Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Subcontractor Tells Fukushima Workers To Hide Radiation Exposure

Posted by timothy on from the how-to-lie-with-statistics-in-a-big-way dept.

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."

7 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. one good result: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the Japanese people will no longer blindly trust their government

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  2. Re:Health effects in children by Psion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    That same article states:

    "Yes, 35.8 percent of children in the study have lumps or cysts, but this is not the same as cancer," said Naomi Takagi, an associate professor at Fukushima University Medical School Hospital, which administered the tests.

    "We do not know that cause of this, but it is hard to believe that is due to the effects of radiation," she said. "This is an early test and we will only see the effects of radiation exposure after four or five years."

  3. Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker by geoskd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unions can curb criminal behavior on the part of corporations. Of course, unions being organized power, are also susceptible to being abused as well. Arguing against having any watchmen at all is a bit silly, but we need to also consider who watches the watchmen.

    The answer is not more levels of middlemen, who contribute nothing but another avenue for corruption. The answer, as suggested by others here, is support for workers rights codified by law. The fact that our current democratic process has been thoroughly subverted by the top 1% doesn't mean that adding more corrupt bureaucrats to the process is a good idea, much less the right solution.

    -=Geoskd

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  4. Moral Credibility by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In order to safely operate today's generation of nuclear fission reactors, you need the operators and regulators to be transparent and competent. The folks running this Fukushima travesty are neither transparent nor competent.

    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.

  5. Typical for technocrats by emt377 · · 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.

  6. Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, 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.

  7. Re:This is why we need more unions and more worker by Teancum · · 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.