Japan’s Nuclear Nightmare
Posted on March 18, 2011 by Tim Shorrock 
Part One: Japan, Democracy, and the Globalization of Nuclear Power(Updated 
throughout 3/20/2011) 
Part Two:Nuclear Gypsies (posted 3/20/2011)
Update: My interview about the Japanese nuclear crisis on RT’s Alyona Show on 
3/18/2011.
Since I woke up last Friday, I’ve 
been monitoring the terrible earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan and 
watching with horror as the Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s  nuclear complex 
in Fukushima transformed a natural catastrophe into an environmental 
crisis of the first order. It’s been a painful experience because I grew up in 
Tokyo, have a Japanese step-mother, and have many friends, both American and 
Japanese, living there.
The unfolding nuclear disaster has also 
triggered memories of the times I spent in Japan as a journalist in the 
1980s, when I wrote for and worked closely with a Japanese citizen’s 
group called Pacific Asia Resource Center (PARC), which was organized in the 
1960s by Japanese antiwar, environmental and labor activists and became a 
regional center that build close ties with people’s movements throughout Asia. 
One of the activists I met during 
that time was the lateDr. Jinzaburo Takagi, who went to co-found the Citizens’ 
Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), Japan’s most prominent opponent of nuclear 
energy and an important 
source of news and information about the current crisis at Fukushima 
(click here for CNIC’s statement on the crisis).
Because of that experience, I was quite familiar with TEPCO, the 
world’s third-largest utility, and its long history of falsifying 
records and playing down the dangers of atomic power and radiation. 
Partly out of that knowledge, I posted my story, “TEPCO’s Shady History,” on 
March 14.
But, as my friends and family know, I’m a pack rat, and my apartment 
in Northwest Washington, D.C, is filled with dozens of boxes of files 
from my years as an Asian-focused journalist. It turns out that many of 
my first articles were about nuclear power and U.S. nuclear exports to 
the region. This week I’ve been digging threw my archives and have found some 
timely – and disturbing – reports from myself and others on the 
nuclear industry, its labor force (many of whom were low-wage 
subcontractors called “nuclear gypsies” who did the most dangerous 
tasks), and how the industry subverted both the environment and Japan’s 
democracy.
Many of these articles were published in AMPO, PARC’S news and research 
quarterly, and other movement publications (“AMPO” is short for the 
U.S.-Japanese Security Treaty, which was a prime target of the Japanese antiwar 
movement for much of 
the 1960s and 1970s). I want to share some excerpts of this work to shed light 
on the history of nuclear power in Japan and on TEPCO’s Fukushima plant itself. 
I’ve scanned many of these articles so you can read them 
in full for yourself.
I begin this primer with an article I co-authored with Peter Hayes, 
an Australian writer and activist who for many years has directed the Nautilus 
Institute, a think-tank that focuses on Northeast Asian energy and political 
issues (Peter has been interviewed extensively in the media about the 
Japan disaster, as you can see on the website). Our AMPO article (PDF) was 
mostly about South Korea, which has a massive nuclear power industry as well as 
a robust anti-nuclear movement. But we went back and traced how the nuclear 
industry spread globally, first in Europe and then in Asia:
Dumping Reactors in Asia. AMPO/1982
The nuclear industry was born a deformed monster in Japan when the U.S. 
warplane Enola Gay dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. 
Afterwards, the U.S. 
attempted to monopolize nuclear technology, until the Soviet Union 
exploded the dream in 1949. In December 1955, U.S. President Eisenhower 
announced a second birth in the nuclear family, the “Atoms for Peace” 
program. It was designed from the start as a global industry whose 
technology would be provided by U.S. companies. By 1956, the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission and the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) had agreed to assist two 
dozen countries which entered “Agreement for Cooperation” with cheap, 
subsidized money, enriched uranium and technical assistance worth (at the time) 
$250 million.
But this commercial “kid brother” of the nuclear bomb 
grew slowly. While the military spawned dozens of nuclear-powered 
submarines – a lucrative market for nuclear vendors like Westinghouse – 
the first flush of nuclear enthusiasm procuded mostly small research 
reactor sales in the United States. Power reactor sites in the U.S. were 
stalled during the late 1950s by the debate over private-versus-public 
atomic power. It was the European stampede for nuclear power known as “Eurotom” 
(or European Atomic Energy Community, founded in 1957) that provided 
the first great opportunity for U.S. nuclear vendors – an opportunity 
precluded at home by political forces and economic constraints. This 
story was repeated in Asia in the 1970s.
>From their European springboard, the U.S. light water 
reactor manufacturers plunged aggressively into the U.S. market, 
beginning with the Oyster Creek General Electric plant in 1963 (Note: it 
remains the oldest operating nuclear power plant in the U.S., and shares the 
same design share as the reactors at the Fukushima 
Daiichi complex). This project was quickly followed up by eight more 
“loss leader” plants where vendors charged buyers less than cost to 
establish a market. From the turnkey market, the industry leapt to the 
“bandwagon” market, with U.S. utilities jostling to place 104 orders 
between 1966 and 197o. After 1962, the U.S. industry moved quickly to 
adopt partners overseas. In Japan, GE licenced Toshiba (which built the 
Fukushima reactors using GE technology) and Hitachi. In France, 
Westinghouse licensed Framatone…
Then it happened: the Bandwagon crashed into a wall of 
anti-nucleaer action, safety regulations, escalating cost, declining 
electricity demand, utility generating over-capacity and technological 
failure – all culminating in Three Mile Island in 1979…A wave of order 
cancellations and deferrals hit the industry in the stomach.
Since then, the U.S. industry has never been the same – and has 
looked overseas, in countries like Japan, South Korea and now China, for its 
sales. In a sign of the times, Westinghouse, once the biggest name 
in the nuclear industry, was sold in 2006 to Japan’s Toshiba, the maker 
of the Fukushima reactors.
The current state of the Japanese nuclear industry. Japan’s first commercial 
reactor began operating in 1966, and nuclear energy 
has been a national priority since 1973. Currently, the country’s 55 
reactors provide some 30 percent of Japan’s electricity. That figure is 
expected to increase to at least 40 percent by 2017, according to the World 
Nuclear Association, an industry group (the source of the graphic to the left – 
click here for a CNIC map of all nuclear power projects in Asia).
But as the proverbial song goes, “there’s a hole in the bucket, dear 
Henry, dear Henry, there’s a hole in the bucket, dear Henry, a hole.” In fact, 
there’s several big holes: I’m speaking of the industry’s and 
government’s tendency to play up the positives of nuclear power and 
ignore its many downsides; the undemocratic nature of the siting and 
building process, which has historically excluded citizens’ groups and 
made it very hard to oppose – let alone block – the construction of new 
plants; and the two-tiered labor system, which has created an underclass of 
contract workers – “nuclear gypsies” – who do the dirty work at the 
plants and suffer the most from radiation and other industrial diseases.
I first became aware of the seriousness of these issues in 1981. 
During one of my visits to Japan, the media was filled with stories 
about a major radioactive spill at the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui 
Prefecture. As recounted in History.com:
Tsuruga lies near Wakasa Bay on the west coast of Japan.  Approximately 60,000 
people lived in the area surrounding the atomic  
power plant.  On March 9, a worker forgot to shut a critical valve,  
causing a radioactive sludge tank to overflow.  Fifty-six workers were  
sent in to mop up the radioactive sludge before the leak could escape  
the disposal building, but the plan was not successful and 16 tons of  
waste spilled into Wakasa Bay.
Despite the obvious risk to people eating contaminated 
fish caught in  the bay, Japan’s Atomic Power Commission made no public 
mention of the  accident or spill.  The public was told nothing of the 
accident until  more than a month later, when a newspaper caught wind of and 
reported  the story.  By then, seaweed in the area was found to 
have radioactive  levels 10 times greater than normal.  Cobalt-60 levels were 
5,000 times  higher than previous highs recorded in the area.
Finally, on April 21, the Atomic Power Commission 
publicly admitted  the nuclear accident but denied that anyone had been 
exposed to  dangerous levels of radiation.  Two days later, the company 
running the  plant declared that they had not announced the accident 
right away  because of Japanese emotionalism toward anything nuclear.  
The public  also learned for the first time that, in an earlier incident at the 
same  plant in January 1981, 45 workers had been exposed to 
radiation.
RESOURCE: Chronology of 1981 Tsuruga Accident from the Japanese press (10 page 
PDF).
Among the injured workers at Tsuruga were many subcontractors. According to the 
Japan Times (this article is included in the chronology PDF above):
[The government] said 48 company subcontractors joined in the removal 
operation…exposing themselves to [radiation]…The staffers 
and subcontractors were reported to have tried to dispose of the leaked 
waste water using buckets and wiping the floor with cloths thereby 
exposing themselves to radioactivity.
According to a later report carried by UPI, quoting Japan’s Natural 
Resources and Energy Agency, “the radiation levels were 7,600 to 11,000 
times higher than normal readings.” The spill led the Japan Times to declare in 
an editorial:
What happened at Japan Atomic Power Company’s Tsuruga 
plant is more than a crime than an accident…There is little doubt that 
the leak of radioactivity there was caused by a faulty design of 
facilities and operational errors and the resulting damage magnified by 
the company’s willful attempt to hide all this…
>The plant’s operator did not inform the government of these 
accidents. Nor did it notify the inspectors stationed there. No entries 
were made in the log, it is said, concerning the leaks. In other words, 
the company as well as the plant management tried to “cover up” the 
whole thing.
Sadly, this experience has been repeated dozens of times over the past 30 years.
“No Nukes Move Carried by Working Class” — RODO JOHO/1981
The lack of democracy in the hearing process was detailed in RODO JOHO, a 
newsletter published in the 1980s by a network of militant trade unions (and 
very similar in style and politicsto Labor Notes in the United States). Part of 
its organizing included mobilizing 
against, and educating about, the public hearing system because it has 
historically been so undemocratic:
When a nuclear power plant is to be built, a “public” 
hearing is usually held as formality to gain local residents’ approval 
and tell them how safe they are. But the “public” hearings are 
that in name only. Opposition groups boycott these hearings because they are 
rigged to ensure the construction of the plants.
When many of Japan’s reactors were in the planning stage, RODO JOHO 
and other groups mobilized thousands of local workers and citizens to 
protest the lack of transparency at these hearings.
In December 1980, for example, more than 8,000 people, mainly from labor 
unions, joined local residents at Kashiwazaki in Niigata Prefecture (another 
TEPCO-owned facility and the largest 
generating plant in the world) gathered to protest against this hearing. Over 
the next few months, the activists built “Solidarity Huts” near 
the site and continued their campaign to stop expansion of the plant. 
Then, in February 1981, TEPCO obtained a court injunction to remove the 
huts and hired workers to forcibly remove them as about 1,000 riot 
police stood guard. Here’s how the incident was reported by the Japan Times 
(PDF):
In a predawn surprise operation, Tokyo Electric Power Co. removed two structure 
local residents had been using as fortresses in a campaign against the 
construction of a nuclear power plant the company 
is promoting. The operation was conducted as about 1,000 riot police 
stood guard in drizzle, but no major trouble occured…Taking notice of 
the movement, some 400 opponents assembled at the two structures called 
“Solidarity Hut” and “Beach Teahouse” they had built…They sat inside in 
an attempt to prevent the removal of the structures….The plant 
eventually will have seven reactors…An official of [TEPCO] in charge of 
the plant said he was relieved that the huts had been removed.
In 2007, an earthquake in Niigata triggered a serious accident at Kashiwazaki 
that was covered up by TEPCO, resulting in a government investigation into the 
company.
In February 1981 6,000 people participated in opposing theShimane “public” 
hearing (in western Japan). During the hearing, according to a report by the 
Kyodo News Service, 
About 50 opponents, including union leaders, demanded to 
[the chairman of the prefectural committee] that petitioners be allowed 
to explain their appeals and that spectators be allowed to witness 
committee debates. As [the chairman] refused to give in to the 
opponents’ demands, the opponents surrounded him and blocked him from 
entering the meeting room. The president of the prefectural assembly 
called police about 11:30 AM to disperse the demonstrators. In 
skirmishes with the demonstrators, police arrested two who entered the 
room, on charges of tresspassing…A prefectural organization of labor 
unions filed a protest with Matsue police, claiming that the two arrests were 
made illegally.
In March 1981, about 7,000 demonstrated against a hearing for a plant in 
Hamaoka. Their protest focused on construction of a nuclear power plant near a 
zone that scientists believe could be the epicenter of a future earthquake. 
This action received heavy coverage in the Japanese media, including this story 
from the Japan Times, via Kyodo News Service (PDF):
A total of some 7,000 protesters, consisting of labor 
union members, students and area residents, encircled the Hamaoka Town 
Hall and staged an all-night demonstration rally and sit-in…in an 
attempt to block the holding of the hearing sponsored by the Nuclear 
Safety Commission.
>The construction of the No. 3 nuclear reactor…has arounsed stong 
opposition from areas residents concerned about its safety, since 
Shizuoka Prefecture is under the constant threat of the Tokai “Great 
Earthquake,” which seismologists predict may hit the area in the near 
future…
>Demonstrators held an anti-nuclear power symposium at a nearby park, 
some 1 km away from the town hall…protesting the hearing, which they 
called undemocratic. They contended that a hearing held to present government 
opinion alone is not enough to ensure the safety of area residents.
>Some 1,500 riot policemen were mobilized to check the activities of the 
>opponents.
(Interestingly, the reactors used by Chubu Electric Power Co. were 
boiling water reactors designed by General Electric, which built the 
reactors at Fukushima. According to an April 9, 1981, account by Kyodo, Chubu 
claimed that the reactors “presented no problem, although the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reuled that a similar reactor 
belong to GE is defective…The NRC pointed out earlier that the cooling 
device in the GE’s reactor is defective.”)
Since the 1980s, the nuclear hearing process has improved, according to a 2010 
article in Nuke Info Tokyo, CINC’s newsletter:
When agreement has been received for the construction 
plan itself, it is possible for the power company to move ahead with the 
nuclear-specific procedures in parallel with the environmental 
assessment process. The first step is the first public hearing. This 
hearing is legally required under a decision by the Ministry of Economy 
Trade and Industry (METI). METI hosts the meeting and the power company 
explains its construction plan. Residents are selected from amongst 
those who have submitted public comments to present their opinions about the 
plan. The power company responds to the residents’ comments, so in 
practice, it is not so much a hearing as an explanatory meeting. 
However, it provides formal grounds for claiming that the residents’ 
opinions were taken into considerations in the safety assessment.
Once a plant is granted a license, however, it becomes very difficult to stop 
the process:
Basically, there 
are not more opportunities for public involvement after a reactor 
establishment license has been awarded. However, in reality, if the 
project is not stopped before the environmental assessment begins, the 
process just keeps moving forward. A unique exception was when a plan to 
construct a reactor in Maki Town Niigata Prefecture (now Niigata City) 
was stopped by a local referendum after an application  for a reactor 
establishment license had already been submitted. The license 
application was submitted on January 25, 1982, but the Tohoku Electric 
Power Company failed to acquire some of the land for the site, so the 
safety review was suspended. A local referendum was held on August 4, 
1996, and 60.9% of eligible votes opposed the project. Even then, Tohoku 
Electric did not withdraw its plan until December 24, 2003.
CNIC therefore urges citizens’ to get involved immediately after a new 
contruction plan is announced:
If residents want to block a nuclear construction 
project, the earlier they do so the better. Effective ways of doing this 
include preventing the power company from acquiring land for the site, 
refusing to relenquish fishing rights and preventing the power company 
from obtaining agreement from the local authorities. As mentioned above, 
regardless of the lack of formal legal authority, no nuclear power 
plant will be built without the agreement of the local and prefectural 
governments. There are many examples of Japan where local communities 
have prevented construction of nuclear power plants in this way.
Still, in the early years of the industry, the unions and citizens’ 
groups were facing a buzzsaw: the combined forces of the Japanese 
government and the powerful nuclear industry.
“Japan’s Nuclear Energy Policies” — AMPO/1992
This  article by Japanese researcher 
Fukumoto Takao provides a snapshot of how things stood in the nuclear 
industry in the early 1990s. It also provided a frightening  preview into what 
has happened in Fukushima over the past couple of  days with a look at the 1992 
accident at the Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Mihama Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 
in Fukui Prefecture, about 250 miles west of Tokyo – the first time an 
emergency cooling system had to be used in a Japanese plant. Takao began his 
story by describing how the nuclear lobby worked.
To promote nuclear power, the government 
and electric power lobby have always emphasized atomic energy’s positive 
elements to allay fears of radioactivity. These positive elements 
include: 1) the cost-effectiveness of nuclear power generation compared 
to other methods; 20 its alleged high degree of safety; and 3) because 
it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide it has a reputation as a clean energy 
source…Here a simple question arises. Those who say atomic energy is 
less harmful to the environment emphasize only the method of power 
generation. How can we ignore the problems of radioactivity, radioactive waste 
and accidents? Chernobyl showed what happens when an accident 
occurs at a nuclear power plant…
Takao then turned to the accident at the Mihama plant in Kansai, 
where a heat transfer tube  in the steam generator ruptured, triggering 
the emergency core cooling  sytem – the first time this had happened in 
Japan (according to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which tracks such 
accidents, the Japanese government later reported  
that the accident “was caused by human error, some anti-vibration bars  
being wrongly installed by workers and sawn off short to make them  fit.”) 
Takao continued:
This  was a major accident, the kind 
which the government and power companies  had assured the public could 
never occur…Even more serious is the  fact that the accident occured not long 
after the reactor had undergone a  regular inspection. The 
assurance the government and power companies  had given us was based on 
the assumption that any trouble could be  spotted through periodic 
inspections. The Mihama accident, however,  proved that these 
inspections cannot be trusted. It offered dramatic  evidence that a 
nuclear accident can occur anywhere and at any time.
>The  Chernobyl accident, which occured 
six years ago, graphically  demonstrates the consequences of a nuclear 
accident. Chernobyl has  taught us both how tragic and pervasive a 
nuclear mishap can be: such  disasters do not recognize national 
borders…The contaminated area  extends 950 kilometers east-west and 400 
kilometers north-south. This would cover 70 percent to 80 percent of Honshu, 
Japan’s main island.
If  such an accident were to 
occur in Japan, the scale of destruction and  the number of evacuees 
would be 10 times greater than in the former  Soviet Union. 
Radioactivity emitted from Chernobyl spread over Western  Europe, and in this 
sense, nulcear power plants are potential destroyers  of the 
global environment. Yet nuclear plants in Japan continue to  operate…
Tragically, in 2004 the Kansai plant was against  the scene of an 
accident that, until the latest disaster, was Japan’s  worst nuclear 
accident. Four workers died and seven were severely  injured when steam 
leaked from the reactor. The Japan Times reported at the time:
The  826,000-kilowatt reactor automatically shut down 
after the incident,  officials at the nation’s second-largest utility 
said, adding they  believe a lack of cooling water in the plant led to 
the accident. No  radiation is believed to have leaked outside the 
facility, and sources  at the Defense Facilities Administration Agency 
said Fukui Prefecture  officials did not see a need for Self-Defense 
Forces elements to be  dispatched to the town to assist in disaster 
relief. The accident  occurred during regular maintenance in a facility 
housing the reactor  turbines, according to Kepco. The dead and injured 
were all employees of  Kiuchi Keisoku, a subcontractor based in Tennoji 
Ward, Osaka. [The company] said there were about 200 people in the 
facility.
Those subcontractors, it turns, may be the real victims of the industry – and 
of the accident at Fukushima.

________________________________________________________

Japan’s Nuclear Nightmare (Part Two)
>Posted on March 20, 2011 by Tim Shorrock 
>Nuclear Gypsies – The subcontractors who do the dirty work
>
>As the six reactors at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima power 
complex have burned out of control over the past week, both the foreign 
and Japanese press have been full of stories about the “Fukushima 50″ – 
the several hundred workers who have valiantly, in shifts of 50, 
struggled to contain the fires and in the process exposed themselves to 
serious risks of radiation. They have been rightly hailed as the unsung 
heroes of Japan’s earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe, as noted 
by the London Guardian:
>[In Fukushima], plant workers, emergency services 
personnel and scientists have been  battling for the past week to 
restore the pumping of water to the  Fukushima nuclear plant and to 
prevent a meltdown at one of the  reactors. A team of about 300 workers – 
wearing masks, goggles and  protective suits sealed with duct tape and 
known as the Fukushima 50  because they work in shifts of 50-strong 
groups – have captured the  attention of the Japanese who have taken 
heart from the toil inside the  wrecked atom plant. “My eyes well with 
tears at the thought of the work  they are doing,” Kazuya Aoki, a safety 
official at Japan’s Nuclear and  Industrial Safety Agency, told 
Reuters…
>On Wednesday, the government raised the cumulative legal  limit of radiation 
>that the Fukushima workers could be exposed to from  100 to 250 millisieverts. 
>That is more than 12 times the annual legal  
limit for workers dealing with radiation under British law. (UPDATE: See the 
latest article from the Guardian – “The truth about the Fukushima ‘nuclear 
samurai.’”
>As I noted in my first article in this series, many of the workers exposed to 
>radiation in nuclear 
accidents over the years have been subcontracted workers who are often 
hired to do the dirtiest and most dangerous work in the nuclear 
industry. This has created a two-tier labor system in Japanese nuclear 
power plants, with a narrow band of full-time company employees at the 
top and a huge number of subcontractors at the bottom (click here for a profile 
of “Koji,” one of the subcontractors at the Fukushima complex).
>For years, these workers have been known as “genpatsu 
gypsies,” or “nuclear gypsies,” because they often travel from plant to 
plant as needs for their services rise and fall. Their stories make some of the 
saddest tales of all in the Japanese nuclear industry (they’re 
not alone; a friend of mine at the Teamsters Union in Washington tells 
me the same kind of two-tiered system exists in the U.S. nuclear 
industry as well.”)
>The plight of the nuclear gypsies has been well documented. One of the most 
>detailed articles was published 12 years ago in the Los Angeles Times (“System 
>of Disposable Workers,” Column One, December 30, 1999). It described the 
>system this way:
>The elite engineers and highly skilled unionized workers 
at the top of the labor pyramid, who work for the blue-chip giants that 
build and operate Japanese nuclear power plants, are carefully monitored and 
protected from radiation exposure. However, the majority of nuclear plant 
workers are employed by subcontractors or their subcontractors, 
an arrangement that allows big corporations to avoid major layoffs of 
their own people in hard times. Critics say this system diffuses 
accountability, makes it impossible to keep tabs on the health of 
workers and places responsibility for safety with smaller, less visible 
and financially weaker companies.The workers at the bottom of the 
socioeconomic food chain–including those allegedly hired by the day from skid 
rows–receive the least safety education and the highest radiation 
doses. According to data from Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission, of the 71,376 
Japanese who are employed in the nuclear power industry, 
63,420, or almost 89%, work for subcontractors. It is these employees 
who receive more than 90% of all radiation exposure.
>>
>>Moreover, the casual laborers included among those subcontractor 
employees have scant legal protection, activists charge. And 
historically, they have received little or no compensation when 
accidents or illnesses occur. “Nuclear labor in Japan is a human rights 
problem,” charged photojournalist and author Kenji Higuchi, a nuclear 
foe who has spent 27 years documenting alleged safety abuses. “The whole system 
is based on discrimination…When you go inside a nuclear power 
plant, it means you are going to be exposed to radiation. You are paid 
to be exposed.”
>In 2000, the problems of these subcontract workers was documented by Nagamitsu 
>Miura, a professor at Tsuda College in Tokyo:
>Since the first nuclear power station in Japan began 
operation in 1966, nuclear plants have been maintained not only by 
engineers but by a variety of other workers. According to the Central 
Registration Center of Radiation Workers, the number of nuclear plant 
workers in Japan in the fiscal year 1999, amounted to 64,922. About 10% 
of them are full-time workers employed by nuclear companies while 90% 
are subcontracted workers.
>Thus, the vast majority of the nuclear industry’s labor 
force is comprised of temporary employees who work at plants for between 1-3 
months at a time. These people are mostly farmers, fishermen or day laborers 
seeking to supplement their incomes or simply to get by. Some 
of them are homeless. They work mainly at nuclear power plants, but they also 
find jobs at nuclear fuel facilities (refining, processing, 
reprocessing and using plants), and at nuclear waste burial and storage 
facilities. The workers work twice or thrice a year at the same nuclear 
plant or move about to other plants. Thus, the nickname they have been 
tagged with by journalists, “genpatsu gypsies” (ie.,  nuclear nomads).
>In going through my archives on the Japanese nuclear industry, I found a 
>remarkable article in a 1980 issue of AMPO magazine (see Part One) that 
>reviewed three recent books about the nuclear gypsies – publication of which 
>“caused a sensation in Japan.” One of the books was a documentary written by 
>journalist Horie Kunio, who 
had “voluntarily worked for a subcontractor in order to learn the actual 
conditions of the nuclear power plant workers and was himself exposed 
to nuclear radiation.” Among the places Horie worked was Tokyo Electric Co.’s 
now-infamous Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. According to his book, as 
recounted by AMPO:
>Workers are recruited from all over the country attracted by a daily wage of 
>5,000 to 10,000 yen and sent into the plants with 
hardly any knowledge of radiation. (Until a few years ago the workers 
were recruited from slums such as Sanya in Tokyo, Kamagasaki in Osaka 
and buraku – where Japanese outcasts live – in the Kansai area.
>Their work includes washing work uniforms which have been contaminated with 
>radiation; mopping up radioactive water; scraping out shells and sludge 
>attached to drains; inspection and repairing, mainly 
removing radioactive dust from the hundreds of parts inside the 
reactors. These operations are carried out in a small hole surrounded by 
radioactivity where workerrs can hardly move, and the workers are often not 
able to leave to go to the toilet during these operations…At the 
Mihama Nuclear Power Plant of Kansai Electric Power Co., where Horie 
used to work, a worker is required to apologize to the parent company if he 
gets injured.
>Another book reviewed by AMPO tells the story of Morie Shin, who worked as a 
>subcontractor of TEPCO:
>[He] tried very hard to form a union in order to improve 
their working contitions, because of the fact that the amount of 
radiation dosage was one of the criteria for evaluating the workers. But he 
failed, and finally resigned from the company…Being afraid of 
pressure from the electric company, he does not reveal his real name.
>According to Morie, many of the Americans subcontracted by General Electric at 
the Fukushima plant were African-American (this photograph depicts a 
black GE subcontractor at the Fukushima plant in 1980). AMPO wrote:
>Morie shows in detail how the conditions in nuclear power plants make 
>irradiation control difficult. Tokyo Electric’s Fukushima 
No. 1 nuclear power plant is said to be the most contaminated nuclear 
power plant in the world, and Japan Atomic’s Tsuruga plant (scene of a 
major accident in 1981) is also notorious for its loose radiation 
control…It is naturally subcontracted workers (and a “foreigners squad” 
of black workers sent from the U.S. by General Electric and 
Westinghouse) who are to work under such a high radioactive dose.
>RESOURCE: AMPO – “Voices from the Darkness” – 1980 
>According to the IAEA, half of the 19 workers suffering from radiation 
>exposure in the current crisis at Fukushima are subcontractors. On March 17, 
>the Guardian reported:More than 20 Tepco workers, subcontractors, police and 
>firefighters have been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency as 
>having radiation contamination, according to Yukio Edano, the government’s 
>chief spokesman. Seventeen people had radioactive 
material  on their faces but were not taken to hospital because the 
level was  low. Two policemen were decontaminated after being exposed 
and one  worker was taken offsite after receiving a dose of radiation 
while  venting radioactive steam from one of the reactors. An 
undisclosed  number of firefighters are said to be under observation 
after being  exposed. At least 25 Tepco workers and subcontractors are 
being treated  for injuries sustained in explosions at the plant and 
other accidents.
>
>http://timshorrock.com/?p=1254
>
>ing regular maintenance in a facility 
housing the reactor  turbines, according to Kepco. The dead and injured 
were all employees of  Kiuchi Keisoku, a subcontractor based in Tennoji 
Ward, Osaka. [The company] said there were about 200 people in the 
facility.
Those subcontractors, it turns, may be the real victims of the industry – and 
of the accident at Fukushima.
Next: The “nuclear gypsies.”

http://timshorrock.com/?p=1137

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to