Talk:Fukushima 50

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notability should be obvious

I find it appalling that anyone would question the notability of the "50". There might be privacy issues but these fifty people are heroic and should be treated with the great respect due notables.

Don'tcha know about the Chernobyl 28 and the long list that got "lost"?

Whatever issues may pertain to this entry, which may be problematic, I don't think the English word "notable" does justice to the matter before us.

Keep.Geofferybard (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The pages of history are full of heroes who created for themselves roles of glorious valor which they played at decisive moments. Likewise the pages of history are also full of heroic and glorious roles which never found heroes to perform them." - Gamal Abd al-Nasser, 1955 Tim Riches, Brampton, Ontario (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

The 2 missing workers were lost in the tsunami, not the fire at reactor 4.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original name

Original name, it's first mention are 50 skeleton staff before named as fukushima 50. Daimond (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal We Eliminate This Article

... Unpopular though it may prove. My reasoning: At the start of the disaster the plant was normally staffed. Then some people were sent home until there were 50 (exactly?) present. Then many of those fifty were sent off and there were a lesser number. Then a hundred-some-odd people were brought back in. Then reports arose some workers were approaching allowable dose limits and those workers might have to be sent off for their safety. The number of people at the plant has fluctuated day-by-day and, although that population may have settled at or near a count that alliterates well in English with "Fukushima", this coincidental alliteration is not relevant to anything but an explanation of a quirky headline. This should be a work of biography, yet the term "Fukushima 50" is all but meaningless. There would likely never be a way to settle WHICH fifty people this biography was about. Background: In the first week after 9/11/01, I was at the World Trade Center ("Ground Zero" - another quirkily attached phrase put in place by a news organisation) and, in my experience, the public perception of the rescue and recovery effort was largely shaped by just such quirky headlines, catch phrases, and sound bites, each of which provided INaccurate insights into that effort. No encyclopedic attempt to document what actually happened at the WTC after the collapses would benefit from focusing on such quips. That would only be appropriate in an article documenting the public perception. The same is true with Fukushima. Unless it really is Wikipedia's mission to explain quirky headlines, we ought eliminate the article. It certainly is not biographical.RobertSegal (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching with the Japanese term 「英雄フクシマ50」 seems to indicate this is Western media only. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question would be whether the concept exists in japan, not the identical phrase describing it. Nor does it really matter whether there are exactly 50 people concerned, there will be a defined group which fits this description. The western media I have seen give the impression that this group does exist in Japan. There is some reason to believe that even if the group does not yet exist, it soon will. Wikipedia does not seek to document reality, as you suggest, but precisely documents perceptions. Thus the reliance upon referencing. Furthermore wikipedia has the luxury of doing very much more than any encyclopedia before it. Obviously we do not. Sandpiper (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Searching with the term suggested above for Japanese, and reading the Japanese pages that result, shows that the Japanese say that this is a term created in the Western Media to refer to people at the powerplant. Or atleast, that's what I found. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we said, then, at art school, 50 frightfully frequent flipping times a fortnight: "Perception is reality." But, then, we were doing sculpture and architecture, not covering the news/history/biography. "Wikipedia does not seek to document reality"? Well, then. I came here for news about a power plant disaster. Shall I go elsewhere for the facts? Oh and please change the home page to warn in large, red, flashing letters: DRAW NO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT REALITY HEREFROM. </good-natured sarcasm>
Using the phrase "precisely documents" regarding this article fails, though, because accuracy and precision are two distinct and unrelated things. It is accurate to say a group of heroic workers remained at a dangerous location to do important work. It is not at all precise to say there were fifty of them, so the article, at least, would be improved by addressing that head-on at the start, rather than subordinating the section "Exact number of workers" almost to the end. And then the article would also have to back off its insistence the term has validity, instead of the continual underscoring of the phrase's presumed importance now featured. Phrases such as, "Fukushima 50 has remained the name used..." are self-perpetuating. Surely that must be obvious? This isn't strictly reporting or recoding; it's attempting to change perception. Not good ground to tread for Wiki. Remove such insistent passages and see the article for what it could be. There can be no other agenda then clarity. Celebrating sound bites, putting forward style over substance isn't laudable.
The FF term would, of course, only have legs in languages in which it alliterates. "Fukushima Ko-ju" (or however it's pronounced) will never catch on, nor will it get an encyclopedia entry, even in Japan. Understand why and it becomes immediately apparent why such a title for this page is fatuous -- and without it's title, why the page at all? If the subject is not to be folded as a footnote (metaphorically) into the main article, it ought be stripped of its pretenses to technical information (it's FULL of those!) and reduced to a minimum. Omit needless words. And sentences.
And articles.
Let it stand, then as a resource for Wiki readers who wonder "Who're these Foo-foo Fifty I keep hearing about?" but reduce it down to it's essentials. Had I the (whatever one needs to thrash another's writing), I'd have the entire article read


Fukushima 50 is the name given in Western media to the employees of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant who remained on-site after 750 workers deemed non-essential were evacuated during the Fukushima I nuclear accidents on the morning 15 March 2011 to continue their attempts to bring the reactors under control.[1]

The term, a misnomer because the number of such persons fluctuated over the course of the crisis, nonetheless gained popular acceptance as a tag for those workers.

The workers were employeees of Toshiba, Hitachi, TEPCO and its subsidiaries such as TEP Industry and TEP Environmental Engineering Over 20 workers had injured by 18 March, including one who was exposed to lots of Ionizing radiation when the worker tried to vent vapour from a valve of Containment building.[2]


Praise For The Workers

Acknowledging their bravery, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, said: "You are the only ones who can resolve a crisis. Retreat is unthinkable."[3] Media outlets lauded the remaining workers bravery as "heroes", and as a result they have become known in the media as the Fukushima 50. France 24 called them "Japan's faceless heroes",[15] British newspaper, The Guardian wrote: "Other nuclear power employees, as well as the wider population, can only look on in admiration".[16] They have been compared to the 47 Ronin1.

... And then refer the reader to the article about the plant disaster for details. That's it. That's the whole article. Attempts to describe the working conditions or radiation levels or what-not will fail (even the MAIN article is having difficulty handling that task!) and are inappropriate.RobertSegal (talk)
I'd like to keep the article. Even though it's a name made by the western media, there seems to be a significant enough interest to preserve it, similar to the Chernobyl workers.MartinezMD (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Workers

Oh, and "They are likely older workers, beyond reproductive age..."??? WHAT THE...? Who let THAT remain in there????!?! First, it's bald speculation and should be eliminated. Second, it's not the same thing as, "Such volunteers likely are not planning on having additional children". And third, it's bloody offensive (just speaking as a former reactor operator no longer in his thirties who aspires to fathering offspring)! But, since I did not write it, I cannot be first in line to delete it. RobertSegal (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do triage the older workers for the higher dose (volunteers of course). Being past reproductive years, or having a shorter remaining lifespan to reduce cancer risks, gives them less risk than younger workers. I'll see if I can find an article referring it to Fukushima.MartinezMD (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go:

"The crews are not necessarily made up of strong young men. Emergency nuclear scenarios suggest asking older retirees to volunteer, not because they're more expendable, or even because they're more skilled, but because even if they're exposed to massive amounts of radiation, history has shown they would die of old age before they die of radiation induced cancers, which can take decades to develop."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/fukushima-50-line-defense-japanese-nuclear-complex/story?id=13147746&page=2 and

Japan's Nuclear Volunteers Likely Older Workers "No one is sacrificing themselves. Encouraging older workers is based on the idea that they are past their reproductive life, not on the basis of cancer risk," said Hall. "It was common practice years ago when radium was used in hospitals to have 'older' workers as radium custodians... [because they are] past their reproductive years."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/fukushima-50-line-defense-japanese-nuclear-complex/story?id=13147746&page=3


There are other sources out there too, but this is typical nuclear worker triage.

MartinezMD (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If somebody specifically used words that inadvisable, then those words should appear in a direct quote, as in

Hall (or whoever), who wasn't the brightest bulb in the marquee when it came to expressing himself, opined, "They are likely older workers, beyond reproductive age."

Besides, Hall (specifically) was not talking about Fukushima but about "years ago when radium was used", so the wording is inappropriate for two reasons and ought be removed.

But more to the point, men don't go (in so far as gonadal longevity is concerned) "beyond reproductive years." That's just a dumb (or maybe inappropriately poetic) way to phrase "they're not gonna have more kids". An acceptable alternative would have tied lack of foreseen further reproduction on the male worker's part to their behaviour choices, if not imposed health constraints. But the phrasing as it stands is just wrong. Wikipedia should not fill with nonsense, even if it is accurately quoted nonsense, when higher quality, alternate source material abounds.

BTW: This is from the Wikipedia Manual of Style and goes a ways to make the same point as I about the existence of this article: Capitalize the names or titles of individual creatures (the Minotaur, the Pegasus) and of groups whose name and membership are fixed (the Magi or the Three Wise Men, the Cherubim). The name isn't fixed simply because Wikipedia insists so, and the membership isn't fixed at all. The F50 don't even seem to meet the standards to attain capitalisation (except that Fukushima is already upper case; "fifty" probably shouldn't be).

RobertSegal (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why assume the workers are men? I'll agree that men they can reproduce until late in life, most women cannot. Also, whether talking about hospital techs or women painting watch hands (radium paint) or power generation, the point is the same - older people are less likely to suffer long-term radiation effects simply because they won't live a long-enough life, and the older people get the less likely they will (or can) have children. I don't object to making the wording more delicate, but your initial comment seems to be based more on being offended about your age than the trueness of the policy. I'm not getting any younger either. MartinezMD (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Maybe one day I'll have lived long enough to be erroneously pigeon-holed as "couldn't possibly manage any kids at his age". But by even fairly loose editing standards, the line was (and remains) problematic, so enough about my personal feelings and please don't impugn the motives of others.
Delicate? It's not a question of delicacy or anything like. It needed changing because it was incorrect. I'm not sure where anyone's assumed all the workers were men. But neither were all the workers women, so, as far as the sentence's validity being contingent upon the gender of those workers? Well, if even a single worker in the group were male, the statement would fall into the "needs a re-write" category. With the sentence improved, the point is, in any event, moot.
So here are the current issues with just that sentence: 1) It should read "unlikely to have further children". 2) "They are likely..." indicates the sentence is a guess on the part of its Wikipedia author(s) and is not backed up by citation. (No, I don't know who wrote it and I haven't bothered to look into it.) 3) The citation that is given is not relevant to the sentence, possibly having ended up there through errors as editions changed but I've not expended the effort to backtrack how the citation came to be where it is.
I'm only interested in this as a copy editor, not because of age, experience, or gender bias.
RobertSegal (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you see I already made a change to that section, and I apologize if I offended -didn't intend that, but you did make an emotional argument in a least a couple of sections of your post (capital letters, several question marks with exclamation, and stating specifically you had been offended).MartinezMD (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers

Interesting edit just made. The workers may or may not be volunteers. The source the IP editor used apparently is quite critical. Anyone have other references? I made the wording more neutral ("assigned" rather than "forced") because TEPCO may have wanted to pull out but asked for volunteers when told they (as a company) couldn't. We don't know if they were truly coerced yet(for all we know they could've used incentives). MartinezMD (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the PM rushed to TEPCO main office and said in anger: "Withdrawal is unthinkable. If you do that, TEPCO will go bankrupt 100%". It was early morning of March 15 the PM "exploded" for three hours. According to the article, TEPCO mentioned withdrawal on March 14. So TEPCO could be forced though the whole situation is TEPCO's, the company's, responsibility because they had underestimated the risks and prepared poor backups that amazed people. But speaking about the workers, not a little Japanese workers tend to think that it is fate or try to accept the role as far as it's about their job even when they are appointed to face the life threatening situations like this, saying "Just because somebody has to do this" or "It's about my job". I can't say the Fukushima workers are forced for now. Everybody there is taking life-threatening risks in recent days. They are not only the TEPCO people but also Toshiba, Hitachi, small local Fukushima companies that works at the plant, Tokyo Fire Department and Japan Self-Defense Forces. Around 1000 people are gathering to the plant including Fukushima 50. I think it's less likely that they are forced.--Orcano (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Article "Disposable workers"

Well, I have today added information stemming from German media claiming that TEPCO has a long history of using uninformed homeless people, underaged people and foreign workers in the most exposed locations discarding them once they have received the most radiation they can. Other editors have however found that this needs no mention in the article. I don't follow their reasoning, but I'm not sure I am going to stay to argue the issue. __meco (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the German article through Google translate after you post it at Fukushima 50, partly I don't get the German article accurately because of the machine translation. So I made some research in Japanese language. I think it's about another problem that TEPCO seems to traditionally have as I can see some other sources in Japanese. So, it must be suitable at Nuclear power in Japan and TEPCO because it's problem of it. Actually, I am now interested in it because it has to be informed if it's true. But thinking of Fukushima 50, they are all volunteering to stay or cut in the risky situation and having mutual understanding that they have possibilities of dying there if something happens. So I think it's different topic from Fukushima 50.--Orcano (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who deleted it. This are important questions and preliminary results from a serious journalist.
BUT: i cannot see enough relation to the FUKUSHIMA 50. And probably this insults their work, and this is probably the last thing they ever do. Try other articles. Sexandlove (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New post has been made according to new interview with Robert Hetkämper. This time I could see he clearly said he suspected it, and the post clearly says he is suspicious that there would be workers who are not aware how dangerous task it is because of the ground of nuclear work environment he has researched. Personally, I suspect his view about 1000 workers fighting there because everybody knows it's dangerous and people gathered there knowing it. I feel bad at him wondering "Could you stop it for now? We'll do it later". I think the reality is he is just copying image of Chernobyl in his brain. At Chernobyl in 1986 Soviet Union, lots of people who stayed or went there didn't even wear hazmat suits, stayed overtime and died. He underrated people in 2011 too much. That's one of the reason why nobody else says they don't know, though I can understand what he says about regular basis of nuclear workers.
Anyway, I felt the post was well-balanced and satisfying neutrality in many ways (I felt the position "Media reaction" was perfect now). We are lucky to have German speaking Wikipedian who strives to maintain WP:NPOV. --Orcano (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

It feels like this article is missing a proper intro paragraph. I suggest building an overview intro paragraph, and heading the current information of the top section as "history". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the intro have to be modified somehow. I don't know if the section should be "history" or not. I wanted to modifying the intro but considering my English skill, it is more likely to make everything messed up.... somebody, please....--Orcano (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese PM put pressure on the workers?

It is even unimaginable that PM directly put pressure on the workers. Fox news was broadcasting wrong information.[2]

The engineers are trying to cool nuclear reactors with seawater, while trying to avoid fires and explosions.
"You are the only ones who can resolve a crisis. Retreat is unthinkable," Japanese Prime Minister Naota Kan told them, the Financial Times reported.

So I checked the Financial times article including the phrase "Retreat is unthinkable.". It was [3] this.

-it appeared to cross Mr Kan’s mind that Tepco might abandon the plant altogether. Conjuring the language of war, he is reported as saying: “Retreat is unthinkable.”

The phrase was against TEPCO admin people at the main office of TEPCO which is like 200km away from Fukushima I power plant.--Orcano (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiwo Maru II

Should this article mention that the Kaiwo Maru II is being used to house workers? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They use Kaiwo Maru, right? I think it's fairy related, then.--Orcano (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

daily schedule of them

I put articles here. Need help enriching the schedule part.

correcting English and collecting English sources

There must be lots of errors and unusual expression in the article that could make readers confused or puzzled. I suppose mostly they are made by me. I need some help correcting them as I cannot even notice I am writing wrong. Also in some part, I could only found Japanese sources. I think this article and the readers need English sources more than Japanese sources for securing its verifiability. Google Translate (only) to English really works, but not perfect. Some people might think I can do it by myself, but it is not very easy for me because I need long time to read through English article due to my English fluency. Then, collecting English sources are way difficult though I know readers need English sources first. If you found a part citing a Japanese source without any English equivalent, I want to ask you trying to put English source next to it.--Orcano (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this source helpful: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/asia/31workers.html?src=mv
I added some details from the article into the lead, but you might find others. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense

This article is written in the present tense in many places. It would be good if someone could go through and correct it now that the incident is over (don't ask me, I'm more of an "idea person" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.29.123 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to them?

Did any of them get cancer? Die? --Tennenrishin (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Material

The passage "In context, immediate symptoms become apparent if exposed to above 250 mSv per day. Symptoms include nausea and loss of appetite as well as damage to bone marrow, lymph nodes and the spleen. Generally, these symptoms become more severe and noticeable in the 1000 to 3000 mSv bracket with recovery probable, but not assured. New and more serious symptoms appear above 3000 mSv such as peeling of the skin, hemorrhaging and sterility with death if left untreated." is not relevant to the scope of the section it contains, and the links are of dubious quality.

There are a number of other places where the actual dosages received by workers are discussed, and their actual effects, and not really any reason to speculate about what might happen if they sustained the astronomical quantities in the above passage, so I'm going to remove it for the time being.128.252.20.193 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ya, there are other articles covering radiation injury. It isn't needed here other than a link.MartinezMD (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fukushima 50. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Fukushima_50"