
Masao Yoshida, Nuclear Engineer and Chief at Fukushima Plant, Dies at 58 - turoczy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-nuclear-engineer-and-chief-at-fukushima-plant-dies-at-58.html
======
tptacek
Here's the NYTimes on the same story:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-
yoshida-n...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-
nuclear-engineer-and-chief-at-fukushima-plant-dies-at-58.html?_r=0)

Key graf: "Mr. Yoshida took a leave from Tokyo Electric in late 2011 after
receiving a diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Experts have said his illness was
not a result of radiation exposure from the accident, given how quickly it
came on."

~~~
mattm
Most likely due to stress

~~~
daliusd
Most likely no:

"Although stress can cause a number of physical health problems, the evidence
that it can cause cancer is weak. Some studies have indicated a link between
various psychological factors and an increased risk of developing cancer, but
others have not."

From
[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress](http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress)

~~~
mattm
If you read this book - [http://www.amazon.ca/When-Body-Says-No-
Hidden/dp/0676973124](http://www.amazon.ca/When-Body-Says-No-
Hidden/dp/0676973124) \- you may re-think that.

------
adamlj
Fukushima disaster has not raised cancer risks [1]

We need more nuclear power and less nuclear scaremongering.

[1] [http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/un-report-
fukushim...](http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/un-report-fukushima-
disaster-no-cancer-risk)

~~~
coldtea
> _We need more nuclear power and less nuclear scaremongering._

And why not more investment in solar power and renewable energy sources,
instead of a potentially dangerous industry that produces extremely toxic
waste, and can fuck everything around it in case of a terrorist attack,
meltdown, etc?

~~~
ars
> that produces extremely toxic waste

Solar power produces far far more toxic waste per energy produced.

~~~
coldtea
Citation needed.

~~~
ddeck
> Citation needed.

No idea regarding relative amounts/toxicity etc., but I presume they are
referring to these issues:

[http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-
wast...](http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-
wastes-184714679.html)

------
afreak
This headline is scaremongering at its worst.

>The ex-head of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant Masao Yoshida, 58,
died at a Tokyo hospital of esophageal cancer on July 9, 2013. Doctors have
maintained repeatedly that Yoshida’s illness has had nothing to do with
exposure to high doses of radiation.

> [...]

> On November 28, 2011, Yoshida was admitted to hospital, where cancer was
> diagnosed.

It's fortunate that the article points out that the exposure does not
correlate to the incident in the first place, but I get the feeling that the
headline given here is link-bait at its worst.

As far as I can tell you, you cannot get cancer six months after being exposed
to a high degree of radiation. You either die shortly after a large dose or
something appears years if not decades later.

Cancer is a seemingly random, yet likely event.

~~~
RK
I just grabbed my radiobiology textbook off the shelf (Radiobiology for the
Radiologist, for those keeping score). It claims that the latent period
between radiation exposure and the appearance of a malignancy is years. The
shortest is for leukemia, which averages 5-7 years. Solid tumors can take
decades to appear.

This is certainly in line with the doctors' claims.

------
ddxexex
"Had he obeyed the order, the whole of north eastern Japan would possibly have
been uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries."

I'm a bit confused by this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with nuclear
weapons, but people still live in these cities today. How does the radiation
from a nuclear meltdown (like Chernobyl) differ from the fallout of a nuclear
weapon like with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

~~~
orthecreedence
I may be completely ignorant as I'm not an authority on the subject, but I
think it's the difference between the radioactive materials being
exploded/vaporized vs shot into the atmosphere (without being vaporized/broken
down) and distributed in the general area.

With the the A-bombs, the radiation that people suffered wasn't from the
radioactive materials in the weapon itself, but the radiation from such a huge
explosion.

With Chernobyl, the radioactive materials were sent into the air and settled
around the vicinity, making many parts of it still very radioactive to this
day.

~~~
mpyne
Pretty much, but the largest factor was simply the sheer difference in scale
between the A-bombs and the reactors at Chernobyl. With the A-bombs there was
simply simply less fission fragments and other radioactive products to worry
about due to there being far less nuclear fuel and surrounding material that
could be irradiated and itself made radioactive.

------
Daiz
The headline of this article reminds me of this one article I saw a good while
back that basically said "SOME DUDE WHO WORKED ON FUKUSHIMA HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED
WITH CANCER!"

Then at the end of the (short) article it was mentioned that "oh, by the way,
doctors are saying that it has nothing to do with Fukushima and he has been a
chain smoker for decades. Never mind the blatant link baiting and
scaremongering that was the entire rest of the article, it's just what sells!"

I'm having a hard time locating that article now, but maybe that's for the
better. It's pretty sad how common stuff like this is when it comes to
reporting on nuclear energy.

~~~
panacea
>I'm having a hard time locating that article now

Irradiated tubes?

------
mathattack
The courage of Japanese managers in the line of duty in situations like this
is commendable. Similar examples were found during the Sarin gas bombings.

~~~
owyn
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire)

Was just reading about this the other night... During Britain's worst nuclear
accident, reactor manager Tom Tuohy climbed on top of the burning reactor to
examine it several times during the incident.

"Tom Tuohy then ordered everyone out of the reactor building except himself
and the Fire Chief in order to shut off all cooling and ventilating air
entering the reactor. Tuohy then climbed up several times and reported
watching the flames leaping from the discharge face slowly dying away."

He lived to the age of 90...

~~~
lostlogin
Just a recommendation that everyone read the above link. It's incredible.
Especially as its a direct quote. Has anyone else done this? Let alone live?

------
D9u
Mr Yoshida is a true hero, and I send my condolences to his family & friends.

------
akandiah
> Doctors have maintained repeatedly that Yoshida’s illness has had nothing to
> do with exposure to high doses of radiation.

Is there any validity to this claim?

~~~
maaku
I am not an MD, but...

The time it takes for most cancers to develop far enough to be picked up by
these sorts of diagnosis techniques is far, far longer than the few months
which had elapsed between the Fukushima event and his diagnosis.

------
rikacomet
This makes for a observation for us all, that life is precious indeed, but at
times we must trade that for the many other precious lives.

From a Administrative point of view, I would love to get a record of what
methods, were used by him, to keep his men in line. Though I do have a Idea,
what it would be, but actual facts would be more revealing.

From a Human point of view, I would call him a hero, and all his co-workers as
well. And take an oath that if time would come for me to take a similar
decision, i.e, to "STAY SO OTHERS CAN LIVE" I would in all probability take
that.

From a Citizen point of view, I feel that, yes nuclear plants are very
dangerous, it is to remember that the call of the hour is that I'm a
entrepreneur, and the only way I can help make this all better is to do, what
we do best: Innovate. And Search for more safer, better, alternate ways of
mass electricity production.

------
tonylemesmer
He sounds like a hero for his actions after the failure at the plant (and I
commend him and his team for this), but what about his leadership before which
allowed the plant to get into such a situation?

I'm not saying it was his fault, I'm merely curious as to how such an
important enterprise could be so ill equipped on so many levels.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Well, he apologized for it.

Things like "how high do we build the levees around New Orleans" are
inherently political. When it comes down to it, you pays your money and you
takes your chances. You cannot know how high is high enough.

Taking over after that disaster was in itself an act of courage. Those old GE
reactors just have ... "features" that are dangerous.

~~~
mathrawka
Speaking of knowing how high is high enough... Yanosuke Hirai was responsible
for forcing a 46-foot wall to be built at a different powerplant. In
Fukushima, the 19-foot wall didn't do much to stop the 43-foot tsunami[1]

1:
[http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tena...](http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html)

------
dangayle
I read this story this morning. Would make for a good movie.

