Ex-Fukushima No. 1 worker sues Tepco over cancer

[bananas]

Source: Jiji

A former worker at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant has filed a damages suit against Tokyo Electric Power Co. and others, claiming that he developed cancer due to exposure to radiation after the March 2011 nuclear disaster.

His lawyers said Tuesday the suit, filed in the Sapporo District Court, is the first litigation on causal relations between cancer and work to deal with the crisis.

The 57-year-old man is seeking a total of ¥65 million in damages from Tepco, contractor Taisei Corp. and its subcontractor.

According to his complaint, cancer was detected in his bladder in June 2012, in his stomach in March 2013 and in his sigmoid colon in May 2013 after he worked as a heavy equipment operator at Fukushima No. 1 between July and October 2011.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/01/national/ex-fukushima-no-1-worker-sues-tepco-cancer/

[BeanMusical]

1. Oh but Fukushima was such an innocuous incident!

Cue the Nuke defender folks. Ugh, so sick of this...

[BeanMusical]

2. Thanks for the post, bananas.

[Alice500]

6. +1. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. I am curious as to how the claims of the sailors on the US ship are faring with their cancer.

You might remember the ship ended up in the midst of fall out, a lot of sailors later got cancer, I think there was even a lawsuit.
Any word?

[bananas]

4. USS Reagan Sailors Sue for Nuclear Justice - July 2015 Update

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017281565

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Booked marked...thanks.

[bananas]

11. Very brief summary

It's worth watching, here's a very brief summary:

http://nuclear-news.net/2015/07/29/us-navy-sailors-third-death-from-exposure-to-fukushima-fallout/

<snip>

We now have a 250+ young sailors with all kinds of illnesses, we’ve had three die. We had one of the sailors who came home and impregnated his wife. They gave birth to a little baby born with brain cancer and cancer down the spine, lived for two years, and just died in March of this year.

<snip>

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Same story from the vets in Iraq re: depleted uranium.

Which is not in the news either.

[Octafish]

7. So, why does the IAEA say kids unlikely to suffer cancer from Fukushima?

Fukushima-related child cancers unlikely to rise: IAEA

Published September 01, 2015Reuters

An increase in thyroid cancer among children is unlikely after the meltdown at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant four years ago, but it remains unclear exactly how much radiation children in the vicinity of the plant were exposed to, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said in a report released on Monday.

Increased thyroid cancer is generally the leading health concern after exposure to nuclear radiation, but that may not be the case after the accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co's Fukushima Daiichi plant in March 2011, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said.

"Because the reported thyroid doses attributable to the accident were generally low, an increase in childhood thyroid cancer attributable to the accident is unlikely," the report said.

"However, uncertainties remained concerning the thyroid equivalent doses incurred by children immediately after the accident," it added.

CONTINUED...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/09/01/fukushima-related-child-cancers-unlikely-to-rise-iaea/

Gee, that's what TEPCO says. What a coincidence.

[FBaggins]

8. Probably because it's the truth

A very high percentage of people die from cancer. The fact that one person has cancer and has decided to sue over his really doesn't mean that it's at all likely to be true.

On the one hand you have hundreds of actual experts from scores of countries around the world (saying the same thing that thousands of experts have been saying all along)... and on the other you have some nuts who believe that their bloody noses years later were caused by Fukushima and an ambulance chaser convincing his dying client that 100 msv over several months could possible cause bladder cancer less than a year later... and you take which side?

Entertaining.

[Octafish]

9. No, it's not the truth.

Read more and learn.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

More...

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffects.shtml

[FBaggins]

10. Sorry... you can't handle the truth

(and while we're at it... neither can Helen - as has been pointed out many times).

Bladder cancer is most commonly found in men over 55... and the most common cause for bladder cancer is smoking (which described close to half of the men in Japan). But nooooo... this one has to be caused by radiation.

Of course the problem with that is that bladder cancer caused by radiation is well understood among health physicists (unlike long-retired pediatricians, these are the folks with actual relevant expertise). When radiotherapy is used to save a man's life from prostate cancer, the doses (from multiple visits) run into several tens of thousands of millisieverts (not the 50 this guy was exposed to). That has been known to cause some bladder cancer with a latency period in the 20-40 year range.

There is no plausible connection between a dose thousands of times lower and a metastatic bladder cancer just a few months later. There's just an ambulance-chasing attorney trying to make a buck on the poor guy's suffering.

More...

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffects.shtml

You don't know the difference between rems and msv - do you?

[Octafish]

12. You side with the nuclear industry's PR department.

Their record is that of one Big Lie after another.

http://www.culturechange.org/n_power.htm

[bananas]

13. They under-estimate everything: construction cost, construction time, probability of meltdown, etc.

Only an idiot would believe their crap.

[Octafish]

14. Were they to tell the truth, no one would support nuclear power.

Uninsurable industry, imperfect technology, existing to create materials for weapons of planetary destruction ...what's not for an idiot to like?

[FBaggins]

15. Lol... but you think that reality itself is part of the nuclear PR dept.

It's really quite entertaining.

[Octafish]

16. No. You and Big Nuke say small amounts of radiation are not harmful.

That is not true.

Details:

Startling Revelations About Three Mile Island (Nuclear) Disaster
Raise doubts over nuclear plant safety

bySue Sturgis
CommonDreams, Friday, April 03, 2009
by Facing South

It was April Fool's Day, 1979 -- 30 years ago this week -- when Randall Thompson first set foot inside the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Just four days earlier, in the early morning hours of March 28, a relatively minor problem in the plant's Unit 2 reactor sparked a series of mishaps that led to the meltdown of almost half the uranium fuel and uncontrolled releases of radiation into the air and surrounding Susquehanna River.

It was the single worst disaster ever to befall the U.S. nuclear power industry, and Thompson was hired as a health physics technician to go inside the plant and find out how dangerous the situation was. He spent 28 days monitoring radiation releases.

Today, his story about what he witnessed at Three Mile Island is being brought to the public in detail for the first time -- and his version of what happened during that time, supported by a growing body of other scientific evidence, contradicts the official U.S. government story that the Three Mile Island accident posed no threat to the public.

"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson told Facing South. "Hundreds of times worse."


CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/04/03/startling-revelations-about-three-mile-island-nuclear-disaster

For those interested in learning what FBaggins doesn't want you to know, lots more info n links here: http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/three-mile-island-coverups-exposed.html

[FBaggins]

17. Thanks for proving my point so quickly

No. You and Big Nuke say small amounts of radiation are not harmful.

Wrong. It's what all of the experts say (using the currently-discussed 50 msv as the definition for "small amounts&quot . There are no health physicists or radiation oncologists or radiation physicists who would do anything but laugh at a claim that a 50 msv dose caused bladder cancer mere months later.

It's just that you believe that all of those experts are part of "Big Nuke" - so you can safely dismiss them and instead listen to the lunatic fringe of the anti-nuclear movement (like the crackpot site you just linked to).

[Octafish]

19. Nuclear energy is not safe.

Radioactive leaks found at 75% of US nuke sites

AP June 21, 2011, 9:07 AM

BRACEVILLE, Ill. - Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.

Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard -- sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.

While most leaks have been found within plant boundaries, some have migrated offsite. But none is known to have reached public water supplies.

At three sites -- two in Illinois and one in Minnesota -- leaks have contaminated drinking wells of nearby homes, the records show, but not at levels violating the drinking water standard. At a fourth site, in New Jersey, tritium has leaked into an aquifer and a discharge canal feeding picturesque Barnegat Bay off the Atlantic Ocean.

Previously, the AP reported that regulators and industry have weakened safety standards for decades to keep the nation's commercial nuclear reactors operating within the rules. While NRC officials and plant operators argue that safety margins can be eased without peril, critics say these accommodations are inching the reactors closer to an accident.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-leaks-found-at-75-of-us-nuke-sites/

It's underreported: Nuclear energy is not safe.

[FBaggins]

20. Did you have anything that was relevant to the thread?

Or are you just stuck on "Bluster" ?

It's underreported: Nuclear energy is not safe.

Because some plants leak tritium?

No doubt the lunatic fringe finds that scary... but surely we can stick to at least the appearance of reasonable discourse?

[Octafish]

21. So all you have is ad hominem, FBaggins?

Interesting, I was just reading about people who act that way online.

What are the differences between a Flamer, Troll and Shill?

Small world, ah?

[FBaggins]

22. How ironic

[Octafish]

23. I don't find people injured by nuclear power and the related industries funny.

I also don't appreciate my tax dollars going to support welfare for warmongers feeding off the nuclear trough.

http://www.wiseinternational.org/home