Slashdot Mirror


Japan Confirms First Radiation-Linked Death Out of Fukushima (bbc.co.uk)

Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare announced for the first time that a man employed at the Fukushima nuclear power plant died of lung cancer linked to radiation exposure. "The man, who was in his 50s, died from lung cancer that was diagnosed in 2016," reports the BBC. "Japan's government had previously agreed that radiation caused illness in four workers but this is the first acknowledged death." From the report: The Fukushima reactor suffered meltdowns after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami in March 2011. Cooling systems were wrecked at the plant on Japan's north-east coast and radioactive material leaked out. The employee who died had worked at atomic power stations since 1980 and was in charge of measuring radiation at the Fukushima No 1 plant shortly after its meltdown. He worked there at least twice after it was damaged, and had worn a face mask and protective suit, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare said. After hearing opinions from a panel of radiologists and other experts, the ministry ruled that the man's family should be paid compensation.

22 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Third, not first by arth1 · · Score: 2

    The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.

    1. Re:Third, not first by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, horrific isnt it.
      Why dont people take this more seriously? I mean it haves the estimated 800,000 deaths a year thanks to coal power look like nothing!
      I mean, 3 humans, lives snuffed out by the horror of nuclear power - and what does it give us? can anyone think of a single benefit?

      We urgently need to close down ALL nuclear power! Think of the children!

    2. Re:Third, not first by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quit that.
      So many idiots will take you serious.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Third, not first by jrumney · · Score: 2

      This is the first to be officially recognized. Despite the two bodies from the basement needing days of decontamination before they could be turned over to the families for burial, the deaths were officially recorded as being due to the tsunami, and the reports said they died of bleeding from head wounds (whether that was head wounds due to being thrown around in the tsunami, or open sores due to radiation sickness is open to speculation given TEPCO's past record on disclosure).

    4. Re:Third, not first by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. Objecting to nukes because of safety is silly.

      Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.

    5. Re:Third, not first by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 2

      can anyone think of a single benefit?

      Godzilla.

    6. Re:Third, not first by blindseer · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.

      Those deaths were not due to radiation. Best guess is that they sheltered there from the tsunami but the wave flooded the room and they drowned, and the radiation came later. A possible radiation link to their death would be they drowned in radioactive water, meaning that if they died from acute radiation poisoning then it only killed them sooner and would have drowned anyway. In either case it was the tsunami that killed them and any possible link to radiation in the cause of their death is ambiguous at best.

      The article in on the first confirmed death from radiation that came from the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The other two deaths were not confirmed to be related to the radiation as a more likely cause is the turbine hall being flooded and they drowned.

      What I find rather disturbing in all of this is that they knew of a risk of a tsunami flooding the plant but dug out several meters of dirt and rock to lower the plant closer to sea level. Some of that might have been necessary since the bed rock was eroded and unstable but they still dug deeper than many deemed necessary to make it easier to bring in building materials from ships, and to make the cooling pipes to the sea shorter (and therefore cheaper).

      When issues were discovered TEPCO dragged their feet to make changes to address threats of flooding. The possibility of the diesel backup generators getting flooded was known. They still had power available from the grid to drive cooling pumps, and batteries. The triple redundant safety systems failed because no one could fathom something so large that it could take out the grid, render the generators unusable, and do so with such damage that it could not be repaired before the batteries ran dead.

      This one in a million occurrence of events happened and we still saw only one confirmed death from radiation. Is nuclear power dangerous? Of course. Nuclear power is also the safest energy source we know of. Japan doesn't have a lot of options on getting electricity where they are. They don't have a lot of land for putting up solar collectors and windmills, or much for hydro power. They shipped in a lot of coal while they checked out all their reactors and this impacted air quality. Had they kept doing that then they'd see far more deaths from air pollution.

      Nuclear power doesn't live in a vacuum, if it's not nuclear power then it's something far more deadly.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Third, not first by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      Prove to me that solar and storage can compete and I'll change my mind.

      As if. You'll just shift the goalposts some more.

      Stop trying to play the reasonable man. Every topic on energy related matters you turn up to spout nuclear industry talking points. You are either a shill or a True Believer, so either way you will never change your mind publicly.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    8. Re: Third, not first by blindseer · · Score: 4, Informative

      A nuke plant might operate for 60 years. All the waste must be safely stored. Storage is not free, and security is expensive.

      A hydroelectric dam will last that long too, as will a coal fired power plant. These sites must also be kept secure. Storing the spent fuel on the same site as the nuclear power plant is common practice, meaning the storage may not be "free" but it is minimal and included in the cost of constructing and maintaining the site. If the Democrats hadn't been holding up nuclear material disposal sites like Yucca Mountain for 30 years we'd have had this problem solved. There is no storage problem but what the Democrats created.

      Some of the waste becomes safe in 30 years,

      Actually 30 years is the half life of some of the more dangerous isotopes. A "rule of thumb" on when this becomes safe is ten half lives, so more like 300 years.

      but Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.

      First of all Pu-239 is a very valuable material for nuclear fuel and weapons, storing this as "waste" is idiotic. Second, the radiation flux is an inverse of the half life. The longer the half life the less radiation it emits in a given time period. With a half life this long it is effectively inert. It's still a heavy metal and so should be handled with care, much like one would treat lead. it's also something that is not known to blow away, dissolve in water, or otherwise move from where it's put. There's far more dangerous isotopes to deal with than Pu-239.

      That sort of kills any idea of "cheap in the long run." In the long run, the short run, any way you slice it, nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity ever conceived, and will remain so.

      Really? Perhaps you could provide a source for that. Oh, and include the storage costs for that wind and solar, because that's going to be necessary to match load to supply.

      That said, we still need nuclear power and will need it for probably 100-250 years, and we should be building more plants. But eventually, sooner than later, the entire nuclear industry must be decommissioned and mothballed, because we have safer, cleaner, greener, less complicated and less expensive ways to generate electricity.

      100 years? Well, that's convenient. That's something no one reading this could ever confirm on their own. In that time we'd probably find a way to deal with all the radioactive waste we produce now and nuclear power will be powering colonies on Pluto or something.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re: Third, not first by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      Nuclear requires a large investment upfront but is very cheap in the long run.

      Renewables seem cheap when you compare nameplate capacity but are _extremely_ expensive once you count the 3*nameplate capacity required to get to 70% energy delivered plus the full capacity backup and fuel for the remaining 30%. Hydro and other storage simply cannot cope with the long periods of low renewables production that happen frequently.

      Really? According to the EIA natural gas, solar and onshore wind all have nuclear (even advanced nuclear) beaten pretty thoroughly in terms of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) which is: "... an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime.". It's kind of interesting to see the relative reductions in LCOE over the last 10 years, the numbers for nuclear have dropped to be sure but it is a linear reduction that only applies to the really new advanced plants, not the legacy plants and even then only the ones that don't go into insane cost overruns. The LCOE numbers for wind, and particularly solar, by comparisons have literally fallen off a cliff.

    10. Re: Third, not first by blindseer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously? You argument pro Pu-239 is that it can be used as a weapon? I hope you are trolling, because if that's not the case you are either insane or a complete idiot.

      If I had not mentioned its use as a weapon then I'd be accused of lying by omission, do you want me to lie?

      The emphasis should be on the use as a fuel, especially for the use in molten salt breeder reactors like LFTR-49.
      https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-...

      LFTR-49 will burn plutonium as fuel and in the process produce U-233, a fuel worthless for making weapons. This makes plutonium far more valuable as a fuel than as a weapon. LFTR style reactors don't produce plutonium like current solid fuel reactors do. Depending on how the LFTR manages the transuranic elements it will produce no plutonium or produce plutonium so contaminated with lighter and heavier isotopes that it would be nearly worthless for weapon production.

      The only way to destroy this plutonium is in a reactor. What some politicians would like to see is "downblend and dispose". This means taking the weapon grade and reactor grade plutonium we have and mixing it with a bunch of spent fuel and other stuff to make it hard to process back out, and then drop it in a hole. A hole by the way Democrats have been denying funds to dig.

      So, what do you propose we do with all this plutonium that's been piling up? And the weapons with plutonium in them?

      I suggest we use it as fuel. This can mean downblending as part of turning it into fuel to discourage it being diverted into weapons. Downblending alone does not prevent this from being turned into weapons in the future, as it only makes refining more expensive, not impossible. The only way to destroy it is consume it in a reactor. While we do that we may as well produce electricity, more fuel, valuable medical isotopes, and isotopes valuable for space exploration.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re: Third, not first by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      So much to your "Freaking Hippies" analogy. Would you really like 50 million shintoists-ists invade your country and spread their unholy religion?

      Humm... Are you asking if I would rather have 50 million Shintoists or the 50 million fundamentalist Christians I already have? Let me show the Japanese where to park....

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    12. Re: Third, not first by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I think you missed that joke by about 8046.72 km. I give you a 'A' for effort. I often wind up being modded a troll instead of the +5 funny so I feel your pain. I will just like to think that I have superior senses of humor than them. Doesn't make it true, but I like to think that.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  2. there will be more by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    However, this was the worst accident and it required ppl to go in due to screw-ups. So, yeah, there will be more.
    This is why we need SMRs, or 4th gen reactors, that will not have these issues.
    Problem is, that 3rd gen reactors continue to be built. Worst, we have given the tech for 3rd gen to China and they, with their quality, are now building those reactors.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:there will be more by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, this was the worst accident and it required ppl to go in due to screw-ups. So, yeah, there will be more.

      Yep. So, after SEVEN YEARS, we've had one (1) death as a result of a massive tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant. That's almost as many deaths as occurred commuting to work today where I live...

      If everyday life were only a hundred times deadlier than nuclear power has shown itself over the decades, we'd be living in paradise!

      Alas, that word "nuclear" continues to magnify the death toll to an unsustainable level!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:there will be more by RevDisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Historically, solar is 5x more lethal than nuclear power. If you include Chernobyl.
      If you count US only, solar is roughly 4000x more lethal than nuclear.

      In the US, apparently coal is 100,000x more lethal than nuclear power. And 50x less lethal than hydro.
      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


      Nukes get more press because radiation is scary as it is invisible. Invisible threats are more unnerving than ones we're familiar with. Pools killing thousands per year? Meh. It's a pool. People falling off roofs? Well, it happens. And in more proper fairness, it can make an area dangerous for a lengthy amount of time. It's probably not a good idea to explain coal plants put out significantly more radiation than nuclear plants.

      Hilariously, according to old USAF buddy, a certain airborne radiation monitoring planes could and did navigate based off radiation plumes from coal plants.

    3. Re:there will be more by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was a second gen reactor that took an earthquake that was a hundred times worse than one it was set up to outlive, and outlived it. Then it got hit by tsunami that basically annihilated the infrastructure in the entire region, and killed something around 15.000-30.000 people. We still don't know how many actually died, because local registries that held records of how many people actually lived in those regions were destroyed in the tsunami alongside people, and Japan has highly localized citizen registry. So the only deaths we know of are the ones that were held in registries that survived the tsunami.

      This is the first radiation linked death out of that entire accident. I think it's safe to make a claim that even old reactors are safe from radiation's lethality standpoint when lethality of the entire event is considered, especially considering that nearby units 5 and 6 were in fixable condition with only minor damage, and were shut down for political reasons.

      So the real problem is corruption in companies that save money on seawalls in tsunami areas and ignore warnings about it.

    4. Re:there will be more by blindseer · · Score: 2

      There is R&D happening on nuclear power, just not so much in the USA.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

      The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a reputation as a capable regulator with many decades of experience in safe nuclear plant design review and operations oversight. It also has a process that is amenable to technologies that use nontraditional fuels and coolants.

      Sweden, the original home of LeadCold, has similar remote areas and a capable regulator, but it is currently lead by a government that doesn't support nuclear energy development.

      As Senator Murkowski made clear during Governor Perry's confirmation hearing to become the new Secretary of Energy, Alaska has communities with similar power needs. Unfortunately, the U.S. NRC has not yet implemented an acceptable process for reviewing nuclear reactor designs that use coolants other than water.

      If people in the USA want to see more nuclear power then vote, and vote for people and political parties that support nuclear power. I've read the party platform documents from both the Democratic and Republican national committees. In the Democrat platform I recall seeing the word "nuclear" only once, and that was in reference to nuclear weapons. The Republican platform nuclear power was mentioned as one of many ways to achieve cleaner air and energy independence. I also remember a debate between McCain and Obama when they were running for POTUS. Obama made some happy mouth noises about research but McCain said we need to start building nuclear power. It's quite clear where the support lies among politicians, vote accordingly. Perhaps the two parties have had their stance on nuclear power evolve since I last looked but recent events tell me it's unlikely there's been a big change. This isn't the "far left" opposing nuclear power, this opposition is far more widespread than that.

      We can throw a bunch of money at nuclear power research but nothing can provide funding and experience like private industry actually building real and actual reactors. The argument for wind and solar subsidies was made on the same premise, that nothing drives development of a technology like shipping product.

      I'd like to see fourth generation nuclear reactors being built too. Seeing more third generation nuclear would please me greatly though. We aren't going to see fifth generation nuclear power, almost by definition, until fourth generation reactors have reached some kind of maturity. Again, nothing can mature a technology like shipping product. I believe that there is a lot of life in third generation nuclear yet, as it is quite safe and offers means to slow the production of nuclear waste and perhaps even consume some of the waste we already have.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:there will be more by blindseer · · Score: 2

      On a per kWh produced basis the subsidies for solar power is far greater.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

      Look at the pie chart here on where the USA gets it's electricity:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You'll see that nuclear provides nearly 20% of our electricity. Wind less than 6%. Solar is producing so little energy that it doesn't even get broken out separately, and is just "other". Biomass produced more electricity than solar, and that's mostly just coal plants "greenwashing" their operation by mixing in some sawdust and wood chips in with the coal so they can claim to be "green".

      Whatever little is spent on solar makes a large difference on the subsidies per kWh since the output from solar is so small. If you scroll down that Wikipedia page some more you will find that solar makes up about 2% of installed capacity and nuclear makes up about 10% of installed capacity. Again, nuclear produces 20% of the electricity but solar is less than 1%. To replace a single 1 GW nuclear power reactor we would need to have 4 GW of solar power capacity.

      The US federal government has been subsidizing solar power for decades with very little to show for it. You think nuclear power is getting corporate welfare? Look at solar. There wouldn't be a solar power industry if the federal government hadn't been propping it up all this time.

      You know all this already and are just pushing your false reality again.

      Yep, just "fake news" from us nuclear power advocates. If solar power made such great business sense then why demand the subsidies? I'll find that solar power advocates rarely lie about anything, just as what you posted appears to be true. What happens with great regularity is the lie by omission. By telling only half the story, giving all the "pros" and none of the "cons", solar power looks pretty good. It's easy to reveal the half truths though.

      I used to tear into wind too for their subsidies but it looks like we are actually seeing some return on that investment. I'd like to see the wind subsidies go away, as I would for all energy subsidies, but it's solar that is not giving much for even the little it gets in "corporate welfare".

      It's been getting real hard to portray nuclear power as unsafe in recent years. Calling it "dirty" is getting real hard as well. Now it seems that people rely on half truths of the costs of nuclear power. How long will it take for the truth on that to become clear? Then what argument can be made to not build more nuclear power?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:there will be more by RevDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First hand collected scientific data.

      I collected data with a calibrated geiger counter and wrote a paper on it. Admittedly in High School. I grew up near Three Mile Island. By "near", I mean, I could literally see it every day. Naturally, it was kinda mentioned in school quite a few times. One of the projects was literally going to the location where the the damaged reactor was removed, near the live reactor, across the river at the visitor/training center. I also included data points from my house. Radiation was near background. Close enough it was within the error of margin of a pretty decent geiger counter. Even within literal stone's throw from the worst civil nuclear incident in American history.

      Because I wanted to do something bit different, I also included data from a coal plant and an incinerator down the river a couple miles. Incinerator was less radioactive than a smoke alarm. New facility, they filter the hell out of the output and check for that sort of thing. In case someone tosses a load of smoke alarms in their trash, as one example they mentioned. Coal plant was older and put off (from memory, so give me a bit of leeway) roughly between 3x and 5x background downwind. This was due to uranium and thorium traces in the coal. Very very tiny amounts. But builds up when you're burning a lot of coal. I didn't do an extremely through pattern, it was every quarter mile of a road for like two miles. Coal plant verified, and explained it was within allowed levels and they do have radiation monitors to shut things down if it went too high. There was actually a lot of cooperation between the local coal plants and TMI out of necessity as coal plants in the area can set off extremely sensitive internal alarms at TMI.

      I probably realize I sound overly enthusiastic about nuclear power, but having grown up nearing the radiation alarms being tested every noon on Saturday for several years, I'm well aware of the potential risk.

      The USAF ref I made was Constant Phoenix. Buddy of mine I know was formerly a pilot of it. His job was to fly through a nuclear weapon plume. Mostly they flew downwind from countries being suspected of developing rogue nuclear weapons. Obviously NK, but other countries as well. US coal plants were better than most back in his day, and better now. Other countries do not filter NEARLY as well, and shot out insane amount of uranium and thorium into the air in fly ash plumes. Obviously an aircraft designed to find signs of underground nuclear testing could see it, as it was designed for that specific purpose. So, they could and did navigate using it.

  3. You jest, but... by Bonker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You jest, but at this point, I think we'd get a lot more out of shuttering all our coal-based power-plants than yanking tobacco.

    Most of the boomer smokers, many of whom took 'Tobacco is good for you' to their graves, are dead. Folks who smoke *today* don't only know they have it coming, but they've been told all about it by their doctors, teachers, and television for most if not all their lives. They're doing it to themselves and they know it.

    What we need to address that problem is more education and recovery programs for tobacco addicts, just like with any other terribly addictive drug. (Opiate crisis deniers, I'm lookin' at you here.) Smokers need help. Blanket bans and kneejerks won't accomplish much.

    While Nuclear plants need a hell of a lot more scrutiny than they're getting (Fukushima Daichi was a lot worse than it had to be because folks at Tokyo Electric Power Co were cuttin' corners to maximize personal profits -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), they are, in general, ANGELS compared to the Coal industry.

    For individuals, coal work is pretty damn deadly all on its own. Besides the twenty-odd thousand deaths from Black Lung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%27s_pneumoconiosis) each year, there are thousands of accidental deaths around the world in coal mines. We're actually a low point as safety regulations and technology advances. China is a pretty poor example compared to the U.S., which actually stays in the double digits these days. In 2013, the last year China has on public record, there were more than a thousand accidental deaths in coal mines. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_mining_accidents_in_China#2013)

    For communities, Coal Seam Fires are pretty damn serious problems, making whole towns uninhabitable. Coal fires dump 40 tons of mercury into the atmosphere, yearly, and are responsible for 3% of the worlds total CO2 emissions. They are, of course, almost, but not always triggered and/or made worse by mining. Imagine that!
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire)

    For the world as a whole, one of the major producers of CO2 emissions are hydrocarbon-/fossil fuel-burning electrical power plants. In the U.S., a little less than a third (28%) of our total CO2 emissions are from generating electricity. (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) Additionally, about a third of our power is generated by Coal, and another third is generated by other fossil-fuel hydrocarbons including Natural Gas and Petroleum. (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)

    Happily, the amount of renewable energy generated is growing and the amount of fossil-fuel energy is dropping. It's not enough, though. Nowhere NEAR enough.

    If we just *bam* shut down all coal power-plants, (or better yet, Natural Gas plants too) and dealt with the economics of the situation, we'd take a massive bite out of our greenhouse gas emissions. I think the U.S. and most of Europe could do it as a whole, but that it may not be in the 'industrializing' world. We can hope that China manages. They talk a big gain, but, well, we know what kind of game China actually plays.

    tl;dr: Global Warming is going to get a WHOLE lot worse before it gets better, and shutting down all our coal production would help a lot, and not just in that area.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  4. Re:This time they nuked themselves by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This death is not medically attributed to Fukushima. It is simply the result of a legal requirement that all cancers in workers who worked at Fukushima and got a certain level of exposure be attributed to Fukushima so that they cover medical costs. Its a social/cultural thing they do,

    ‘Safety regulators say workers can be safely exposed to up to 50 millisieverts a year, but if a worker with an accumulated 100 millisieverts develops an illness after five years of exposure, that can be ruled an occupational injury. According to an expert cited by the Mainichi Shimbun, a daily newspaper, the man had been exposed to 74 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant since the accident.’

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... ... ipad-share1

    Medical science tells us that such a cancer is highly unlikely to be caused by exposures at these levels. There is a huge body of science to back this up.

    Too easy to fool the media. Does anybody even think about the details.