Another one! 8.8 Earthquake shakes Japan

[UCLAri]

<p>Oh, and one more fun chart about radiation: <a href=“http://xkcd.com/radiation/[/url]”>http://xkcd.com/radiation/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[SV2]

<p>This is appalling:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/world/asia/10workers.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/world/asia/10workers.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

They are emblematic of Japan’s two-tiered work force, with an elite class of highly paid employees at top companies and a subclass of laborers who work for less pay, have less job security and receive fewer benefits. Such labor practices have both endangered the health of these workers and undermined safety at Japan’s 55 nuclear reactors, critics charge.</p>

<p>“This is the hidden world of nuclear power,” said Yuko Fujita, a former physics professor at Keio University in Tokyo and a longtime campaigner for improved labor conditions in the nuclear industry. “Wherever there are hazardous conditions, these laborers are told to go. It is dangerous for them, and it is dangerous for nuclear safety.”

</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>SV2,</p>

<p>The itinerant worker population is actually emblematic of a greater problem in Japan, which is that much of the labor force belongs to the “arubeit” class of worker. </p>

<p>While I suppose that as ***ushima unfolds further we’ll be exposed to more problems, I’m actually somewhat impressed with the converse: that such lax safety standards were so common, yet so few problems occurred. It suggests to me that the designs themselves were, despite being decades old, fairly good.</p>

<p>That’s not to excuse TEPCO of course, but it’s an incredible thought that despite poor standards the plants managed to run for so long without incident.</p>

<p>

Working conditions have improved over the years, experts say. While exposure per worker dropped in the 1990s as safety standards improved, government statistics show, the rates have been rising since 2000, partly because there have been more accidents as reactors age. Moreover, the number of workers in the industry has risen, as the same tasks are carried out by more employees to reduce individual exposure levels.

</p>

<p>This is, I think, one of the best arguments for new nuclear builds than anything. Newer plants are safer, easier to manage. Time and time again, it’s old plants that are problems. </p>

<p>The fact is, we need energy, and we need energy that’s less carbon-intensive and provides a lot of baseline power. Nuclear isn’t perfect, but it’s a helluva lot better than building out coal.</p>