Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[Dmytry]

It is not perfect

How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.

 

[Drakkith]

Wasn't it what I implied when i said that radiation detectors do not measure in Sieverts?

Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.

Actually, beta and gamma have same weighting factor. Bone marrow and skin, however, do not.

Correct, I meant to put Alpha's there, not betas.

it wouldn't be an accurate means of measuring potential body harm unless you actually calculated the conversion.
What they do, they report grays of external gamma exposure as sieverts of total exposure. It'll take actual measurements on the people's bodies to know their internal exposures, it depends greatly to diet and a zillion yet undetermined factors.
They, however, take the readings from a Geiger counter 'calibrated' in Sieverts (which is nonsense), and declare zone safe/unsafe based on that alone.

Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense? Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.

 

[Susudake]

You are contradicting yourself big time.

It may seem contradictory, but it's not.

You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?

How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.

 

[Drakkith]

How much not perfect? Can you guess order of magnitude error % ?
It's a wonderful phrase, 'it is not perfect', applies equally to very accurate and very inaccurate estimates alike.

Nothing is perfect. If you don't like it, too bad. The doses are estimated as best as possible using the available data. Whether you believe it is close enough to correct or not is irrelevant, as it is one of the few ways of getting the dose people have been exposed to.

 

[jlduh]

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal/techdocs.html

Estimates require both the dose and the contributing isotopes for internal doses. See FGR 11 and FGR12 for explanations how this is calculated. For internal sources a whole body scan can make accurate measurements of body burden. Personnal dosimetry usually monitors external or whole body dose. Offsite doses are estimated based on monitoring results. It is not perfect but can be useful in making decisions about evacuation zones, and identifying people who may need medical followup.

thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

 

[Drakkith]

It may seem contradictory, but it's not.

You're saying then that there is no such thing as this complex I refer to? So going back to Eisenhower's use of the term (minus the academic/political connections, granted), it's all a chimera?

How about debating the point, that'll be much more convincing.

I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to. It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.

 

[Dmytry]

Yep, which makes it all the more ridiculous that you then claim that we shouldn't use sieverts.

I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).
When a geiger counter reads "0.01mSv/h" somewhere, it is extremely misleading. edit: Misleading both ways btw. Counter overcounts betas massively, so you can get a big scare when you find some mildly beta-radioactive crud, that'll make the counter click at insane rate, while the actual dose is much smaller than what it shows.

Why is calibrating a geiger counter to sieverts nonsense?

Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.

Whether they did it in grays or sieverts it would end up being used for the same thing. It makes perfect sense to me how they can use it to declare a zone safe or unsafe since it is directly measuring the radiation in the area.

sigh.
See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.

 

[NUCENG]

thanks, so can you just answer this question (if possible by a no or yes answer as a minimum, but you can then elaborate of course):

do the measurements in mSv/h used by Japanese government, which are then compared to certain "limits" (like the 20 mSv /year for children now) to inform people (through the press for example) about "risks" and take decisions (eg evacuating, or removing soil, or whatever), do these specific measurements, the way they are done, with the equipment they use, take ALSO into account internal exposures through inhalation and ingestion of the various isotopes (mainly I-131 and CS-137 of course, but also Strontium as it appeared recently this one is also a concern?

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.

 

[Susudake]

I'll say it. There isn't some big complex that you refer to.

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

It is a way for people who don't understand how things work to blame everyone else. Your statements were 100% contradictory, and the fact that you don't even realize it only makes it worse.

I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.

I refuse to get dragged further into such a "debate." I guess you'll have to ignore what I write or continue to be annoyed.

And as to some of these exchanges being less than civil, I'd say that the magnitude of the situation should excuse some passionate exchanges as long as both parties are acting in good faith. FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.

Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.

 

[Drakkith]

See, suppose we have two units. Centimetre, and biological centimetre equivalent, and there is a standard for the biological centimetre equivalent so that it depends to whenever you took your shoes off when you came home, to how often you take shower, and to what you eat. Then you see rulers, that by their very nature can only measure in centimetres, but they are labelled in biological centimetre equivalents.
Or better yet a fruit counter that counts apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, berries, watermelons, etc (it has some probabilities of missing grapes and berries depending to their size). You have it 'calibrated' in calories, and that is very misleading.

Bad comparison. The detector can easily be set ahead of time to predetermined parameters to make it into sieverts. And even IF the settings are a little off, you can easily determine the real sieverts if you need to by taking the values you got off the detector and plugging in additonal data.

I'm saying that you shouldn't use numbers that are not in sieverts and call them sieverts. When you get 0.1 mSv in some medical procedure, rather complicated calculations have been done (it matters what tissues have been exposed).

Yes, and that value will have different weight in the formula depending on the parts of the body that have been imaged. However, in the field you are looking at a total body exposure. Will it be as exact as a medical scan? Probably not. But the radiation isn't hitting one body part like a medical scan is, it is hitting all of you.

Because it (surprise surprise) doesn't even give you Grays accurate let alone Sieverts with the tissue type etc etc factors and internal exposure. and it does NOT convert betas correctly btw.

You can easily find the grays by reversing the formula you used to put the geiger counter in sieverts. And why doesn't it convert beta's correctly?

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

Not in the way you are referring to it there isn't.

FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

So? I don't care what you think about me.

I hesitate a bit to go here but I will: having interacted with a lot of artists as well as a lot of scientists/engineers over the years, I've noticed something: the former tend to readily admit the limits of their knowledge and the efficacy of their non-scientific way of looking at things, and thus defer to scientists when the issues at hand are scientific, whereas scientists, especially engineers, tend to presume that they have superior intellects providing them unparalleled insight into all fields of knowledge and endeavor including those messy, non-scientific ones like politics, economics, social questions, etc.

I've interacted with plentry of people as well. Most of them that DON'T have at least some small amount of scientific mindset don't have a clue how the world actually works. They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they don't trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the consequences of the limitations of their way(s) of understanding the world around them by demonstrating a moderate to severe lack of tact in debating others; the above is a perfect example.

Probably because of the difficulty in keeping tact for years of people who don't understand a word of what comes out of their mouths.

I could say the exact same thing back at you. I'll add that based on what we've both written, I've demonstrated the capacity to consider that any thing I say may is subject to clarification by others, while you've made equally or more sweeping statements without even supporting your contentions, it's all opinion. So we've made the same errors but only one of us is--upon being made aware of them--willing to admit that even to himself.

Nonsense, if I make a statement that is 100% about something that is immune to opinion, such as facts, numbers, ETC, and I'm incorrect, then I will immediately admit my mistake when I am made aware of it. The problem here is that 99% of this thread ISN'T about those kinds of things. It's about opinions. Even the title of the thread screams opinion.

 

[jlduh]

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion )

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

All told, 35, or about two-thirds, of Japan's commercial reactors will have been shut down by the end of May.

During the next few months, 5 more reactors will have to be shut down ahead of regular inspections.

If the utilities decide to keep these 40 reactors offline for the time being, Japan will have about 75 percent of its reactors shutdown this summer.

 

[jlduh]

and an other fact (but it's more for getting lighter here, even if the reality behind it is not fun for people concerned): the procedure for citizens to get compensation from Tepco seems as clear as their strategy for restoring the mess:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/hosyou/images/flow-e.pdf

I wish good luck to these unfortunate people...

 

[Dmytry]

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.

But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

In my opinion it's at best 'within same order of magnitude' sort of estimate. The dose near a rain drain can be order of magnitude higher than average [not as dramatically as in the video where Geiger counter is counting betas, but still quite dramatically thanks to inverse square law], the long term inhalation (of the deposited material that re-enters air) is very dependent to the weather, etc. The doses that kids can get, well, god knows, kids play in dirt, some types of dirt chemically absorb Cs-137, some do not. The distribution of radioactivity is a fractal with high 'roughness', there's huge variability down to 1m distances.
Then the food testing, beyond limit food will slip through occasionally [you can't test everything, just randomly chosen samples], how often? How do you know in advance how often? And what is the distribution of the doses? Then, there's the issue of wood ashes... do they use wood for heating at all or not? In the tsunami aftermath? Then there's the issue of the wreckage cleanup work that has to be done. And so on and so forth, and that's the things that i'd guess can change dose by more than factor of 2, and there's probably a lot of other important things I missed. The contamination level of radioactive boars in EU varies immensely - a few boars are heavily contaminated, most are harmless [strongly non-gaussian distribution btw], not a good situation for random sampling based testing.

It is not enough to calculate 'to the best of your knowledge' in science. You need also to provide the error range, and ideally distribution of the errors. In engineering too - I believe you do have ranges for uncertain numbers?

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

 

[Drakkith]

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion )

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

Interesting. Hopefully they will fix any issues before they come back online. (If they are going to that is.)

 

[jlduh]

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html

3,480 becquerels of radioactive cesium were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 5th in Nikko City, Tochigi Prefecture. The figure exceeds the state limit of 300 becquerels. Also, at two different locations in Nasushiobara City, 3,600 becquerels and 860 becquerels of radioactive cesium respectively were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 3rd.

Tochigi Prefecture requested farmers in the area where the radioactive substance was detected not to feed pasture grass to livestock.

NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

 

[Drakkith]

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

I understand. But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one. The key, I believe, is to make it as accurate as possible.

But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

And? The fact is that the system is in use and it works, whether you agree with how accurate it is or not. Is there another way of doing it that works better in that situation?

Your entire post goes off on a tangent about things that aren't remotely close to dealing with counting sieverts on a geiger counter. Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!

You might not like the fact that there are error ranges and estimates and such, but in the end it doesn't matter. There isn't any other way of determining these things.

And just to make sure everyone knows my position, I'll say it again.

I think there were serious mistakes made in the running of the NPP's in Japan. I think there are currently and will be more mistakes made everywhere. But my opinion is that the gain is worth the risk as long we err more on the side of caution than we have in Japan.

 

[Dmytry]

Drakkith: What I do not like is that nobody is calculating or reporting the error ranges. There is an other way. Honest science. Where not only you tell the measurements, but you also tell how much (and how often by how much) it can be wrong.
Other thing that I do not like is this nonsense discussion where any error - be it off by up to an order of magnitude, be it to 1% tolerance, is equally 'imperfect'. You just don't distinguish between any degree of 'imperfect', and for you it makes absolutely no difference, it's all verbal reasoning from you, is it not? Yes/no, perfect/imperfect (and everything is imperfect), etc.

"Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!"
Do I think they haven't took any? No, they have, some of. Do I think they have took ALL ? No I don't! It is immense amount of work. It is just not doable, period. What is doable though, is a honest estimation of by how much it can be wrong. Hell, even a dishonest estimation of the error range is still a huge step forward compared to 'throw some numbers out and assure them that it is the best measurements that can be done'.

"But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one."
Suppose you had a ruler that reads in calories, you measure size of the fruit with it. Well, the distance measurements on that ruler can be accurate, but the calorie on that ruler are not. You can, however, use the ruler that reads in centimeters (or inches), with a conversion table (for different fruits), to obtain calories far more accurately.

 

[unlurk]

Censorship

jlduh, I have no interest in joining this thread.

I'm interested in the technical aspects of Fukushima, not the politics.

As such there are aspects of Fukushima that might be compared to Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or SL1 or any number of sites or events.I only wondered if that documentary was considered a "fringe" video made by nutjobs or not.

You are living in France so I thought you might have some knowledge of the subject matter.

BTW
2, 3 and 4 are each spewing steam at the moment.

 

[Drakkith]

Drakkith: What I do not like is that nobody is calculating or reporting the error ranges. There is an other way. Honest science. Where not only you tell the measurements, but you also tell how much (and how often by how much) it can be wrong.

It isn't reported because it only serves to confuse almost everyone and cause even MORE panic. The average person doesn't like any possibility of errors, no matter how inevitable they are. (In my experience at least) This doesn't make it dishonest to me. I guess it does to you.

Other thing that I do not like is this nonsense discussion where any error - be it off by up to an order of magnitude, be it to 1% tolerance, is equally 'imperfect'. You just don't distinguish between any degree of 'imperfect', and for you it makes absolutely no difference, it's all verbal reasoning from you, is it not? Yes/no, perfect/imperfect (and everything is imperfect), etc.

Incorrect. I have no idea why you would believe this. Any errors that are outside of whatever is reasonable given the situation are unacceptable.

"Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!"
Do I think they haven't took any? No, they have, some of. Do I think they have took ALL ? No I don't! It is immense amount of work. It is just not doable, period. What is doable though, is a honest estimation of by how much it can be wrong. Hell, even a dishonest estimation of the error range is still a huge step forward compared to 'throw some numbers out and assure them that it is the best measurements that can be done'.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to accurately calculate reasonable estimates.

"But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one."
Suppose you had a ruler that reads in calories, you measure size of the fruit with it. Well, the distance measurements on that ruler can be accurate, but the calorie on that ruler are not. You can, however, use the ruler that reads in centimeters (or inches), with a conversion table, to obtain calories far more accurately.

Except that you can use your conversion table before you measure to ensure that your marks are accurate before you measure. If we didn't know what kind of fruit it was beforehand, that would be different.

I use the word reasonable here because every situation is different and must be looked at individually.

 

[Susudake]

You are contradicting yourself big time.

I'm going to revisit this, not because I'm so concerned that I might (be seen to) have contradicted myself, but because it's simply a false comparison.

Saying there's a "complex" of any kind does not mean everyone within this complex acts in unison, that it's a monolithic well-greased machine. The military industrial complex term appears to date to Eisenhower's speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

and more recently other writers have added different societal sectors to the term, usually academic (google it and you'll find writings, at least on the web, about that factor), security, and political.

The intimate relations between the military and nuclear sectors go back to the beginning of the nuclear age.

So, in sum, the MIC concept, at least, is well-established and supported by no small amount of evidence; adding other sectors less so, yet it's not something I just pulled out of my hat.

On the other hand, when one member of this forum states or strongly implies that two others think exactly alike based on a couple of statements by one of them (this statement about Dmytry and me was originally made after I'd made one or two posts) then they are being inaccurate.

So you have a bit of information being used arrive at an erroneous conclusion, vs. decades of information, books, the statements of a former POTUS/highest ranking general during WWII etc.

One would think this difference would be obvious.

 

[Susudake]

I wrote:

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

Not in the way you are referring to it there isn't.

And you're not responding to my point.

I wrote: FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

So? I don't care what you think about me.

same, non-responsive.

I've interacted with plentry of people as well. Most of them that DON'T have at least some small amount of scientific mindset don't have a clue how the world actually works. They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they don't trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

So as long as the have a bit of scientific mindset they're not clueless. I'll agree somewhat, and would counter that people with ONLY a scientific mindset are equally clueless, except that such generalizations are not only full of contempt but also utterly simplistic and unrealistic.

They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they don't trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

and

Probably because of the difficulty in keeping tact for years of people who don't understand a word of what comes out of their mouths.

That kind of naivete has nothing to do with being unscientific. Moreover, the kind of utter disregard for those who don't share your mindset (sound familiar?) you're displaying here is destructive, but more interestingly exactly the kind of contemptuous/hubristic attitude that has being a major factor in getting us into deep doo-doo over and over (see Chernobyl, TMI, Macondo, FDI).

I'll go further and ask: how much death and destruction, how much pollution, how many babies and children blown apart by mines, cluster bombs, irradiated by DU munitions and exploding nuclear plants, etc etc etc has been caused by artists?

Poor performances, ugly, poorly-executed paintings, unlistenable music aside, just how much harm have these clueless artists wreaked on the world?

Now about that engendered by (99% well-meaning) scientists and engineers?

I'm not advocating a return to the stone-age. Technology is wonderful as long as it doesn't endanger our lives (or genetic heritage). But arrogant, contemtuous engineers who think, conversely, that the blueprints in the lab transfer perfectly to the messy reality outside have done much more harm to the world AND to the future of technology than any group of "clueless artistic-types."

Nonsense, if I make a statement that is 100% about something that is immune to opinion, such as facts, numbers, ETC, and I'm incorrect, then I will immediately admit my mistake when I am made aware of it. The problem here is that 99% of this thread ISN'T about those kinds of things.

First, you begin numerous responses to people with very disparaging words, the "nonsense" in this case being a perfect example.
Then, it's a huge assumption you're making that there's this clean, clear break between "facts, numbers" etc and how those facts and numbers affect the real world when applied to it.

Together, they create the exact impression of the one-sided, out-of-touch-with-reality, arrogant contemptuous scientist/engineer the very people you despise rail against.

It's about opinions. Even the title of the thread screams opinion.

And this is the whole point: you can't debate on this thread in such a black-and-white fashion while demonstrating such a lack of respect for those who disagree.

I've read your responses re technical aspects on this thread, and it's obvious you're well-schooled, but even then you're pretty caustic in refuting others.

Obtaining a BA/MA/PhD in literature (to take one example) means years of debating often absolutely debatable points--what did Shakespeare/Dickens/Joyce mean when he wrote this? One garners evidence the best one can and then makes a case with it--kind of like scientific research. But, as I stated before, many if not most people endeavoring in the humanities realize in the end it's all opinion--just better-supported or not-so-well supported opinion--so at least a modicum of self-doubt is not just helpful, but necessary to succeeding. The best scientists have this too, yet so many have this utter confidence in science as the sole source of the truth, which inexorably leads to dismissing non-scientists as clueless, as you have above.

Back in the day all students had to study a core curriculum of humanities, but with the increasing dominance of science and hi-tech in the world this has pretty much stopped. As a result most people in the tech-world these days have little or no education in the humanities. To me this is a monumental tragedy and is a factor in creating potentially monumental catastrophes like FDI.

You no doubt are of the opinion that I'm going way overboard. Well, this is an opinion thread, isn't it. If that's too messy for you perhaps you should stick to technical issues.

 

[Drakkith]

On the other hand, when one member of this forum states or strongly implies that two others think exactly alike based on a couple of statements by one of them (this statement about Dmytry and me was originally made after I'd made one or two posts) then they are being inaccurate.

So you have a bit of information being used arrive at an erroneous conclusion, vs. decades of information, books, the statements of a former POTUS/highest ranking general during WWII etc.

One would think this difference would be obvious.

Your previous statement implies that all these complexes are all purposely doing harm to everyone, and then lying about it and spreading false information all on purpose. This ignores the fact that each of those complexes are made up of thousands of individuals whose ideals, beliefs, morals, etc are all diverse and range all over the place.

Knowing this, AND based on personal experience in some of these "complexes" myself, i guarantee you that your catchall statement is hideously incorrect. For every person that lies, cheats, and steals their way around there are dozens of honest people that work diligently and provide the best information possible.

 

[Drakkith]

And you're not responding to my point.

That's because you don't have a point. Not one I can see at least. Please elaborate if you do.

same, non-responsive.

There isn't anything to respond to. It's just you assuming that I have blinders on or whatever. So again, I don't care.

So as long as the have a bit of scientific mindset they're not clueless. I'll agree somewhat, and would counter that people with ONLY a scientific mindset are equally clueless, except that such generalizations are not only full of contempt but also utterly simplistic and unrealistic.

That kind of naivete has nothing to do with being unscientific. Moreover, the kind of utter disregard for those who don't share your mindset (sound familiar?) you're displaying here is destructive, but more interestingly exactly the kind of contemptuous/hubristic attitude that has being a major factor in getting us into deep doo-doo over and over (see Chernobyl, TMI, Macondo, FDI).

I'm not disregarding anyone. You're the one continually bringing up pointless statements and judging entire groups of people.

I'll go further and ask: how much death and destruction, how much pollution, how many babies and children blown apart by mines, cluster bombs, irradiated by DU munitions and exploding nuclear plants, etc etc etc has been caused by artists?

As I don't know of any reliable way of finding out how many artists have been in the military, I can't tell you. But I'd bet there were a few.

Poor performances, ugly, poorly-executed paintings, unlistenable music aside, just how much harm have these clueless artists wreaked on the world?

Now about that engendered by (99% well-meaning) scientists and engineers?

How about all those that promote violence and such? Plenty out there.

I'm not advocating a return to the stone-age. Technology is wonderful as long as it doesn't endanger our lives (or genetic heritage). But arrogant, contemtuous engineers who think, conversely, that the blueprints in the lab transfer perfectly to the messy reality outside have done much more harm to the world AND to the future of technology than any group of "clueless artistic-types."

How many poets, artists, songwriters, painters ETC have inspired rebellion, war, ETC in history? How many non scientists/engineers have made incorrect choices based on ignorance or dismissal? Or based purely on religious views? Plenty. EVERYONE is capable of making bad decisions or doing harm to someone else.

First, you begin numerous responses to people with very disparaging words, the "nonsense" in this case being a perfect example.
Then, it's a huge assumption you're making that there's this clean, clear break between "facts, numbers" etc and how those facts and numbers affect the real world when applied to it.
Together, they create the exact impression of the one-sided, out-of-touch-with-reality, arrogant contemptuous scientist/engineer the very people you despise rail against.

Have I linked any specific numbers? No. That's because I understand that no matter what I type up here on my computer, it won't be close to being accurate because I'm not there. I don't have the needed information.

And this is the whole point: you can't debate on this thread in such a black-and-white fashion while demonstrating such a lack of respect for those who disagree.

Like you've been doing this whole time? I don't have any problem with your stance. Trust me, I'm not responding to you merely because you disagree with me. I'm attempting to point out WHY certain things work and others don't. And I will most definitively point out when people make assumptions about broad groups (like you have) for no good reason.

I've read your responses re technical aspects on this thread, and it's obvious you're well-schooled, but even then you're pretty caustic in refuting others.

Obtaining a BA/MA/PhD in literature (to take one example) means years of debating often absolutely debatable points--what did Shakespeare/Dickens/Joyce mean when he wrote this? One garners evidence the best one can and then makes a case with it--kind of like scientific research.

Sure. And if this was the case here I wouldn't have a problem. However this isn't the case. All I've seen is one person (including myself) after another spew random opinions about without any evidence to back any of it up. And on top of that, any evidence linked against that view is immediately disregarded as inaccurate because "people aren't trustworthy" or whatever. I try very hard to make sure that when I dispute something I do it for a reason and not merely because I don't believe it's accurate. Unless of course it's something only opinion based, and then I will try to explain why I believe their view is incorrect the best way I can.

But, as I stated before, many if not most people endeavoring in the humanities realize in the end it's all opinion--just better-supported or not-so-well supported opinion--so at least a modicum of self-doubt is not just helpful, but necessary to succeeding. The best scientists have this too, yet so many have this utter confidence in science as the sole source of the truth, which inexorably leads to dismissing non-scientists as clueless, as you have above.

Truth? What truth is there except science? Science at its base is a search for truth! It also includes things like humanities! How and why people act the way they do, different cultures, it all is encompassed. So I really don't know what you mean when you say that so many have this confidence as science as the sole source of truth, as I've never known anything else to be "truth".

Back in the day all students had to study a core curriculum of humanities, but with the increasing dominance of science and hi-tech in the world this has pretty much stopped. As a result most people in the tech-world these days have little or no education in the humanities. To me this is a monumental tragedy and is a factor in creating potentially monumental catastrophes like FDI.

I have no idea whether this is a factor or not. All I can say is that all in all safety is MUCH better nowadays than it has ever been.

You no doubt are of the opinion that I'm going way overboard. Well, this is an opinion thread, isn't it. If that's too messy for you perhaps you should stick to technical issues.

That's fair. If this is going to be an "opinion thread" then I will post accordingly. I was unaware this thread was mostly opinion based.

 

[jlduh]

To all: you should read the first posts i have written for starting this thread, i think it should be useful to avoid misconception about this thread and understand in which conditions it has been created and what is expected to be seen.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3221090&postcount=1

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486089

Again this Fukushima disaster is a very special one and most of us are very affected by what happens there, but we are also left with very little resources to act and even understand what happened, what's happening, and what will (possibly) happen: the scale of this accident 5' reactors hit at the same time, more than 10 cores involved with several in a very bad state or probably in current meltdown, in an area with very high densities of population, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and in fact is out of proportion of most of our resources (reources on site to try to contain the situation, but also resources here on this forum to analyse the situation). We have to admit that.

If you read the main thread and consider the PF guidelines, based on the very specific kind of this situation as described above, i can guarantee that this thread woud be "quiet like a dodo" ,as someone recently wrote with some humour, if only restricted to pure facts or theories published in some reviews and so on! Why? Well because this main thread is just trying to keep contact with what happens there (and in fact will be an unvaluable and incredibly useful record of all the events in the future) and that this situation is right now mainly beyond any scientific explanations and approaches, also because most of the infos we get are from Tepco and proved to be (for various reasons...) very inconsistent, unreliable, full of mistakes, and very incomplete (complete analysis of all the isotopes found are very scarce for example, this would be a big help for the SFs for example: WHY?).

I wrote some days ago a message to explain why, in my opinion, more and more moderate members were getting frustrated and even upset even if they were trying to stay as much as possible on the analysis of facts, numbers, and parameters:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3297330&postcount=6792

This should explain why this "more political" thread can have its interests in the current and very special situation happening at Fukushima. It's also here to try to keep the main thread as "clean" as possible on facts and analysis, but again what makes this main thread very alive (this is the only place most people find on the net to continue to follow this subject on a day by day basis from the technical standpoint, and this gives PF a very good visibility and gives high credit to this forum!) is the amount of information collected and recorded and debated here, which are not, let recognize it, always as "pure" as some scientific approach would like them to be, but because this is just not possible... This Fukushima is a worldwide accident and the scale of it, and the way it started and the way it evolves, are the main reasons of this being like that.

So please consider this more political thread as it should be, regarding what i explained, and avoid entering into too personal disputes which are boring IMHO.

Also, if this kind of thread has no interest from your standpoint, you can also simply avoid it

 

[jlduh]

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

The plan that was hammered out on Friday by the government taskforce calls on corporate and individual users to reduce their electricity use by a uniform 15 percent from the peak summer period last year. This is ten percentage points lower than the maximum 25 percent target announced in April.

Under the plan, factories and other major consumers will be asked to prepare to reduce their use of electricity in the summer.

 

[rowmag]

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:


Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

Yes, this is a good thing. Everybody went on an energy conservation binge after the earthquake to minimize the need for blackouts, and it was pretty successful, but I think the big challenge this summer will be to see how well fans can replace air conditioners.

 

[jlduh]

If there should be an ultimate reason for not having privately owned companies running plants like the nuclear ones with so heavy consequences to social life and communities around in case of accidents, i think it could be this one:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_20.html
In the list of what they will do to raise "maximum" funding, I see "reduce the salaries and the bonuses -which bonuses by the way? Will they still have bonuses?) BUT i DIDN'T see something like:

"refund the necessary dividends accumulated in the past by shareholders"

(for an other example of huge social impact of a crisis, this remark could apply to all private banks in the financial crisis, with in both cases the TOO BIG TO FAIL THREAT TO PUSH TO ACCEPT THE "DEAL")

Instead of this, sates/citizens will probably pay collectively for it.

For any "normal citizen", this is not acceptable to privatize the gains for years and share the losses with the community. Especially when a company has a so long list of frauds and lies to the community behind her...

Ok, you drove drunk several times in the past, this time you have a huge accident and kill and injure many people and destroy their house, you have to pay fines and penalties for it and... you go to see the government to ask to help you to pay part of the stuff -but promise you will do your "maximum" to pay part of it!

Does it sound right and logical to you, as a "normal citizen"?

I know that it has been said several times here: "don't condemn them as long as you didn't run into their shoes".

But hey, if I was a japanese citizen, couln't I say ALSO that they stealing MY SHOES in fact?

Gov decides about the structure to be put in place to help Tepco pay compensation:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_14.html

Under the framework decided on Friday, a new state backed institution will be set up to facilitate quick payments to those affected. The new body would receive financial contributions from electric power companies that own nuclear power plants in Japan.
The government will inject public funds by allocating to the institution a special type of bond that can be cashed whenever necessary.The institution would strengthen TEPCO's capital base by making use of these funds to pay compensation claims and make business investments.

The institution would annually return a certain amount of money from TEPCO to the state coffers.

This is quite fuzzy to say the least. For sure Tepco has two big levers in its hands in case of bankrupcy: the risk of lack of supply AND the risk of leaving the state with 4 crippled reactors on its back. Would be interested to see what will be the final key ratio for financing this structure, between nuclear industry contributions and state contributions. Anyway, at the end, the ones who will pay are the citizens or the users (which are both the same). The only question is to know the contrinution of private nuclear shareholders in the compensation financing. Why doesn't nuclear industry have a mutual compensation system (mutual insurance) being feed by nuclear companies, to be used in that kind of accident? Even if it proved not sufficent, oil industry have something like that in place i think. It can also be done with a kind of reinsurance mutual fund, like ASSURPOL in France (even if i think the nuclear industry is not in this system either in France: nuclear risks are so big that the insurance for consequences is a real problem, but one way or the other, this has to be adressed -and its better if it is before hand!- and costs to be included in the total cost of the produced energy through nuclear plants):

http://www.assurpol.fr/index.php?page=general

 

[jlduh]

This news confirms go into the direction of 2 points already mentionned in this thread, the latter being just above:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_20.html

Referring to information offered by Japan right after the accident, Poneman said the US side had difficulty grasping what was actually happening. He said if US officials had been able to obtain data more quickly, they could have given better advice.

It seems that not only us here are saying this...

Poneman said that even before the Fukushima crisis, the US had repeatedly urged Japan to ratify an international treaty over damage from serious nuclear plant accidents. He expressed hope that Japan will ratify the pact soon.

Under the treaty, compensation for serious nuclear accidents would be financially supported by funds collected from the signatories.

Well, this is precisely what i was mentionning in the post above!

 

[jlduh]

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html



NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

Some more contamination of tea leaves:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_39.html

Radioactive material above designated safety limits has been detected in tea leaves harvested in 5 municipalities in Kanagawa Prefecture, neighboring Tokyo.

The prefectural government checked samples of leaves harvested in 15 municipalities in the region. Officials say that samples from 5 of those were found to contain unsafe levels of radioactive cesium.

They say 780 becquerels of cesium were detected in tea leaves in Odawara City, 740 becquerels in Kiyokawa Village, 680 becquerels in Yugawara Town, 670 becquerels in Aikawa Town and 530 becquerels in Manazuru Town.

Damn, this info is really a breaking news to me, not because of the levels (even it there are sufficiently high to make them unsafe!) but BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED:

KANAGAWA prefecture is south of Tokyo!

I located Odawara on this map for example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...008,140.855713&spn=4.754161,13.392334&t=h&z=7

So this is around 330 kms south west of Daichi plant!

Minami Ashigara, also listed in the article, is even further

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...0598,139.251709&spn=4.74326,13.392334&t=h&z=7

The scale at which unsafe deposits are falling is enlarging day after day...

 

[zapperzero]

Color me surprised.
But seriously, because of Fukushima we'll see how well humans can live in fallout areas. It's unconceivable that half of Japan will be evacuated, so...