EPTWe've always been notoriously xenophobic, but right now it's in full swing with people seeming to believe that the Japanese are the only people in Asia capable of compassion.
The exceptionalism needs to stop.
Crisis in Japan - Page 138
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Thread is about the various issues surrounding Japan in the aftermath of the recent earthquake. Don't bring the shit side of the internet to the thread, and post with the realization that this thread is very important, and very real, to your fellow members. Do not post speculative and unconfirmed news you saw on TV or anywhere else. Generally the more dramatic it sounds the less likely it's true. | ||
|
dump
Japan514 Posts
We've always been notoriously xenophobic, but right now it's in full swing with people seeming to believe that the Japanese are the only people in Asia capable of compassion. The exceptionalism needs to stop. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:44 Hinanawi wrote: There is an awful lot of extremely irresponsible reporting going on about this whole catastrophe from the media. The whole "20 times higher than normal radiation" is just one example. They just throw that number out without putting in context what that actually means to human exposed to it (see: nothing). People don't understand context at all even if you explain it to them because they've already got the idea that radiation is going to kill people even in really insignificant doses (never mind fossil fuels spit a shit load of radiation) hard wired into their brain. Even if you explain that, while very serious, it isn't dire nor is it anything remotely like Chernobyl to people, they'll just respond with "I STILL DON'T LIKE IT!". In Australia, a survey was conducted (I think the Australian Greens did this?) on asylum seekers. When people were told how few asylum seekers there were in relation to the number of immigrants arriving through plane (aka not boatpeople aka wealthy people not on Centrelink), the majority trenched their anti-asylum seeker stance even harder. People believe what they want to believe, its very hard to change someone's beliefs. | ||
|
moochu
Australia374 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:54 Dimagus wrote: Making me do math cause the news sources won't.. GDI.. (According to the article 0.05 uSv/hr is around normal) 20,000,000 times normal and you will be experiencing 1 Sv/hr, which means vomiting and you should immediately seek medical attention. I will arbitrarily say if it isn't over 100,000 times normal, you're probably okay. Thanks for that! | ||
|
Marradron
Netherlands1586 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:53 Maggeus wrote: It's not unlikely : a nuclear reactor is not, and will never be the same as a nuclear bomb. It's absolutely impossible, mainly because the % of U235 is a lot less in a civil plant than in a nuclear bomb (Civil : max 5 to 10%, and really the MAX possible, and a nuclear bomb : 99%.) It's physically impossible. So please stop sprouting nonsense when you don't know a thing in that field. This is not helping. Have to agree with this. There was a UCberkeley lecture on nukes posted a lot of pages ago explaining why it cant blow up like a nuke. What can however happen is dat the molten pool gets in touch with water. If the pool is warm enough it can disect water into oxigan and hydrogyn. If a spark of fires occurs too close it can cause an explosion. In worst case this explosion might get the pool airborn. Found the video. The part of the meltdown is near the end of the video | ||
|
NeoLearner
Belgium1847 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:44 Hinanawi wrote: There is an awful lot of extremely irresponsible reporting going on about this whole catastrophe from the media. Agreed. It's always like that when the topic of nuclear power is brought up. I wonder if it is because of ignorance or plain "panic-sells" evilness. On March 15 2011 19:42 fanta[Rn] wrote: while it is 100 times higher than usual it's still LOW and not a human risk. True. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert 5 microSievert is about 50.000 times less than the threshold to present symptoms. Those are the kind of numbers the media should be throwing out. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27178 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:49 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Lets get to worst case: Meltdown reaches a critical mass, critical temperature, you can have an actual nuclear bomb like explosion. The chances are low, still this is the worst case. Mostly because it yet didnt happen, it is unlikely. resul: you know hiroshima http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12732015 Could there be a nuclear explosion? No. A nuclear bomb and a nuclear reactor are different things. Shut the fuck up. Stop fear mongering. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:18 fanta[Rn] wrote: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/00000000091.html List of M5+ quakes updated in realtime, maybe this would be good for the opening post. there are many aftershocks I've heard a scientist saying that he was more worried about the sysmic situation rather than the nuclear situation. I understand why seeing this, damn how many aftershocks ? | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:58 Womwomwom wrote: People don't understand context at all even if you explain it to them because they've already got the idea that radiation is going to kill people even in really insignificant doses (never mind fossil fuels spit a shit load of radiation) hard wired into their brain. Even if you explain that, while very serious, it isn't dire nor is it anything remotely like Chernobyl to people, they'll just respond with "I STILL DON'T LIKE IT!". In Australia, a survey was conducted (I think the Australian Greens did this?) on asylum seekers. When people were told how few asylum seekers there were in relation to the number of immigrants arriving through plane (aka not boatpeople aka wealthy people not on Centrelink), the majority trenched their anti-asylum seeker stance even harder. People believe what they want to believe, its very hard to change someone's beliefs. Well, in that case wouldn't it be more an issue of people having problems with immigrants to they think will take up government money, and not having problems with immigrants who they don't think will take up government money? Not that I know anything about Australia, I don't. Ugh, 4 AM. I'm out. I hope to see the situation in Japan has gotten better when I wake up. | ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo | ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:03 Grettin wrote: If someone is interested, heres a Tokyos geiger-counter stream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo CPM? You're going to make heads explode in this thread now. | ||
|
dump
Japan514 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:03 Grettin wrote: If someone is interested, heres a Tokyos geiger-counter stream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo That guy had it indoors for a while, says he moved it by the window now. But the window's not open, so I'm not sure how useful it is. Maybe someone with physics knowledge can explain. | ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:05 Dimagus wrote: CPM? You're going to make heads explode in this thread now. That was my plan all along.  But all serious, i have no idea how to even look at the counter. All i read is that about 12 hours ago that meter showed 13cpm. "With radiation counting systems, radioactive transformation events can be measured in units of "disintegrations per minute" (dpm) and, because instruments are not 100% efficient, "counts per minute" (cpm). Background radiation levels are typically less than 10 μR per hour, but due to differences in detector size and efficiency, the cpm reading on fixed monitors and various handheld survey meters will vary considerably." | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:01 Manifesto7 wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12732015 Could there be a nuclear explosion? No. A nuclear bomb and a nuclear reactor are different things. Shut the fuck up. Stop fear mongering. But they win. Germany powers down seven Nuclear plants and very probably withdraws from Nuclear Power technology very soon completely. Important regional elections are soon and arguments (like ... that there are no Earthquakes in Germany) won't win these elections. | ||
|
Maggeus
France277 Posts
CPM can't be converted to Curie if you don't know what type of radiation it is. Meaning it's totally meaningless to use it when you don't know what source of radioactivity it is. Meaning it's not interesting at all, apart from the fact you could see some variations, but you wouldn't know what that mean. :/ | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:49 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: Do you know what you are talking about? Do you know what worst case means? Your meltdown exaggeration is not very exact, i also pass on the ghuls part. Lets start with something like a best case scenario. After a most harmless meltdown, meaning the process stays stable at the very moment, the problems are on a stall. You have extreme engery heavy heat and pressure producing nuclear material, you cannot simply take and get rid off. You cannot even reach it. And thats nearly the best case! (considering situation atm, aka inner cooling fail, pressure release, hydrogene explosion, sea water outer shell cooling, which is totally giving up on the power plant and already out of textbook procedure, aka improvising) result: a small amount of nuclear fallout, by small leaks and pressure handling processes. about a year of spreading material, non leathal dosis Lets get a bit darker, the meltdown melts the nuclear material into a slurry blop, this can get so hot in can melt through the containment unit. (the unit of course also chernobyl had, so you are wrong again, stop guessing, thx) so following gravity the nuclear super hot blob leaves into the earth, maybe producing gases, nuclear fallout can get into air, spread by wind. <>still way way less dangerous than chernobyl where a big explosion torpedoed masses of high risk nuclear material very high into the atmosphere.<> result: high dosis spreading the first days, there need to be containment handling covering the processing material. 20-30 km around the area should be evacuated immidiately. 2km radius is wasteland for decades. Lets get to worst case: Meltdown reaches a critical mass, critical temperature, you can have an actual nuclear bomb like explosion. The chances are low, still this is the worst case. Mostly because it yet didnt happen, it is unlikely. resul: you know hiroshima imagine this is guessing, realistic but still guessing to get an idea. you cannot be sure, because you cannot test out of control accidents very well. thats the reason why japan energy corp cannot tell much. they just cannot follow a rule. and japan is ruled by obeying rules, following authorities. That is exactly what happened in 3 reactors already, uncooled reactors produced hydrogene, that was released to the outer shell to reduce pressure and blasted away the outer building. How much of a hydrogene explosion the inner containment is capable? good question, i hope this will not be tested. The japan authorities had a reason to release the gas to explode outside the containment. You have no idea what you're saying. Nuclear explosion cannot occur on a nuclear plant under any circumstances. Nuclear material can only cause an explosion when it's contained in an extremely tight space for a sufficient amount of time, so that it reacts faster than it evaporates, this is simply impossible without extreme external pressure only achievable with regulated simultaneous explosions and a timed neutron burst. You could tunnel through a brick wall with roughly the same probability as that of those conditions reproduced in a nuclear plant (hint: never). Stop talking about stuff you don't understand in a way that produces more hysteria. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:03 Hinanawi wrote: Well, in that case wouldn't it be more an issue of people having problems with immigrants to they think will take up government money, and not having problems with immigrants who they don't think will take up government money? Not that I know anything about Australia, I don't. Ugh, 4 AM. I'm out. I hope to see the situation in Japan has gotten better when I wake up. Off topic: + Show Spoiler + Nope, the people who did the survey generally didn't care about "legal" immigrants. Even when presented the facts that the asylum seeker problem is a non-issue because so damn few arrive in Australia, they generally responded as if it was a far more serious issue than before. In Australia, we for whatever reason hate people who come "illegally" by boats. It was, strangely, a main election topic with the Liberal party running the famous "Stop the Boats" slogan everywhere and proposing the boatphone and the Labor party running a similar campaign only a bit more euphemistic. | ||
|
dump
Japan514 Posts
On issues where we have no credible and understandable scientific information, we're probably going to have to resort to the simple assumption that the doomsday scenarios are likely politicized. | ||
|
Quarz
448 Posts
On March 15 2011 19:43 Manifesto7 wrote: Thank you. Again, context is important people. Because you dont die immediately doesn't mean that is not dangerous. Those people who work there are in a pretty dagerous situation. Don't play down everything. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27178 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:15 Quarz wrote: Because you dont die immediately doesn't mean that is not dangerous. Those people who work there are in a pretty dagerous situation. Don't play down everything. Yeah, except we were referencing about the number in Ibaraki prefecture, not at the plant. Thanks though. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On March 15 2011 20:15 Quarz wrote: Because you dont die immediately doesn't mean that is not dangerous. Those people who work there are in a pretty dagerous situation. Don't play down everything. Yes and that still doesn't mean people in Tokyo are going to suffer greatly from radiation like a lot of the media seems to be suggesting with context-less "5 times the normal radiation levels!". That's the point people are making, its the serious situation but its not one where people who be shitting their pants and crying out for the ban on nuclear energy. | ||
| ||
