Slashdot Mirror


Senior Citizens Lining Up to Tackle Fukushima

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."

41 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Inspiring and selfless by asdbffg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if there is a population here in the States that would be willing to take a compelling risk like this.

    1. Re:Inspiring and selfless by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    2. Re:Inspiring and selfless by gdshaw · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:Inspiring and selfless by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Inspiring and selfless by Lumpy · · 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?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Inspiring and selfless by TrentTheThief · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Inspiring and selfless by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Is a more-than-two-party system better? I don't see evidence of that when looking at other countries.

    7. Re:Inspiring and selfless by modecx · · 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.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    8. Re:Inspiring and selfless by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's kind of a stupid comment; you act as if there are no risk scales involved. I'd much rather have a chest x-ray without protection than be locked in a room full of coal dust for a week.

      We're presumably talking about long-term cancer risk here, not acute radiation poisoning.

    9. Re:Inspiring and selfless by jhsiao · · Score: 2

      Would some elderly physicists and geologists and astronauts be willing to take a one-way trip to Mars if given the opportunity? Yes.

    10. Re:Inspiring and selfless by UncleTogie · · Score: 3, 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...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    11. Re:Inspiring and selfless by assertation · · Score: 3, 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".

    12. Re:Inspiring and selfless by e9th · · Score: 2

      When I got out of the service in 1974, the G.I. Bill paid me almost $700/mo (about $3000/mo today), tax-free, while I was in school. It enabled me to go to a real university, not some community college or third-rate state school. I didn't consider that a boot up my ass.

      Also, thanks to the Veterans' Preference Act, I am entitled to (but have never used) preferential hiring for federal civil-service jobs.

    13. Re:Inspiring and selfless by snsh · · Score: 3, 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.

    14. Re:Inspiring and selfless by Anonymous Coward · · 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 are the cost-downs and idiocies after the bean-counters and politicians take charge. "Have you got anything cheaper?"

      Not that I'm bitter and twisted, but my current job is heading to India because of bean-counters...

      See here, here and here.

      The Western World doesn't do Engineering any more.

    15. Re:Inspiring and selfless by gdshaw · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re:Inspiring and selfless by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Fukushima was an obsolete plant with existing safety problems that wouldn't be found in new designs. It still stood up to an earthquake greater than anything in the design expectation with no significent damage, the core shutting down and redundant systems taking over cooling. It took a tsunami to really screw things up shortly after. Nuclear plants are safe - a more modern one would have shrugged that disaster off.

    17. Re:Inspiring and selfless by e9th · · Score: 2

      Carrot and stick? I got a fucking draft notice ("Greetings!"). The 'stick' was that I could enlist, maim myself, go to jail, or flee the country. At that point, the G.I. Bill 'carrot' wasn't much of a consideration.

      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 really wants to kill you.

  2. Kamikazes vs Heroes by rayray14 · · Score: 2

    Kamikazes? More like heroes (but then again, that all definition depends on whether you're in the air or on the ground).

    1. Re:Kamikazes vs Heroes by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Japan Solves Aging Population Problem! by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 2

    Prime Minister re-elected in landslide victory getting all robot votes.

  4. I'm impressed by sircastor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a tremendous show of character and pragmatism. I don't think that I'd have the courage to offer myself. I'm very impressed.

  5. 72 year old? by TheCreeep · · 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.

    1. Re:72 year old? by Aladrin · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:72 year old? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:72 year old? by Aladrin · · 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.)

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  6. Go Japan! by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, 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.

  7. Lower chance too by marcovje · · Score: 4, Informative

    Older people have lower rates of celldivision, and thus probably have a lower chance on cancer (for the same dose).

    1. Re:Lower chance too by marcovje · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is true, but has nothing to do with my remark.

      The genome is simply more vulnerable while copying.

    2. Re:Lower chance too by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  8. President Carter by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Back in the day, President Carter was part of a clean up crew for a nuclear accident. At that time it was because he had the security clearance needed because he was in the Navy, in addition to knowing about reactors.

    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.

  9. Re:"Some have compared them to kamikazes" by Aladrin · · Score: 2

    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

    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.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  10. Makes sense on many levels by pepax · · Score: 2

    How many ways are there for people in their 70's to make a such large and meaningful contribution to their society? It would really be a great legacy to leave behind.

  11. Re:In Japan the old say by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

    In Japan they take care of their old.

    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.

  12. Re:"Some have compared them to kamikazes" by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The way one of them views this is: "Our generation which has, consciously or unconsciously, approved the construction of the Fukushima nuclear power plants and enjoyed the benefits of the vast supply of electricity ... should be the first to join the Skilled Veteran Corps," said Yasuteru Yamada, the 72-year-old retired engineer who created the group. http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/japanese-senior-citizens-volunteer-to-work-in-fukushima-plant-ncxdc-052511

    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.

  13. you're doing it wrong by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    this only continues to prop up the disproven evil Capitalist "privatize the profits, socialize the risks" mindset.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Re:In Japan the old say by solkimera · · Score: 2

    In the first world perhaps. Plenty of places the old don't really have much at all.

  15. +5 Inspiring by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  16. Re:Can someone tell me why by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

    There are robots running about presently. Japan has some construction oriented bots of their own, and iRobot has provided some of theirs. However, their capabilities are limited in spite of the perception given by the iRobot marketing department.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  17. What you don't understand seems like magic by notnAP · · Score: 4, 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!

  18. All industry is deadly by Nick+Ives · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Nick