9 ms·

The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar reputation when

The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar reputation when it comes to telling the truth[1], and a culture programmed to downplay very bad things. It has really pained me to see people rush to believe that everything is fine. Conclusions at any stage of this crisis have been premature, but HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality to a crisis that isn't even over yet. Apparently people don't want it to be a big deal, but it's slowly turning into a big deal. It just is. Instead of big essays and conclusions about how the powers-that-be have it under control complete with inaccurate depictions of how a reactor works, why don't we focus on facts? With that in mind, we do not know how bad it is. Anyone who says they do is lying to you. It isn't over, and it is a basic fact of logic that we will not be able to reflect on how bad this is or was until it is over. At the risk of a neener-neener I told you so, I presented some of this viewpoint[2] on the self-aggrandizing risk management Ph.D.'s everything's fine piece, but my viewpoint was drowned out by people wanting to rush to a conclusion so they can put the crisis out of sight and out of mind. [1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.scandal/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.s... [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305

forensic 16y ago
Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved. It's inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place. The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction's main emphasis must be on handling all possible contingencies... right? If Fukushima does end up being a "Big Deal" that is going to forcibly shift the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world. The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that's just reality. I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh reality of nuclear related deaths then... that's just how it will have to be. I'll have to eat my hat. I'm not looking forward to it. In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not be an issue that threatens human life.
- jshen 16y ago
  " It will represent a piece of data is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world." Sadly that rarely changes anyones mind.
  - mistermann 16y ago
    Indeed, and that goes both ways......just as several decades of extensive use of nuc lear power generation with practically no deaths in multiple countries has done absolutely nothing to quell some people's fears. Any guess as to who understands the science better? But then, its not about science is it? And its certainly not about facts.
    - mturmon 16y ago
      Not offering an opinion one way or the other, but just noting that there really are some facts here that are motivating people. The piece that rationalist engineers (I am one of them) tend to gloss over is that the public has historically been lied to, by experts about the dangers and difficulties of nuclear power -- all nuclear technology, really. X rays for shoe sizing. Atmospheric weapons tests. Ed Teller. The downside to accidents is large, and there's not much trust anymore. Some, but not much. These are the facts that are perhaps engaging people's fears. Given this history, for some people, the bank of "expert credibility" is overdrawn already. The classic nerd technique of argument from expertise is ineffective.
      - icarus_drowning 16y ago
        ...and none of this says anything about the facts that have been reported (most of which, you'll note, have not been pretty for pro-nuke advocates). Are the facts that have been reported wrong? If you don't have evidence that they aren't, this is just a "hunch", and not really worth serious consideration.
      - tomjen3 16y ago
        If we shouldn't argue from expertise, what should we argue from? Cast members of Jersey Shore? Berry diet fad producers? PR persons? Our personal feelings? A magic 8 ball? Seriously if they won't listen to experts (assuming that we can agree on whom the experts are), that is perhaps the best argument against democracy that I have ever heard.
icarus_drowning 16y ago
While it is true that there are many people attempting to call the crisis "over" without adequate evidence that this is the case, I think it is equally obvious that there are many people who are doing the opposite: namely, attempting to make the case that the crisis is far worse than the incomplete facts indicate. I applaud your more measured approach, but I must say that, as someone who has read most of the stories and comments regarding this topic that have hit the front page, I do feel that you are decidedly in the minority. There are plenty of people rushing to call this a horrendous disaster, who are privy to the same limited information, and who are likewise doing very little to contribute to the discussion.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  I mostly agree, but we have to assume the absolute worst and be rewarded with good news, rather than assume everything's fine and be surprised when a large number of Japanese citizens get thyroid cancer. Even though I think "oh my God, Chernobyl!" is uncalled for at this point, the fact is that the limited information doesn't change that we might be in a horrendous disaster (and arguably are). The information we do have tells us it's bad; the information we don't have doesn't tell us how bad.
  - sigstoat 16y ago
    unless we're nuclear engineers, there is nothing we can do about the situation besides donate to relief organizations. with no productive actions to take, why should we assume anything?
    - gnosis 16y ago
      There are productive actions you can take to try to prevent this from happening again: 1 - work to close existing nuclear plants 2 - work to make sure no new ones are built
      - orangecat 16y ago
        Also, we can solve traffic fatalities by getting rid of cars.
mechanical_fish 16y ago
why don't we focus on facts? Because we don't have any actionable ones? But, okay, as you wish. I have the crisis firmly in mind now. I will not "rush to believe that everything is fine" or anything. So. Do you have any advice about what action I should take next? I live twelve time zones away, am a citizen of a different country, and have only a passing acquaintance with nuclear engineering. I can't accomplish anything useful by panicking. I can't change building codes from N years ago, I couldn't prosecute anyone in Japan for negligence even if I had any evidence of same (which I do not), I can't dictate to Japanese industry even if I knew what to do (which I obviously don't), I can't run the Japanese government, I can't even vote in Japan. Neither I nor anything else we know can stop radioactive elements from decaying, and I can't unwind time and stop the earthquake. I suppose I can raise my blood pressure, and raise the blood pressure of everyone else I know, and we might even achieve mass hysteria. Is that really a good idea? Why? Like every citizen of the USA, I happen to have some experience with mass hysteria. It didn't turn out well in 2001. I'm not anxious to see more of it. What would you like me to do, instead of waiting for events to unfold, staying away from certain portions of the Japanese coast, hoping that various Japanese nuclear engineers have done their duty well, and meanwhile focusing on other things?
- jedsmith 16y ago
  Why do you have to act? What impetus is making you do something, whether it be conclude about the crisis so you can put it out of mind or fly over and pump seawater yourself or something? What is preventing you from doing absolutely nothing and still not forming a conclusion? This is the meat of the entire thing, I think, and those upvoting you are feeling the same way, so let's have a Robin Williams/Matt Damon moment, okay? YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. RELAX AND WAIT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. RELAX AND WAIT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. RELAX AND WAIT. This incessant urge to do something is making you draw conclusions early, too, and I worry that you're having a hard time seeing an alternate approach: do nothing, relax, go about your life, and wait for the big word on what's going on. This isn't your fault, either. It's the media's, for setting an expectation of knowing about something before it's over and for moving on before the long-term ramifications are widely disseminated.
- fluidcruft 16y ago
tres 16y ago
I'm not sure whether it's that "HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality..." or if we're just naturally inclined to want good news in the face of overwhelmingly bad news. I keep on thinking of Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams..." (One of the segments deals with just this kind of scenario. The protagonist finds himself in hell after a nuclear disaster.) A horror like this has been in the cultural subconscious of Japan for decades. They always knew that there was a possibility of something like this, but they chose to gamble against it happening. They didn't do it because they were foolish, or naive. They did their best to avert that disaster. The people had faith in the talent and skills of those engineers responsible. It's our nature to want to see the good... even in a horror like this. (Especially a bunch of people who are willing to risk everything to start a business.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
pyre 16y ago
> Apparently people don't want it to be a big deal, but it's > slowly turning into a big deal. I think that people's reactions here are because they view this as the new beachhead in the 'nuclear is evil and will destroy the world' argument. I think that the reality probably boils down to: It's possible to do nuclear in a safe way. It's even possible for humans to build such a system (i.e. the complexity is not out-of-reach), but it's possible that (like economics) this fails to take into account how illogical humans are (e.g. cutting corners on something that is *really* dangerous).
guelo 16y ago
I think a lot of the nuclear defensiveness attitude has to do with anti-leftist conspiracy bias. There are a lot of people that think that there are giant conspiracies run by environmentalists/hippies/peaceniks etc. that are blocking human progress, such as our ability to create nuclear power utopias. Forming your worldview around these types of ideologies can be uncomfortable when it clashes with reality.
- gommm 16y ago
  I don't see that as a giant conspiracy, I'm just convinced that most people do not have the knowledge necessary to have a useful opinion, don't think much, are easily swayed when people make them scared and running a political campaign using fear to galvanize the population into support is very effective. So no, it's not a giant conspiracy, it's just normal human fear of the unknown...

forensic 16y ago

Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved. It's inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place. The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction's main emphasis must be on handling all possible contingencies... right? If Fukushima does end up being a "Big Deal" that is going to forcibly shift the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world. The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that's just reality. I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh reality of nuclear related deaths then... that's just how it will have to be. I'll have to eat my hat. I'm not looking forward to it. In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not be an issue that threatens human life.

jshen 16y ago
" It will represent a piece of data is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world." Sadly that rarely changes anyones mind.
- mistermann 16y ago
  Indeed, and that goes both ways......just as several decades of extensive use of nuc lear power generation with practically no deaths in multiple countries has done absolutely nothing to quell some people's fears. Any guess as to who understands the science better? But then, its not about science is it? And its certainly not about facts.
  - mturmon 16y ago
    Not offering an opinion one way or the other, but just noting that there really are some facts here that are motivating people. The piece that rationalist engineers (I am one of them) tend to gloss over is that the public has historically been lied to, by experts about the dangers and difficulties of nuclear power -- all nuclear technology, really. X rays for shoe sizing. Atmospheric weapons tests. Ed Teller. The downside to accidents is large, and there's not much trust anymore. Some, but not much. These are the facts that are perhaps engaging people's fears. Given this history, for some people, the bank of "expert credibility" is overdrawn already. The classic nerd technique of argument from expertise is ineffective.
    - icarus_drowning 16y ago
      ...and none of this says anything about the facts that have been reported (most of which, you'll note, have not been pretty for pro-nuke advocates). Are the facts that have been reported wrong? If you don't have evidence that they aren't, this is just a "hunch", and not really worth serious consideration.
    - tomjen3 16y ago
      If we shouldn't argue from expertise, what should we argue from? Cast members of Jersey Shore? Berry diet fad producers? PR persons? Our personal feelings? A magic 8 ball? Seriously if they won't listen to experts (assuming that we can agree on whom the experts are), that is perhaps the best argument against democracy that I have ever heard.

icarus_drowning 16y ago

While it is true that there are many people attempting to call the crisis "over" without adequate evidence that this is the case, I think it is equally obvious that there are many people who are doing the opposite: namely, attempting to make the case that the crisis is far worse than the incomplete facts indicate. I applaud your more measured approach, but I must say that, as someone who has read most of the stories and comments regarding this topic that have hit the front page, I do feel that you are decidedly in the minority. There are plenty of people rushing to call this a horrendous disaster, who are privy to the same limited information, and who are likewise doing very little to contribute to the discussion.

jedsmith 16y ago
I mostly agree, but we have to assume the absolute worst and be rewarded with good news, rather than assume everything's fine and be surprised when a large number of Japanese citizens get thyroid cancer. Even though I think "oh my God, Chernobyl!" is uncalled for at this point, the fact is that the limited information doesn't change that we might be in a horrendous disaster (and arguably are). The information we do have tells us it's bad; the information we don't have doesn't tell us how bad.
- sigstoat 16y ago
  unless we're nuclear engineers, there is nothing we can do about the situation besides donate to relief organizations. with no productive actions to take, why should we assume anything?
  - gnosis 16y ago
    There are productive actions you can take to try to prevent this from happening again: 1 - work to close existing nuclear plants 2 - work to make sure no new ones are built
    - orangecat 16y ago
      Also, we can solve traffic fatalities by getting rid of cars.

mechanical_fish 16y ago

why don't we focus on facts? Because we don't have any actionable ones? But, okay, as you wish. I have the crisis firmly in mind now. I will not "rush to believe that everything is fine" or anything. So. Do you have any advice about what action I should take next? I live twelve time zones away, am a citizen of a different country, and have only a passing acquaintance with nuclear engineering. I can't accomplish anything useful by panicking. I can't change building codes from N years ago, I couldn't prosecute anyone in Japan for negligence even if I had any evidence of same (which I do not), I can't dictate to Japanese industry even if I knew what to do (which I obviously don't), I can't run the Japanese government, I can't even vote in Japan. Neither I nor anything else we know can stop radioactive elements from decaying, and I can't unwind time and stop the earthquake. I suppose I can raise my blood pressure, and raise the blood pressure of everyone else I know, and we might even achieve mass hysteria. Is that really a good idea? Why? Like every citizen of the USA, I happen to have some experience with mass hysteria. It didn't turn out well in 2001. I'm not anxious to see more of it. What would you like me to do, instead of waiting for events to unfold, staying away from certain portions of the Japanese coast, hoping that various Japanese nuclear engineers have done their duty well, and meanwhile focusing on other things?

jedsmith 16y ago
Why do you have to act? What impetus is making you do something, whether it be conclude about the crisis so you can put it out of mind or fly over and pump seawater yourself or something? What is preventing you from doing absolutely nothing and still not forming a conclusion? This is the meat of the entire thing, I think, and those upvoting you are feeling the same way, so let's have a Robin Williams/Matt Damon moment, okay? YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. RELAX AND WAIT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. RELAX AND WAIT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. RELAX AND WAIT. This incessant urge to do something is making you draw conclusions early, too, and I worry that you're having a hard time seeing an alternate approach: do nothing, relax, go about your life, and wait for the big word on what's going on. This isn't your fault, either. It's the media's, for setting an expectation of knowing about something before it's over and for moving on before the long-term ramifications are widely disseminated.
fluidcruft 16y ago

tres 16y ago

I'm not sure whether it's that "HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality..." or if we're just naturally inclined to want good news in the face of overwhelmingly bad news. I keep on thinking of Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams..." (One of the segments deals with just this kind of scenario. The protagonist finds himself in hell after a nuclear disaster.) A horror like this has been in the cultural subconscious of Japan for decades. They always knew that there was a possibility of something like this, but they chose to gamble against it happening. They didn't do it because they were foolish, or naive. They did their best to avert that disaster. The people had faith in the talent and skills of those engineers responsible. It's our nature to want to see the good... even in a horror like this. (Especially a bunch of people who are willing to risk everything to start a business.)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

pyre 16y ago

> Apparently people don't want it to be a big deal, but it's > slowly turning into a big deal. I think that people's reactions here are because they view this as the new beachhead in the 'nuclear is evil and will destroy the world' argument. I think that the reality probably boils down to: It's possible to do nuclear in a safe way. It's even possible for humans to build such a system (i.e. the complexity is not out-of-reach), but it's possible that (like economics) this fails to take into account how illogical humans are (e.g. cutting corners on something that is *really* dangerous).

guelo 16y ago

I think a lot of the nuclear defensiveness attitude has to do with anti-leftist conspiracy bias. There are a lot of people that think that there are giant conspiracies run by environmentalists/hippies/peaceniks etc. that are blocking human progress, such as our ability to create nuclear power utopias. Forming your worldview around these types of ideologies can be uncomfortable when it clashes with reality.

gommm 16y ago
I don't see that as a giant conspiracy, I'm just convinced that most people do not have the knowledge necessary to have a useful opinion, don't think much, are easily swayed when people make them scared and running a political campaign using fear to galvanize the population into support is very effective. So no, it's not a giant conspiracy, it's just normal human fear of the unknown...