What goes through their minds?

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:07 am

"The death toll from Japan's worst post-war disaster topped 10000 Friday as the operator of a radiation-belching nuclear plant warned that work to stabilise it may take another month". That is from Giles Hewitt of AFP.

View full article here

DerekReynolds · **Joined:** Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:41 pm **Posts:** 241

There is much speculation from the conspiracy theorists, and those who are knowledgeable of the devices acclaimed to affect Nature, or in some way give it a helping hand.

Regardless, the Japanese are a resourceful and industrious race as witnessed here: ROAD, post earthquake, and SIX days later

Whilst Hertfordshire's Winter pot-holes remain, the Japs are getting on with rebuilding. Reactor rebuild? They'll get there - despite the hand wringers.

oldrightie · **Joined:** Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:46 am **Posts:** 68

"If events outstrip the capabilities of the journalists to understand them". A daily and frequent occurrence, Richard. PDT_Armataz_01_42

harris · **Joined:** Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:20 am **Posts:** 554

youtube: "Nancy Grace, Weatherman Bernie Rayno Fight About Radiation"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsDomUQ-fYM

Shub Niggurath · **Joined:** Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:21 pm **Posts:** 200

If events outstrip the mental capacity of the journalists to resist the temptation of speaking propaganda, then you are not going to get credible reporting

DaveEvans · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Minds?

therewaslight · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:15 pm

It's very easy to be smug if you choose to say nothing other than pick apart the content of those who choose to say something.

This blog and forum is behind the curve as much as the journalists you dislike, only in the opposite way of not predicting anything useful rather than saying a lot of hype.

Nobody here predicted -

1. the disaster would last as long as it has

2. would affect multiple reactors

3. include some quantity of plutonium and uranium

4. would significantly contaminate a 30 mile radius with, according to the IAEA and a Nuclear Engineer, radiation hotspots equivalent to those found at Chernobyl

If you had done that your analysis would be more well-rounded and you would get more kudos.

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:01 pm

therewaslight wrote:

It's very easy to be smug if you choose to say nothing other than pick apart the content of those who choose to say something.

This blog and forum is behind the curve as much as the journalists you dislike, only in the opposite way of not predicting anything useful rather than saying a lot of hype.

Nobody here predicted -

1. the disaster would last as long as it has

2. would affect multiple reactors

3. include some quantity of plutonium and uranium

4. would significantly contaminate a 30 mile radius with, according to the IAEA and a Nuclear Engineer, radiation hotspots equivalent to those found at Chernobyl

If you had done that your analysis would be more well-rounded and you would get more kudos.

I don't know quite what you expect of either this blog, or the forum, especially when initially on the blog I felt that this was an issue which required primary, on-the-spot reporting, rendering blogs somewhat derivative. The entry point, therefore, is not in terms of reporting events but, as far as I am concerned, reporting on the reporting. I will not profess and have not professed to be a nuclear expert - and nor do I have the time to shadow this crisis in any great depth. Where I do claim some expertise, however, is in studying the scare phenomena, and that is where I have made some input. I do not see what more you could or should expect - or anything at all. I am puzzled as to why you feel I should be devoting my time and energy to conforming with your idea of staying ahead of what you believe to be the "curve".

DaveEvans · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:36 pm

TWL. I've kept out of this because although I have a science/engineering background, I didn't feel specially qualified to comment. I do feel qualified to speak on the level on your posts. You really seem to be like an AGW catatrophist posting what supports your irrational fears, not a dispassionate observer. To be honest, you're pissing me off!

Aurelian · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Very bored now.
Why not just rename this blog "Fukushima frightener" and have done with it?
And that new "ism"?
Alarmism.
PDT_Armataz_01_15

archonix · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:03 pm

TWL, presenting you with evidence that you are mistaken is not "picking apart" anything. Well it is, but it's justified, in the same way that any mistaken argument must be picked apart in order to demonstrate those mistakes. And, again, you have repeatedly ignored me and others when we have shown you to be mistaken, preferring to stick to the technique of argumentum clamore and good old argument from authority. I went off and researched what you were talking about and found it was bunk rather than just relying on what some talking head on a video has deigned to pour forth upon the world.

This wasn't an attack on you, twl. I like you and I've agreed with you in the past. The problem seems to be that you, like many people, fall into the trap of believing that an attack on your position is an attack on your person. It isn't. The problem is compounded by your inability to accept when you have been proven wrong and your persistent refusal to accept that has got more than a few backs up.

therewaslight · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:46 pm

Sometimes there is something to fear. We have that emotion for a reason. Therefore, sometimes to fear is good because it makes us better prepared, so scares can serve a positive purpose - when necessary.

How are we to quantify this "scare" such that if it happened, it was too much of a scare?

I don't know.

By way of adding data to this discussion.

Past month, google news:

41 for nuclear-armageddon
3,094 for nuclear-catastrophe
7,628 for nuclear-accident
13,807 for nuclear-disaster
29,328 for nuclear-crisis

89 for nuclear scaremongering
218 for nuclear hype
275 for nuclear-scare
845 for nuclear-contamination
8,945 for nuclear-meltdown
11,706 for nuclear fallout
20,243 for nuclear dangerous

639 for nuclear far-from-over
216 for nuclear not-under-control
33 for nuclear now-under-control

114 for radiation good-for-you
2,177 for radiation poisoning

onoropu · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:08 am

therewaslight wrote:

It's very easy to be smug if you choose to say nothing other than pick apart the content of those who choose to say something.

It is also very easy to be smug if you choose to ignore comments from other contributors and thereby just preserve your original line of argument. I thought you took pride in your ability to debate?

therewaslight wrote:

Nobody here predicted -

1. the disaster would last as long as it has

If you check, you will notice that several people commented that it would not be over quickly.

therewaslight wrote:

2. would affect multiple reactors

That was discussed as soon as it was realised that the generators were not tsunami proof.

therewaslight wrote:

3. include some quantity of plutonium and uranium

Including you - none of us were aware of that, at the time of the earthquake.

therewaslight wrote:

4. would significantly contaminate a 30 mile radius with, according to the IAEA and a Nuclear Engineer, radiation hotspots equivalent to those found at Chernobyl

You are being somewhat disingenuous here. The 30 mile radius refers to marine sampling. It does not relate to land sampling. The finding is that the main contaminant is Iodine-131, as I predicted, and that the Caesium-137 released has quickly dispersed in sea water, as I also predicted. The IAEA also says that it will be possible to follow Caesium-137 over long distances for several years, but will take months or years to reach other shores of the Pacific. The IAEA has made no comparison with Chernobyl, to my knowledge.

And, did you not see my responses to you on the previous thread? Since you are still placing reliance in your "Nuclear Engineer" perhaps I aught to cross-post it here for your comment:

onoropu wrote:

therewaslight wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kgwd_9HyME

Chief Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen "News on Fukushima Daiichi" dated 23 March.

therewaslight wrote:

Now in comparison, and it's not an exact comparison, but it's pretty good, at Chernobyl the IAEA considered a hotspot if the beta contamination exceeded 500,000 disintegrations every second, or 0.5 mega-becequerels per square meter. So this is on the same realm as what a radioactive hotspot was considered at by the IAEA after Chernobyl

Have you checked this source? Have you looked at Mr Gundersen's web site? Have you independently verified that the information he quotes regarding the IAEA for Chernobyl (which was an explosion at a military nuclear enrichment plant involving a mixture of Uranium isotopes being ejected into the higher atmosphere in a core explosion) is a valid comparison to what has happened (and is happening) at Fukushima (which is a civilian power generation plant that has generally ejected Caesium and Iodine)?

The Becequerel is a measure of radioactivity - that is the rate of nucleus decays per second - so a given mass of a short-lived isotope, like Iodine-131, will have a much higher Becequerel value than the same mass of a long-lived isotope, like Uranium-235, but of course, with Iodine the radioactivity will only last weeks, for Uranium it will last much longer than that. We might not be comparing like with like.

It would appear that Mr Gundersen is the Chief (and only) Nuclear Engineer for Fairewinds Associates Inc. The other associate in the "corporation" is Mrs Gundersen, who happens to be a lawyer specialising in litigation on matters nuclear - class action, anybody?

I think you should heed RAENORTH's advice: "it helps if all parties avoid appeal to authority, and concentrate on the facts, rather than rely on what are very often partisan agencies intent on pursuing their own agendas."

DerekReynolds · **Joined:** Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:41 pm **Posts:** 241

therewaslight wrote:

Sometimes there is something to fear. We have that emotion for a reason. Therefore, sometimes to fear is good because it makes us better prepared, so scares can serve a positive purpose - when necessary.

How are we to quantify this "scare" such that if it happened, it was too much of a scare?

I don't know.

By way of adding data to this discussion.

Past month, google news:

41 for nuclear-armageddon
3,094 for nuclear-catastrophe
7,628 for nuclear-accident
13,807 for nuclear-disaster
29,328 for nuclear-crisis

89 for nuclear scaremongering
218 for nuclear hype
275 for nuclear-scare
845 for nuclear-contamination
8,945 for nuclear-meltdown
11,706 for nuclear fallout
20,243 for nuclear dangerous

639 for nuclear far-from-over
216 for nuclear not-under-control
33 for nuclear now-under-control

114 for radiation good-for-you
2,177 for radiation poisoning

That's data? That's opinion. And from whom? Google News? Did they do a poll in the High Street or the media? And what are the parameters for defining each category? You want to quantify a 'scare'? Of my two daughters one is scared of spiders, the other not. Scared, may be due to a lack of knowledge, a vivid imagination, or being told downright lies. One of our dogs had an X-ray yesterday, probably received more radiation in five minutes than most people in Japan over the past year.

Gunderson sounds like he knows precious little about the Fukushima plant, its design, capabilities, or the processes involved.

Someone claps their hands, and the birds fly skywards. What goes through their minds? Instinct, that dictates loud noises are indicators of danger. They don't know it was not a gun. Self preservation takes precedence over thought. Thought demands analysis, the gaining of knowledge, and reasoned action in the event of danger. Some people only learn to be 'scared', they seek protection from opinion and of sharing their 'fright'.

therewaslight · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:05 am

onoropu wrote:

The Becequerel is a measure of radioactivity - that is the rate of nucleus decays per second - so a given mass of a short-lived isotope, like Iodine-131, will have a much higher Becequerel value than the same mass of a long-lived isotope, like Uranium-235, but of course, with Iodine the radioactivity will only last weeks, for Uranium it will last much longer than that. We might not be comparing like with like.

This is helpful, thanks. However, it doesn't make it any less dangerous to be standing around while it's happening, does it? It's a speeded-up Chernobyl - dangerous short term, over relatively more quickly. So it's not a Panda Bear cuddly nuclear accident. It's glass half full versus glass half empty thinking.

Appeal to authorities are inevitable. It's either on someone else's authority or your own. Discussion should involve appeals to evidence, and whether that's you bringing the evidence or another person it doesn't matter. Evidence is evidence.

Also, I do read other things that are written, but I'm not going reply to every little thing someone says. I pick out particularly useful snippets, like above.

What goes through their minds?

Who is online