4 ms·

The blurb at the top is not always written by the same writer as the article... But even with that said, why doesn't it make sense to compare the number of cas

by gommm 16y ago

The blurb at the top is not always written by the same writer as the article... But even with that said, why doesn't it make sense to compare the number of casualties and damages between different accidents? It's a way to put things into perspective. People have in general a rather faulty sense of proportion and understanding of statistics.

Tichy 16y ago
A billion people die of old age all the time. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't care about other causes of death. The Tsunami deaths have nothing to do with radiation. hence they don't belong into an article about radiation.
- Natsu 16y ago
  This isn't an article about radiation, it's an article about fear. Our sense of fear is not rational. If it were, people in the US would be more afraid of bananas (which count as "highly radioactive" if I apply the scales used by some newspapers evenhandedly) than Fukushima. Which shouldn't count as scary at all. I just ate one, in fact, in spite of knowing that it's choc-full of delicious, radioactive potassium. We fear things that are easy to imagine over common but hard to see risks. The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic. So the death of tens of thousands due to the tsunami will never register the same emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl. It's the same in startup marketing, incidentally. That's why they give people testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of the opposite: the media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible things happening due to invisible killer radiation. A few bad things probably will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were also buried under a 12m wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about that.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than about Tsunamis. I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. It's not my fault if the media tries to milk Fukushima for all it's worth (they live on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? I didn't follow the stories too closely, so I suppose you refer to some measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman. What I heard is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an accident 200km away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the Tokyo water supply. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1mm rise in water levels. And to be honest, I admit if I was living in Tokyo, I would probably still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation levels rise some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not any static data point). And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of).
    - Natsu 16y ago
      > I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search & rescue operations. > If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough. Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant, there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get further away that they're mostly harmless. > And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of). I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a much larger multiplier than the other papers I compared it to). Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of that (again, depending on which numbers you believe). I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like improving them can save a lot of people. But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.
      - Tichy 16y ago
        Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority. As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear power plants with fossile fuel plants.

by gommm 16y ago

Tichy 16y ago

A billion people die of old age all the time. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't care about other causes of death. The Tsunami deaths have nothing to do with radiation. hence they don't belong into an article about radiation.

Natsu 16y ago
This isn't an article about radiation, it's an article about fear. Our sense of fear is not rational. If it were, people in the US would be more afraid of bananas (which count as "highly radioactive" if I apply the scales used by some newspapers evenhandedly) than Fukushima. Which shouldn't count as scary at all. I just ate one, in fact, in spite of knowing that it's choc-full of delicious, radioactive potassium. We fear things that are easy to imagine over common but hard to see risks. The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic. So the death of tens of thousands due to the tsunami will never register the same emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl. It's the same in startup marketing, incidentally. That's why they give people testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of the opposite: the media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible things happening due to invisible killer radiation. A few bad things probably will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were also buried under a 12m wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about that.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than about Tsunamis. I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. It's not my fault if the media tries to milk Fukushima for all it's worth (they live on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? I didn't follow the stories too closely, so I suppose you refer to some measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman. What I heard is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an accident 200km away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the Tokyo water supply. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1mm rise in water levels. And to be honest, I admit if I was living in Tokyo, I would probably still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation levels rise some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not any static data point). And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of).
  - Natsu 16y ago
    > I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search & rescue operations. > If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough. Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant, there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get further away that they're mostly harmless. > And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of). I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a much larger multiplier than the other papers I compared it to). Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of that (again, depending on which numbers you believe). I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like improving them can save a lot of people. But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority. As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear power plants with fossile fuel plants.