Jebman Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 This is an absolutely HORRIFIC catastrophe in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmichweather Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 That is unnecessary at this juncture. Meltdown doesn't mean nuclear apocalypse. If anyone wants to start a new thread regarding the nuclear plant though--they are free to do so. i'm pretty sure keeping everything in one big thread is fine keeps info together and things aren't getting 2 out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 That is unnecessary at this juncture. Meltdown doesn't mean nuclear apocalypse. If anyone wants to start a new thread regarding the nuclear plant though--they are free to do so. http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/15242-reactor-meltdown-possible-in-japan/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 i'm pretty sure keeping everything in one big thread is fine keeps info together and things aren't getting 2 out of hand. Haha--I agreed--but a new thread has already been started. I wanted to wait to see if this nuclear plant really did get out of hand first--then it would have really warranted a new thread. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 BBC News reports I've heard that the US is delivering much needed coolant to the plant Clinton said we were delivering coolant to Japan. It's a water cooled plant. Delivering "water" would be ridiculous. Additionally, I keep hearing people compare a possible meltdown to Chernobyl. It's another horrible comparison. Chernobyl didn't have a containment building in the event of a meltdown. All nuclear power plants in the US, Japan, Europe, etc. have containment buildings in the event of a meltdown. Think Three Mile Island and not Chernobyl. The cleanup would be a mess, but we are not going to see anywhere near the problems Chernobyl had. The evacuations are part of the protocol anytime something happens, even if the risk is minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rent Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 i'm pretty sure keeping everything in one big thread is fine keeps info together and things aren't getting 2 out of hand. +1. Close this one at 1000 and open part 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Good old CNN. "Coming up next we ask a weather expert about the ring of fire and why its so dangerous". Maybe tomorrow they can bring in a geologist to explain the 10 day GFS. Meh, I don't think you really need a geologist to explain why the ring of fire is so dangerous. Most news stations expect the Mets to explain anything science related. They do it w/ stuff like comets or meteor showers. It's all about staying under the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmichweather Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I love how all the meteorologist are all now geologist/seismologist, beyond reading a wikipedia page they are pretty clueless (major news networks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Perhaps a new thread is warranted.... I'm not the only one to start a new thread on the reactor situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick05 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Clinton said we were delivering coolant to Japan. It's a water cooled plant. Delivering "water" would be ridiculous. Additionally, I keep hearing people compare a possible meltdown to Chernobyl. It's another horrible comparison. Chernobyl didn't have a containment building in the event of a meltdown. All nuclear power plants in the US, Japan, Europe, etc. have containment buildings in the event of a meltdown. Think Three Mile Island and not Chernobyl. The cleanup would be a mess, but we are not going to see anywhere near the problems Chernobyl had. The evacuations are part of the protocol anytime something happens, even if the risk is minimal. no, it turns out we weren't delivering after all... Japan refused the offer or something... http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/11/state-department-no-emergency-delivery-to-japanese-nuclear-plant/?mod=google_news_blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmichweather Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Haha--I agreed--but a new thread has already been started. I wanted to wait to see if this nuclear plant really did get out of hand first--then it would have really warranted a new thread. Oh well. all good if a major radiation leak/and full meltdown occur then we'll need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeatherPimp Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I love how all the meteorologist are all now geologist/seismologist, beyond reading a wikipedia page they are pretty clueless (major news networks). Thought the same thing when watching CNN earlier - but the general public thinks that meteorologists are experts in all "natural disaster" type situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmichweather Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Thought the same thing when watching CNN earlier - but the general public thinks that meteorologists are experts in all "natural disaster" type situations. ya..... I personally took a geology course as a general ed course, but general plate tectonics, slip strike zones, subduction zones and other earthquake regions meteorologist won't know squat unless they privately research on their own they haven't been formally trained or taught about these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rent Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Thought the same thing when watching CNN earlier - but the general public thinks that meteorologists are experts in all "natural disaster" type situations. Distinction of working in television. The meterologist should have a better understanding of science, even if its not his field, because of the science background of the degree. Its easier for a meterologist to become an instant (respected) expert opposed to the pretty boy anchor. News directors line of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Good old CNN. "Coming up next we ask a weather expert about the ring of fire and why its so dangerous". Maybe tomorrow they can bring in a geologist to explain the 10 day GFS. +1 must be short on staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Meh, I don't think you really need a geologist to explain why the ring of fire is so dangerous. Most news stations expect the Mets to explain anything science related. They do it w/ stuff like comets or meteor showers. It's all about staying under the budget. Non-the-less you would think CNN would have the resources, and common sense, to bring in an "expert" on the actual subject they were discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Distinction of working in television. The meterologist should have a better understanding of science, even if its not his field, because of the science background of the degree. Its easier for a meterologist to become an instant (respected) expert opposed to the pretty boy anchor. News directors line of thought. LOL No one is saying they should claim an anchor is expert in anything but hair spray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 ya..... I personally took a geology course as a general ed course, but general plate tectonics, slip strike zones, subduction zones and other earthquake regions meteorologist won't know squat unless they privately research on their own they haven't been formally trained or taught about these situations. A lot of mets take plenty of geology courses as electives....I know most of my class did at Cornell. I think we had like 3 courses that all were related and one that was specialized. Obviously not every met is going to do this, but I'd bet easily a majority have some college schooling in that department more than the average person. Not as good as an actual geologist obviously, but if they are trying to dumb down the discussion for the general public, most mets will probably be able to explain the stuff well enough...good enough for most networks rather than searching/paying for a geologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Of course, the "weather expert" the used to explain the Pacific ring of fire was none other than Sam Champion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Non-the-less you would think CNN would have the resources, and common sense, to bring in an "expert" on the actual subject they were discussing. True, but it's probably not cost effective for the network. Besides, if they bring an expert on, he has to dumb it down for the audience anyway. So you may as well save time and money by having the weatherman do it. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmichweather Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 the problem with people thinking that meteorologist are geologist is pretty apparent when all major news stations are going to the chief mets. to explain the earthquake/tsunami, it's like have your local pediatrician talk his way through a major heart surgery or organ transplant. you know the basics but are no way the expert in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I love how all the meteorologist are all now geologist/seismologist, beyond reading a wikipedia page they are pretty clueless (major news networks). Sadly, the Japanese haven't helped this, since its the JMA which does earthquake monitoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 A lot of mets take plenty of geology courses as electives....I know most of my class did at Cornell. I think we had like 3 courses that all were related and one that was specialized. Obviously not every met is going to do this, but I'd bet easily a majority have some college schooling in that department more than the average person. Not as good as an actual geologist obviously, but if they are trying to dumb down the discussion for the general public, most mets will probably be able to explain the stuff well enough...good enough for most networks rather than searching/paying for a geologist. your right, but its CNN you would think they would have the resources to do so, its for respectable journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 This is very cool to see. I remember reading that the 1964 Alaska quake caused water levels in wells in South Africa to oscillate. At the time, I thought that was simply due to the sheer size of that event. But looking at that map, some relatively modest quakes on the opposite side of the globe have had an effect on that well. Cool stuff. The 1964 AK earthquake caused a seiche in the GOM and the LP waves caused noticeable oscillations in the underground Missile Lauch Control capsules at Whiteman AFB, MO. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeatherPimp Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 ya..... I personally took a geology course as a general ed course, but general plate tectonics, slip strike zones, subduction zones and other earthquake regions meteorologist won't know squat unless they privately research on their own they haven't been formally trained or taught about these situations. Our meteorology program was geography based, but I also elected to take a geology class and it was very beneficial, and I've been trying to remember what I learned from Geology 101 this afternoon and this evening, haha. It definitely was an interesting class though. Amazing at the number of quakes today. I get USGS alerts in my email and this is what my inbox looks like, all from today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 your right, but its CNN you would think they would have the resources to do so, its for respectable journalism. I'd agree. They should just find someone who knows their stuff inside and out...but for their purposes, they don't really have to. But given this day and age where its easier to get a hold of people, I'm surprised they wouldn't have an actual geologist on by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Please keep the reactor topics to the other thread--I moved reactor relevant posts over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Obviously. And we've got about a sh*t-pile of mets on here. Can ONE of them tell us what the winds are doing, and are forecast to do? I know a geologist. I'll call him in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 CNN had a geologist on about a hour ago. He explained tsunamis and displacement. The guy they had on immediately before him trying to explain it with computer generated animation was horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Sadly, the Japanese haven't helped this, since its the JMA which does earthquake monitoring. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center is under NOAA and was under NWS and it's predecessors back to when it was established after the 1946 Tsunami in HI. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.