Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senior Citizens Lining Up to Tackle Fukushima

Posted by samzenpus on from the greatest-and-most-radioactive-generation dept.

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."

24 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 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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!
    9. 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".

    10. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. +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.

  9. 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!

  10. 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