Slashdot Mirror
32,000 Workers At Fukushima No. 1 Got High Radiation Dose, Tepco Data Show (japantimes.co.jp)
mdsolar writes: A total of 32,760 workers at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant had an annual radiation dose exceeding 5 millisieverts as of the end of January, according to an analysis of Tokyo Electric Power Co. data. A reading of 5 millisieverts is one of the thresholds of whether nuclear plant workers suffering from leukemia can be eligible for compensation benefits for work-related injuries and illnesses. Of those workers, 174 had a cumulative radiation dose of more than 100 millisieverts, a level considered to raise the risk of dying after developing cancer by 0.5 percent. Most of the exposure appears to have stemmed from work just after the start of the crisis on March 11, 2011. The highest reading was 678.8 millisieverts.
Employees who work at a nuclear reactor during and immediately after a meltdown should get their healthcare and compensation for life, no questions asked We are asking them to stay and potentially risk horrifying deaths in order to give the public surrounding them time to evacuate; it is a heroic sacrifice for the good of the community and should be built into the cost and risk model of power companies installing nuclear plants.
First, I am STILL waiting for an apology from those Slashdotters who insisted at the time there was no meltdown.
Second, we've known for a long time that there was a high level of incompetence resulting in excessive exposure to radiation. I'm not sure what new information is being included here.
Third, I am much more concerned about the reported design flaw in ALL U.S. reactors that could result in meltdowns. Fukushima, although tragic, is in the past. We should learn from it by studying it closely, but there's really no point in rehashing the lessons already learned. Except amongst the nuclear inspectors and nuclear plant operators who have NOT learned those lessons. There, you're more than welcome to rehash all you like.
Nuclear fission is an intermediate technology that will be required to deliver power until fusion is developed. Provided there is sufficient funding, fusion should be mastered within a decade and go commercial within two. However, that's twenty years in which we can afford NO fossil fuel power plants whatsoever. Given that U.S. reactors are of a critically unsafe design, those should all be replaced. At this point, about fifty additional fission plants will be required in the US to bridge the gap. Construction should be started yesterday. Failing that, actually fault-tolerant fail-safe designs should be drawn up ASAP and work started on them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There sure are some scary comparisons of doses and suggestions of risk without any references in the TFA.
The problem with many exposure limits and risk estimates is that they are all based on the worst case scenario, ultraconservative exposure model: linear no-threshold (LNT). Basically, this model we created in the 1940s assumes that all radiation is bad and more is worse in with a linear dose to risk relationship.
However, there is not much evidence to support this simplistic model, which is what NRC uses to establish dose limits! We've known it is wrong for a long time. There is evidence that other models, specifically radiation hormesis, are correct. We won't change anything policywise because imagine the gnashing of teeth from the Greens when the newspaper article reads "Government loosens radiation rules! FEAR!"
But radiation hormesis is supported by the evidence. It suggests that below a certain level, radiation stimulates cellular and DNA repair mechanisms so that there is an opitmal dose of radiation that is ABOVE zero and that only when you go high on a dose in a given time (threshold) does the damage outweigh the stimulated benefits, but the response may be nonlinear for dose vs risk after the threshold.
Here are just two of the more recent articles on the subject (research goes back a LONG time)
2009, "The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data" Radiology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
2013, "Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Other fun pieces of information:
A chest X-ray is ~1.5mSv.
An abdominal Cat Scan (CT) is usually 10-20mSv per study.
Natural radiation exposure for Denver, CO (5280ft): 12mSv per year.
On Usenet, I had "Kill files" that could trim the idiots out of my newsfeed. Can we get something similar on Slashdot? Please? Pleeeeease???
In Boulder where I grew up, the kids fishing pond was made from the abandoned settling ponds of an old mill.
In the late 1960's, the DOE did an aerial survey for lost plutonium from the nearby Rocky Flats Weapons plant after a bad fire at the plant.
All those little hills around the pond that we sat on as we fished were tailings from the Radium mill and were pretty hot.
So, far I've received over 500 mSV from living in this radioactive heaven hole.