This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
The 2 missing workers were lost in the tsunami, not the fire at reactor 4. [1] Rmhermen ( talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Original name, it's first mention are 50 skeleton staff before named as fukushima 50. Daimond ( talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
... 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)
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.
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)
"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."
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."
There are other sources out there too, but this is typical nuclear worker triage.
If somebody specifically used words that inadvisable, then those words should appear in a direct quote, as in
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)
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)
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)
It is even unimaginable that PM directly put pressure on the workers. Fox news was broadcasting wrong information. [2]
So I checked the Financial times article including the phrase "Retreat is unthinkable.". It was [3] this.
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)
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)
I put articles here. Need help enriching the schedule part.
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)
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)
Did any of them get cancer? Die? -- Tennenrishin ( talk) 09:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mytown.asahi.com/kanagawa/news.php?k_id=15000001103250004{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mainichi.jp/area/aichi/news/20110326ddlk23040309000c.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
The 2 missing workers were lost in the tsunami, not the fire at reactor 4. [1] Rmhermen ( talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Original name, it's first mention are 50 skeleton staff before named as fukushima 50. Daimond ( talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
... 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)
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.
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)
"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."
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."
There are other sources out there too, but this is typical nuclear worker triage.
If somebody specifically used words that inadvisable, then those words should appear in a direct quote, as in
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)
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)
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)
It is even unimaginable that PM directly put pressure on the workers. Fox news was broadcasting wrong information. [2]
So I checked the Financial times article including the phrase "Retreat is unthinkable.". It was [3] this.
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)
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)
I put articles here. Need help enriching the schedule part.
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)
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)
Did any of them get cancer? Die? -- Tennenrishin ( talk) 09:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mytown.asahi.com/kanagawa/news.php?k_id=15000001103250004{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mainichi.jp/area/aichi/news/20110326ddlk23040309000c.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)