageal cancer is very common in old men of 58 years who smoke like chimneys.

Re:Tepco (4, Informative)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44241227)

Furthermore, Japan loves to smoke. [wikipedia.org] And this is one of the cancers that you can get from smoking. [wikipedia.org]

A little google-fu turned up this article which shows that he was most definitely a smoker: [simplyinfo.org]

He recalled in the interview often passing out cigarettes to workers in a heavily used smoking room beside the bunker during the disaster and once joked: “We don’t have the US army fire trucks we need but at least we have got smokes.” Fukushima boss Masao Yoshida breaks silence on disaster -- The Australian

Progress in Japan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240639)

Like science, is measured one funeral at a time.

Esophageal Cancer (-1, Flamebait)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#44240649)

What TFS doesn't mention was that he died of esophageal cancer. And he got it after nine months of being at the power plant after the accident.

TEPCO claims the cancer is not related to the accident. Of course they would.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (4, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44240807)

What TFS doesn't mention was that he died of esophageal cancer. And he got it after nine months of being at the power plant after the accident.

TEPCO claims the cancer is not related to the accident. Of course they would.

Because it's not. Cancer takes a long time to show up (decades) unless it's leukemia, which isn't what he had. If the works are going to start dieing from cancer (which they very well might) it'll start happening around 2020

Re:Esophageal Cancer (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44241205)

There will be no shortage of tracking either, vs. trends expected in Kapan vs. reality, and w.r.t. the rest of the world.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241255)

Cancer takes a long time to show up (decades)

Steve Jobs will be thrilled to hear that....

Re:Esophageal Cancer (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44240815)

TEPCO claims the cancer is not related to the accident. Of course they would.

Yes, just like an evolutionary biologist knowledgeable in his field would claim that humans have evolved from other mammals, now extinct. You could say "of course he would" in that case, too.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44240831)

Medical facts are on their side. You simply cannot go from cancer free to death by esophageal cancer in this timeframe. That means he was already developing it before the tsunami.

from the somebody's gonna say it dept: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240877)

How many years did he work at the plant?
WHOOPS!

Re:from the somebody's gonna say it dept: (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44240899)

Why does that matter?

What is the Whoops about?

Re:from the somebody's gonna say it dept: (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44241065)

So you allege that a bizarre accident involving a paper clip, a fuel rod, and a tsunami transported undetectable ghost radiation back in time and deposited it in his esophagus?

Re:from the somebody's gonna say it dept: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44244455)

Shut up MacGyver.....

Re:Esophageal Cancer (0)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44241211)

You simply cannot go from cancer free to death by esophageal cancer in this timeframe.

Correct, natural esophageal cancer takes time. When induced by massive amounts of radiation? the rules likely change.

You're probably correct and this is merely a coincidence. However, since we have ample evidence of TEPCO lying through it's teeth all through this disaster, claiming that they would lie about his death isn't exactly a far fetched idea.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44242015)

Even with a massive dose of radiation, he wouldn't get esophageal cancer in this timeframe. If anything, he would get leukemia

Re:Esophageal Cancer (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#44240843)

Frankly, it probably wasn't. Odds are, he smoked like a chimney--lots of Japanese still do, you know. Esophageal cancer is also more likely with alcohol consumption--and drinking parties are another Japanese tradition--in those with alcohol flush reaction, which is a common genetic disposition in Japanese people.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44240849)

And you claim they are related?

Let's see some evidence.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44240857)

If Tepco claimed that his turning into a green-skinned, giant rampaging brute wasn't related to the accident, THAT might be suspect; but saying that terminal cancer nine months after exposure ISN'T.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44240921)

TEPCO claims the cancer is not related to the accident. Of course they would.

Of course they would, because it's true [wikipedia.org] :

Radiation can cause cancer in most parts of the body, in all animals, and at any age, although radiation-induced solid tumors usually take 10-15 years, and can take up to 40 years, to become clinically manifest, and radiation-induced leukemias typically require 2-10 years to appear.

If you had any idea how cancer worked that would have been obvious.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#44241055)

Esophageal cancer isn't something that crops up in a mere nine months.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (0)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44241271)

Of course they would. Because he got it from smoking. He was a heavy smoker, which is common for Japanese men.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242363)

Odds are much better that it was related to smoking.

Re:Esophageal Cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44244873)

What TFS doesn't mention was that he died of esophageal cancer. And he got it after nine months of being at the power plant after the accident.

That would probably be because it isn't true.

He started smoking in his twenties, about thirty years ago.

Had he actually contracted cancer at the power plant due to radiation, he would still be alive today, and in fact still be alive well into his 80s.

So the very fact he is dead today shows how wrong you are.

as he died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44241149)

He kept saying Gojira...Gojira...Gojira.

I know it's all fun and games here (5, Insightful)

kaizendojo (956951) | about a year ago | (#44241381)

But what he did was heroic. Especially in a society that empahsizes respect for superiors. In the US, we wouldn't think twice about second guessing a higher up if we thought there was an inherent risk but this is almost unheard of in the Asian culture. Anata ni keii, Yoshida-san.

Re:I know it's all fun and games here (3, Interesting)

slew (2918) | about a year ago | (#44244431)

But what he did was heroic. Especially in a society that empahsizes respect for superiors. In the US, we wouldn't think twice about second guessing a higher up if we thought there was an inherent risk but this is almost unheard of in the Asian culture. Anata ni keii, Yoshida-san.

I find it ironic that often the celebrated hero of most stories is the singular person who undertakes the final risky, but ultimatly successful course of action to save the day in a tragic situation, where real unsung heros would be the many folks who make the sacrifices necessary to plan for and/or mitigate the tragic situations before they happen.

Maybe this obsession for hollywood-style heros is why no heroes ever emerged that would have fought for emergency diesel supplies, or higher seawalls that might have prevented or reduced the scale of this disaster. Such heroes would likely have paid a big price for their second guessing and their sacrifice would likely have gone unrecognized.

Re:I know it's all fun and games here (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#44247939)

AFAIK, that isn't irony, but what kind of "sacrifices" are you talking about? The word "hero" generally refers to somebody that chooses to act in the greater good despite a high risk or certainty of being seriously harmed in some way, but it *is* also applied in the rare cases where the person had to act against massive psychological pressure, as he did.

Also, that ideal of a hero dates back to ancient times, and likely to the very first stories that early mankind told around the fire; it's not a "Hollywood" concept.

Re:I know it's all fun and games here (3, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | about a year ago | (#44245013)

> In the US, we wouldn't think twice about second guessing a higher up

Obviously you have *not* read the report on the TMI incident

Michael Bay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242447)

I hope the producers can get a new director. If they get one soon perhaps this can be in theaters next summer?
I hope they can sign Michael Bay, I want to see huge explosions.

malpractice (1)

Ratan Gharami (2979397) | about a year ago | (#44243959)

"clean relatively safe nuclear power." I don't think I would consider "safe" any industry where an accident or malpractice could result in a place being uninhabitable for 10,000 - 100,000 years. It is immoral to saddle future generations with this burden, however slight you perceive the risk to be. Nuclear apologists need to wake up. Human error is always going to be a problem. Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown, I for one will still fight against nuclear power. You have an industry that deploys proven flawed designs from 40-60 years ago, and then runs the plants way longer than recommended lifetimes. The way the world currently does nuclear power, more accidents are inevitable. http://equipmentbds.blogspot.com/ [slashdot.org] ">please visit it

Re:malpractice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44247285)

Half life of Cs in question is about 30 years. So next-next generation will be able to move right in.

Unlike with AGW, with nuclear mishaps, it is the current generation that pays. With fossil fuels, the world will be fucked for 100,000 years. As for current smog deaths, that's all "according to plan" so no one panics.. right?

Untill the world gets its act together and starts deploying more CANDU type reactors which by design cannot meltdown, I for one will still fight against nuclear power.

It just proves how stupid you are (ie. ignorant and proclaiming you know something).

1. CANDU reactors can melt

2. ignoring fossil fuels and "fighting clean baseload power" is height of stupidity that future generations will pay for.

3. CANDU reactors were designed to use natural uranium without enrichment and can be refueled without shutdown and that is a boogeymen for non-proliferation crowd.

4. CANDU reactors have some positive void coefficient which makes them illegal in the US

The way the world currently does nuclear power, more accidents are inevitable

And millions will continue to die every year from coal and other fossil fuel pollution because of FUD that you bought.

Commitment despite obstacles reminds me of Ikiru (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about a year ago | (#44244059)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikiru [wikipedia.org]
"Ikiru (..., "To Live") is a 1952 Japanese film co-written and directed by Akira Kurosawa. The film examines the struggles of a minor Tokyo bureaucrat and his final quest for meaning. The film is inspired by the Leo Tolstoy short story "The Death of Ivan Ilyich".[1] It stars Takashi Shimura as Kanji Watanabe. ... Inspired by her, Watanabe realizes that it is not too late for him and that he still can do something. He then dedicates his remaining time and energy to accomplish one worthwhile achievement before his life ends. Through his tireless and persistent efforts, he is able to overcome the stagnation of bureaucracy and turn a mosquito-infested cesspool into a children's playground. The last third of the film takes place during Watanabe's wake, as his former co-workers try to figure out what caused such a dramatic change in his behavior. ..."

Thank you, Masao Yoshida, for making the Fukushima disaster less bad then it could have been, despite personal career risk. I hope you are on to better things.

Another person who prevented nuclear fallout of a possible WWIII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov [wikipedia.org]
"Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (...) (30 January 1926 -- 19 August 1998) was a Soviet Navy officer. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he prevented the launch of a nuclear torpedo and thereby prevented a possible nuclear war.[1] Thomas Blanton (then director of the National Security Archive) said in 2002 that "a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world".[1]"

How close we often skate to the edge without realizing it...

So lucky they had him and not me. (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about a year ago | (#44245679)

Fine but I am getting the fuck out of here and it is on you.

Typo in headline and summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44245891)

"Daichii"? Really?

Maybe his cancer was caused by virii.

News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44246009)

How is this news? Unless the radiation from the accident means we have to bury him at Yucca Mt. in a huge lead coffin. Then it's just a guy who died in Japan.
Keep walking, nothing to see here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>