5 ms·

Pretty jaw-dropping journalism, even by Register standards. Anyone trying to suggest that the situation at Fukushima is "under control" and is somehow a nuclea

by motters 16y ago

Pretty jaw-dropping journalism, even by Register standards. Anyone trying to suggest that the situation at Fukushima is "under control" and is somehow a nuclear industry safety success story hasn't been paying close enough attention.

lurch_mojoff 16y ago
I guess you are right, but it's just as dishonest to present the situation as completely out of control and use Fukushima as an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous. Which is what mainstream media has been mostly doing.
- paganel 16y ago
  > an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous 50 people sacrificing their lives so that anything even shittier would not happen "is safe and not dangerous"? I fail to imagine what you really find "unsafe and dangerous".
  - rimantas 16y ago
    Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
    - paganel 16y ago
      Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.
      - jbri 16y ago
        I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe?
      - paganel 16y ago
        In responding to jbri's comment bellow, as the "Reply" link doesn't show up for me on that one: > Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe? Yeah, this is what I'm saying, but isn't this what web 2.0 people were calling "wisdom of the crowds"? I guess back then it sounded cool, now it's just "return to technocracy" once more.
        jbri 16y ago
        You can click the "link" button next to the comment header to get a reply box regardless. Regarding this "wisdom of the crowds" crap, does the presence of a lynch mob indicate that someone was actually guilty? If masses of people swear by a medical treatment, does that magically mean it's not a placebo? Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity.
        paganel 16y ago
        > Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity. We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said. I guess history will decide.
        khafra 16y ago
        If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I don't think other people here understand which of these arguments you're making, either.
  - hartror 16y ago
    Who said they were sacrificing their lives, the plant workers are well prepared, equipped and drilled for this.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    He's right, if you look broadly at statistics rather than anecdotes that you can count on the thumb of one hand.
    - fremdkraft 16y ago
      The problem with these statistics is that you don't really know how many people died of seemingly unrelated diseases while exposure to (increased) radiation has triggered or magnified its development. I'm not trying to blame radiation for everything. Just pointing out it's likely that these statistics do not convey the complete picture.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    What people are you talking about?
    - paganel 16y ago
      > What people are you talking about? These: http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html From here: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/c1kqp4g http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...
      - GHFigs 16y ago
        I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. The first link is just a list of profiles/interviews with various employees of the company (the newest being over a year old). Strictly speaking, it's possible that some of them are the same people working at the site at present, but this is a company with (according to the site) over 15,000 employees. That nobody on Reddit even bothered to run the site through an automatic translator is telling. But more to the point, there is no indication of "people sacrificing their lives" unless you count the extremely hyperbolic assumption that everybody working at the site is automatically doomed.
        paganel 16y ago
        > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. A day after the reddit comment the NyTimes had a front-page article on them: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html . The general tone of the article and of the people commenting on the article was that of "sacrifice", i.e. people putting their lives on the line for the benefits of the greater community. Updated: More about it from here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503051&objectid=10712802 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_i...): > David Richardson, a professor of epidemiology at the university of North Carolina who has studied the long-term health risks for nuclear plant workers, told the BBC those at Fukushima would receive in an hour the same amount of radiation a US nuclear worker is exposed over an entire career. To a non-specialist like me that sounds like "sacrifice".
hartror 16y ago
I don't get the impression the article suggests things are under control, more that the risks have been greatly exaggerated. The main points seem to be these: 1. The engineers working at the plant have more options they can fall back on to prevent a major radiation leak and the chances of a major leak is pretty unlikely due to the inherit characteristics of the reactors. 2. The reactors were pushed 5x beyond spec in an extraordinary event and have performed well even though they were designed 40+ years ago. This is a testament to the safety system design and technology in the reactors.

by motters 16y ago

lurch_mojoff 16y ago

I guess you are right, but it's just as dishonest to present the situation as completely out of control and use Fukushima as an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous. Which is what mainstream media has been mostly doing.

paganel 16y ago
> an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous 50 people sacrificing their lives so that anything even shittier would not happen "is safe and not dangerous"? I fail to imagine what you really find "unsafe and dangerous".
- rimantas 16y ago
  Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
  - paganel 16y ago
    Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.
    - jbri 16y ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe?
    - paganel 16y ago
      In responding to jbri's comment bellow, as the "Reply" link doesn't show up for me on that one: > Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe? Yeah, this is what I'm saying, but isn't this what web 2.0 people were calling "wisdom of the crowds"? I guess back then it sounded cool, now it's just "return to technocracy" once more.
      - jbri 16y ago
        You can click the "link" button next to the comment header to get a reply box regardless. Regarding this "wisdom of the crowds" crap, does the presence of a lynch mob indicate that someone was actually guilty? If masses of people swear by a medical treatment, does that magically mean it's not a placebo? Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity.
        paganel 16y ago
        > Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity. We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said. I guess history will decide.
        khafra 16y ago
        If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I don't think other people here understand which of these arguments you're making, either.
- hartror 16y ago
  Who said they were sacrificing their lives, the plant workers are well prepared, equipped and drilled for this.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  He's right, if you look broadly at statistics rather than anecdotes that you can count on the thumb of one hand.
  - fremdkraft 16y ago
    The problem with these statistics is that you don't really know how many people died of seemingly unrelated diseases while exposure to (increased) radiation has triggered or magnified its development. I'm not trying to blame radiation for everything. Just pointing out it's likely that these statistics do not convey the complete picture.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  What people are you talking about?
  - paganel 16y ago
    > What people are you talking about? These: http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html From here: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/c1kqp4g http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. The first link is just a list of profiles/interviews with various employees of the company (the newest being over a year old). Strictly speaking, it's possible that some of them are the same people working at the site at present, but this is a company with (according to the site) over 15,000 employees. That nobody on Reddit even bothered to run the site through an automatic translator is telling. But more to the point, there is no indication of "people sacrificing their lives" unless you count the extremely hyperbolic assumption that everybody working at the site is automatically doomed.
      - paganel 16y ago
        > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. A day after the reddit comment the NyTimes had a front-page article on them: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html . The general tone of the article and of the people commenting on the article was that of "sacrifice", i.e. people putting their lives on the line for the benefits of the greater community. Updated: More about it from here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503051&objectid=10712802 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_i...): > David Richardson, a professor of epidemiology at the university of North Carolina who has studied the long-term health risks for nuclear plant workers, told the BBC those at Fukushima would receive in an hour the same amount of radiation a US nuclear worker is exposed over an entire career. To a non-specialist like me that sounds like "sacrifice".

hartror 16y ago

I don't get the impression the article suggests things are under control, more that the risks have been greatly exaggerated. The main points seem to be these: 1. The engineers working at the plant have more options they can fall back on to prevent a major radiation leak and the chances of a major leak is pretty unlikely due to the inherit characteristics of the reactors. 2. The reactors were pushed 5x beyond spec in an extraordinary event and have performed well even though they were designed 40+ years ago. This is a testament to the safety system design and technology in the reactors.