Fukushima nuclear plant worker exposed to radiation

Lacks details.

He was wearing a full protective mask but was contaminated.

two solutions

he took off his mask for a while

or the mask was damaged

Banning Fukushima food is wise decision, radiation still exist and also mistake keep happening.

Everyone working in that plant is exposed to radiation.

didouToday  07:50 am JST

He was wearing a full protective mask but was contaminated

I don’t know about you folks, but I think the words “may have” tells a different story.

The No2 reactor has the highest radiation readings.

Humans shouldn’t enter such places. This is proof.

sakurasukiToday 07:53 am JST

Banning Fukushima food is wise decision

No, it's not a "wise decision." It is a 100% political move by China and its political allies like Russia. As discussed many times, the IAEA has stated that the treated water release as planned "would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment:"

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

This article appears to be an individual incident, and unconnected to the overall safety of the treated water release. However, there is very little detail here so we will have to wait for more before anyone can form an opinion.

Stating immediately, and with zero evidence, that "Banning Fukushima food is [a] wise decision" simply marks you out as a CCP online minion.

StefanToday 11:27 am JST

Humans shouldn’t enter such places. This is proof.

No, it isn't proof. How could the plant be decommissioned if no-one could enter the area?

Robots are being used for the highly-radioactive areas:

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/principles/robot/index-e.html

No worker can enter the No 2 reactor building for any length of time because of the very high level of radiation. The cap for the reactor vessel is ajar allowing radiation to leak out. The clean-up of the inside will have to be done by remote control as will the removal of the 600 plus fuel rods from the cooling pool.

The inside of the cap is covered in corium, as are the ones for No1 and No3 reactors which will make it very difficult to remove to try and recover the coriums.

So if this one man was wearing a full mask and safety suit why are not any other workers suffering from radiation sickness? But to be honest, I have no idea how many of these workers would have been close to, or working with him, there are no details about this.

Japan's LDP regime and Tepco say the words such as "enough response" "secure system", but they cause something failures or victim after all.

Besides, Japan seems to intend to increase nuclear power to three times despite natura disaster country.

Is the 3rd time the fukushima staff gets a shower of contaminated water.

That's not an unfortunate event but pure incompetence.

lunaticToday 03:14 pm JST

Is the 3rd time the fukushima staff gets a shower of contaminated water.

Amid unprecedented decommissioning work, occasional exposure is to be expected, even with all the safety precautions.

And nowhere in the article does it say they got a "shower of contaminated water." Perhaps you're referring to the previous incident in October... perhaps you're trying to wrongly tie this incident to the treated water release, like other pro-China/anti-Japan posters.

That's not an unfortunate event but pure incompetence.

Without knowing the details, you - or I, or anyone else - cannot know that.

It’s not the first breach of nuclear safety at Fukushima nor the last.

There are also multiple incidents at other plants where injury and death have occurred.

kurisupisuToday  03:45 pm JST

It’s not the first breach of nuclear safety at Fukushima nor the last.

There are also multiple incidents at other plants where injury and death have occurred.

There's a long history of negligence, poor safety standards, and few inspections. What good are the regulations when nobody checks or enforces them. Politicians get so many kickbacks from the nuclear industry that they don't want to piss off their cash cows.

Only one worker has died from radiation in 2018. Considering the level of the disaster and the destruction of the plant.

More workers are killed on construction sites than on nuclear power plants. Every TEPCO wants to do at Fukushima must be signed off by the NRA first.

kurisupisuToday 03:45 pm JST

It’s not the first breach of nuclear safety at Fukushima nor the last.

It's the same situation all over the world. Safety breaches are clearly not right, or desirable, but they are not unique to Fukushima.

There are also multiple incidents at other plants where injury and death have occurred.

Which ones exactly?

MilesTegToday 04:14 pm JST

There's a long history of negligence, poor safety standards, and few inspections. What good are the regulations when nobody checks or enforces them.

That was definitely true in the past, but the IAEA is now involved so the monitoring is far better. If anything like this happens we hear about it and it is addressed, whereas in the past it might've been covered up.

The eyes of the world are on this plant so the chances of things "not being checked or enforced" are very low (and far lower than at any other plant in the world).

isabelleToday  05:31 pm JST

That was definitely true in the past, but the IAEA is now involved so the monitoring is far better. If anything like this happens we hear about it and it is addressed, whereas in the past it might've been covered up.

The eyes of the world are on this plant so the chances of things "not being checked or enforced" are very low (and far lower than at any other plant in the world).

"The NRA was established in the wake of the March 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant and new safety standards subsequently came into effect. Restarts of idled nuclear reactors based on the new standards are underway. At the same time, reviews on nuclear plant inspection systems had been put on the back burner."

"In the United States, where around 100 nuclear reactors are in operation, there are some 1,000 inspectors at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they undergo a two-year training program. In Japan, on the other hand, there are only around 100 inspectors for more than 40 reactors, and they receive a mere two weeks of training."

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170227/p2a/00m/0na/010000c

And it appears there are still only using scheduled inspections not any unannounced inspections. We need to wait and see if any real changes are being implemented. One would hope so.

And these new steps are only being implemented because of the Fukushima accident. The internal report after the accident stated that Fukushima and its aftermath was a man made incident. If they had actually enforced regulations, the effect of the tsunami may have been far far less.

There are no longer 40 reactors. The power companies of more than 20 reactors have applied for decommissioning. Currently, 10 reactors are operating. A further 11 are waiting for restart permissions from the NRA. All the working reactors are in Western Japan which does help Kanto.

A reactor must be up to the new safety standards before being given to restart.

The Mainichi article is from 2017.

wallaceToday  06:59 pm JST

The Mainichi article is from 2017.

Well then go find something that's more recent to disprove it instead of pointing out the obvious. 2017 is still six years after the accident. Six years passed and they still had only 100 inspectors with 2wks of training and nuclear reactor inspection systems were still on the backburner. And what is threatening the current PM's status? Fund and corruption scandals.

MilesTegToday 06:41 pm JST

All of your points apart from "still only using scheduled inspections not any unannounced inspections" refer to the past. As I said, "That was definitely true in the past."

I don't know the situation with regard to unscheduled inspections. For Fukushima, I would imagine they're not allowed due to the risks involved, and all visits need to be planned in advance.

MilesTegToday 07:20 pm JST

Well then go find something that's more recent to disprove it instead of pointing out the obvious.

It's incumbent on you to prove your own points if you wish to win any debates.

At Fukushima there is a 24/7 NRA office and IAEA office.

isabelleToday  07:47 pm JST

MilesTegToday 06:41 pm JST

All of your points apart from "still only using scheduled inspections not any unannounced inspections" refer to the past. As I said, "That was definitely true in the past."

I don't know the situation with regard to unscheduled inspections. For Fukushima, I would imagine they're not allowed due to the risks involved, and all visits need to be planned in advance.

MilesTegToday 07:20 pm JST

Well then go find something that's more recent to disprove it instead of pointing out the obvious.

It's incumbent on you to prove your own points if you wish to win any debates.

I did. The article I posted the link for states several areas and I highlighted two and posted them here. If the response is that it's an article from 2017, then it's incumbent on those that have issues with it to disprove what I posted not the other way around. I could care less about winning debates on an internet forum. That's your motivation not mine. What have you provided to disprove the points I posted from the article? Nothing. You actually stated that it's too risky for an unscheduled visit. Why is Fukushima still so risky now 13yrs after the accident and why would an unscheduled visit be considered more risky versus a scheduled one?

The article is from 2017 yes but it's still 6 years after the accident and at the time there were only 100 inspectors with only 2wks training compared to the US standard and the inspection system was put on the backburner. If you think this is an example of high level safety management of a nuclear reactor facility six years after a major meltdown then your standards are woefully low.

More workers are killed on construction sites than on nuclear power plants.

How many construction sites are there? How many nuclear power plants are there?

Your argument is unconvincing.

@roy

i posted a link to the article and highlighted two findings that provides info that safety standards are low.

if the only counter is that it’s from 2017 without providing any actual counter claims or disprove the validity of the information, then there’s no reason for me to provide further info until that happens. Prove that the info provided is incorrect or invalid first.

quercetum

   More workers are killed on construction sites than on nuclear power plants.

> How many construction sites are there? How many nuclear power plants are there?

> Your argument is unconvincing.

Accidental death rates are calculated per 100,000 workers. More workers are killed installing solar panels than workers at NPP. Construction has one of the highest rates.

@Peter Neil SPOT ON! Great catch, I was going to post exactly what you wrote. "MAY HAVE" perhaps what they call "Protective Equipment" is not the answer for protection. The titles indicates the worker was "Exposed" but the article says "MAY HAVE". What is the real reason or story?

I don’t know about you folks, but I think the words “may have” tells a different story.

He made the claim about the past not the current Roy. Lack of trust and incompetence are based on TEPCO actions in the past not the present. 2017 was put forth of which it was seemingly dismissed (by Miles himself) due to the date. Neither Isabelle nor Wallace countered.

The only counter I see was the response that Miles has the burden of proof, which isn’t a rebuttal at all.

I see you have dropped your last name from your handle. Good idea for safety reasons.

@roy

They’re certainly obliged to prove my points wrong if they say they’re wrong. Just saying they’re wrong with no backup means I need not provide anything further until they do. It’s basic logic and no pseudo-intellectual babble is needed.

I think in 2017 only five reactors were operating. 100 inspectors would be 20 per plant.

The US has 100 reactors and 1,000 inspectors. 10 inspectors per reactor.

quercetumToday 10:36 pm JST

Neither Isabelle nor Wallace countered.

MilesTegToday 10:39 pm JST

They’re certainly obliged to prove my points wrong if they say they’re wrong.

I've made my point, and it appears Roy is of the same opinion. If you don't wish to debate properly there's little to be gained by going around in circles on this.

https://saskdebate.ca/resources/resources-for-students/examples-and-evidence

For every argument you make in a debate, examples and/or evidence are necessary to prove your point. Every debater should know how to use evidence in their speeches. Not only is it a requirement in the judge’s rubric, evidence also helps you provide real world context for your arguments.

Accidental death rates are calculated per 100,000 workers. More workers are killed installing solar panels than workers at NPP. Construction has one of the highest rates.

The original had more workers as opposed to higher rates.

quercetum

   Accidental death rates are calculated per 100,000 workers. More workers are killed installing solar panels than workers at NPP. Construction has one of the highest rates.

> The original had more workers as opposed to higher rates.

What is it that you don't understand how accidental death rates are calculated?

During the disaster on 3/11 three workers were killed by the tsunami. Since then one single worker has died.

In 2022, the total number of accidents with fatalities in the construction industry amounted to 281 cases. Construction work segment caused nearly 120 fatal injuries to workers that year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/788711/japan-fatal-construction-industry-accidents-by-work-type/

I've made my point, and it appears Roy is of the same opinion. If you don't wish to debate properly there's little to be gained by going around in circles on this.

Miles made his point and backed it up. He posted a link to an article and highlighted two findings that provide info that safety standards are low. There was no counterpoint. You did not counter.

He asked “What have you provided to disprove the points I posted from the article?”

You responded by saying “That was definitely true in the past.”

Miles made a claim and it was validated.

@Wallace

Your higher rates answer was a more accurate response.

During the disaster on 3/11 three workers were killed by the tsunami. Since then one single worker has died.

So 4 workers have died from 1 power plant.

In 2022, the total number of accidents with fatalities in the construction industry amounted to 281 cases. Construction work segment caused nearly 120 fatal injuries to workers that year.

281 cases. 281 is indeed higher than 4.

Why did you choose only one single power plant, Fukushima, to come up with the low count of 4 but chose the number of people who have died in the entire construction industry?

Why are you comparing the fatalities of one nuclear power plant to an entire industry, the construction industry?

What if we compared robberies at one bank to the total number of robberies of the convenience store industry?

@isabelle

The standards for nuclear plants on paper might be high but the reality regarding workers and accident prone plants not so.

I can’t recall of a nuclear accident where workers killed rhemselves and irradiated others by mixing fissionable materials in a bucket, can you?

@isabelle

Your view tends to believe naively that planned execution invariably results in execution as planned without seemingly considering room for error and or accidents.

The meltdown in 2011 was certainly not planned and neither was the man whose face was exposed to radiation.

quercetum

@Wallace

Your higher rates answer was a more accurate response.

>    During the disaster on 3/11 three workers were killed by the tsunami. Since then one single worker has died.

> So 4 workers have died from 1 power plant.

Three workers were killed by the tsunami.

   In 2022, the total number of accidents with fatalities in the construction industry amounted to 281 cases. Construction work segment caused nearly 120 fatal injuries to workers that year.

> 281 cases. 281 is indeed higher than 4.

> Why did you choose only one single power plant, Fukushima, to come up with the low count of 4 but chose the number of people who have died in the entire construction industry?

The article is about Fukushima. Since 2011 the majority of reactors have been shut down

Why are you comparing the fatalities of one nuclear power plant to an entire industry, the construction industry?

List of nuclear power accidents by country

Between 1975 and 2017 there were 10 fatalities. How do you think that compares with construction, farming, and fishing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

Nuclear is the safest segment compared to all energy production. It’s indisputable.

10 times as many people die in the solar industry. More people die in hydro and wind.

The article is about Fukushima. Since 2011 the majority of reactors have been shut down

Town A has X cases of fatalities but Country B has way more cases of fatalities.

The city of Birmingham has X number of cases of car accidents but the UK has way more cases. Clearly the UK is more dangerous than cities.

This is your flawed comparison.

Aston Villa has only scored a few goals last month but there have been way more goals scored in the Premier League. Premier League teams are out scoring Villa.

And the biggest elephant in the room is where to store tens of thousands of tons of spent radioactive fuel?

Japan is not the best country for this…

quercetum

Between 1975 and 2017 there were 10 fatalities at all nuclear plants. 42 years. Compare that with dam building, tunnel construction, building construction, farming, or fishing.

Worker exposed to radiation again

should be the headline

@wallace - More workers are killed on construction sites than on nuclear power plants.

I'd say it probably difficult to compare fatality rates because

The number of nuclear plant workers is very small, making the sample size too small for a strong confidence factor (statistically speaking).

The measure of "fatality" for nuclear accidents is itself hard to measure, apart from those who die within the first year. There is a tail after that, but the symptoms (various cancers) are difficult to pick out from the background. Again, it can only be done statistically with large enough numbers to obtain a strong confidence.

@wallace

Just to be clear, I'm talking about about the workers at Fukushima, not other plants where accidents have not occurred. Because that it the subject of this article.