HIPPYVALLEY Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I understand that. I fail to see how there can be any relevant comparison made between the two, though. There is essentially zero similarity between the two governments, or for that matter between the two incidents. True, little similarity between the two events and how they went down. I think maybe it is just the suggestion in general that government authorities tend to bend the truth. However, since the Japanese have more integrity than most it probably is unfair to compare them at all to the Soviet government in the 1980's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power has found it difficult to spray water from a helicopter to cool down a storage pool for spent nuclear fuel inside the No.4 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The reactor was undergoing an inspection when the quake occurred. The firm says the temperature of the storage pool for spent nuclear fuel was 84 degrees Celsius on Monday morning, more than double the normal level. More recent temperatures are not available due to a technical failure. On Tuesday morning, an explosion was heard and the roof of the building that houses the No.4 reactor was damaged. Tokyo Electric Power, the operator of the plant, says it appears a lack of coolant caused the fuel rods to be exposed, adding that a hydrogen explosion might have occurred. If the reactor can't be cooled, the fuel rods may emit hydrogen or melt down. Tokyo Electric Power considering pouring water onto the storage pool in the containment vessel through a hole on the roof created by the blast. However, the firm concluded that it would be extremely difficult to spray water from a helicopter as the hole is dozens of meters from the storage pool and a helicopter can only carry a limited amount of water on a single flight. Workers are currently unable to approach the storage pool due to the high radiation levels. Tokyo Electric Company is studying the possibility of using fire engines and other options to inject water into the reactor. Wednesday, March 16, 2011 03:04 +0900 (JST) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 True, little similarity between the two events and how they went down. I think maybe it is just the suggestion in general that government authorities tend to bend the truth. However, since the Japanese have more integrity than most it probably is unfair to compare them at all to the Soviet government in the 1980's. I wouldn't be surprised if they were only giving the absolute minimum amount of information in order to keep people from panicking, and to make sure they have everything verified. And I'm sure they don't know every detail, either (nobody does)... but ya, it seems pretty silly to me to make any comparison between this and the Soviet government's response to the Chernobyl disaster. They're about as different as you could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisM Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 So you think the Soviet gov't of 1986 is a relevant comparison to the Japanese gov't of 2011? you realize what would happen in a country like Japan if all of a sudden horrible news was released and a completely widespread panic ensued right? They might be trying to withhold some information until they know for sure if their information is correct. Last thing they need is millions of citizens of one of the most densely populated countries all freaking out at once over "nothing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The reactor was undergoing an inspection when the quake occurred. The firm says the temperature of the storage pool for spent nuclear fuel was 84 degrees Celsius on Monday morning, more than double the normal level. More recent temperatures are not available due to a technical failure. This is why non-scientists should be careful reporting scientific details. Celsius is not an absolute scale, so you cannot simply say 84°C is double 42°C. You have to use the Kelvin scale (which is an absolute scale) to make comparisons like that. It's better to just not make "percentage" comments at all WRT temperatures, since the concept of "twice as hot" isn't really that intuitive to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 you realize what would happen in a country like Japan if all of a sudden horrible news was released and a completely widespread panic ensued right? They might be trying to withhold some information until they know for sure if their information is correct. Last thing they need is millions of citizens of one of the most densely populated countries all freaking out at once over "nothing". Again, I don't see how the comparison to the Soviet response to Chernobyl is valid in any way, whether or not they're intentionally withholding information to prevent widespread panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 So you think the Soviet gov't of 1986 is a relevant comparison to the Japanese gov't of 2011? Well, if the initial evidence pointed to a very worst-case scenario...how long do you think it would take even the more honest governments of the world to state such on the public airwaves. Keep in mind that Japan is a very densely populated island...if there was a triple nuclear meltdown, there would be very little they could do anyway. There are about 125 million people living on an island in the Pacific...an island severely crippled by a severe earthquake and tsunami. The question is not, "Are they telling the whole truth?"....rather, the question is "Would they tell the truth if...?" That's the question you ask if you're potentially in harm's way. I think the answer, with respect to the American government, at least, is that we would not be told while the last flight out was being loaded up with VIPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 NOW, NUCLEAR SNOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 NOW, NUCLEAR SNOW :axe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 LOL. What about Chernobyl? I think it has the potential to be much worse than chernobyl... which makes it a more dangerous situation... if I am wrong maybe I underestimate chernobyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 This is why non-scientists should be careful reporting scientific details. Celsius is not an absolute scale, so you cannot simply say 84°C is double 42°C. You have to use the Kelvin scale (which is an absolute scale) to make comparisons like that. It's better to just not make "percentage" comments at all WRT temperatures, since the concept of "twice as hot" isn't really that intuitive to begin with. the point is to get info to the public generally, not go into scientific details that will blur the issue. 84 basically is twice 42, was the point made, thats all we need to know. It won't change things if its not exactly such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You should never believe anyone in power who assures you that you're safe in these situations. Personally, I do think they are telling the truth...but I wouldn't be willing to bet my life on it. I'd be as far away from there as I could get. There are consequences to creating a panic or encouraging a mass uncontrolled evacuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 :axe: it could bridge the divide between hurricane lovers and snow lovers by removing the argument that hurricanes are so much more dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 NOW, NUCLEAR SNOW Drudge reminds me of a news-like version of the Globe or National Enquirer. Next they'll be screaming about 3 headed cows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 84 basically is twice 42, was the point made, thats all we need to know. It won't change things if its not exactly such. what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddylonglegs Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Haven't heard any of you clowns report this: "Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said his department has assembled a team of 34 people and sent 7,200 pounds of equipment to Japan to help monitor and assess the situation with the nuclear reactors" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Anyone can get gierger counters nowadays...I'm sure some civilians have them....along with American journalists. In this day and age, it's difficult to hide information. The radiation levels at least can be verified through independent sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the point is to get info to the public generally, not go into scientific details that will blur the issue. 84 basically is twice 42, was the point made, thats all we need to know. It won't change things if its not exactly such. Except that it's not. Not even close. 84°C is about 357K. 42°C is about 315K. The percentage increase is 113%, nowhere near 200%. Again, that kind of "detail" is better just left out in the first place, since it clouds the issue at hand. If the point is to get it to the public generally, they should simply not include statements of magnitude like that. It's wrong, and frankly to any layperson reading it, meaningless anyway. EDIT: If they wanted to capture the scale for their readers, they should have just stuck with "about 40°C higher". That would have been accurate and much easier for anybody to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think it has the potential to be much worse than chernobyl... which makes it a more dangerous situation... if I am wrong maybe I underestimate chernobyl You probably underestimate Chernobyl and overestimate this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the point is to get info to the public generally, not go into scientific details that will blur the issue. 84 basically is twice 42, was the point made, thats all we need to know. It won't change things if its not exactly such. 42 C is about 315 K. 84C is 357 K. Nowhere near double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Anyone can get gierger counters nowadays...I'm sure some civilians have them....along with American journalists. In this day and age, it's difficult to hide information. The radiation levels at least can be verified through independent sources. All of a sudden you've made me want to go buy one, just for fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 the point is to get info to the public generally, not go into scientific details that will blur the issue. 84 basically is twice 42, was the point made, thats all we need to know. It won't change things if its not exactly such. You should probably just stick to making ridiculous statements in the MA forum and not show off to the entire board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 There are consequences to creating a panic or encouraging a mass uncontrolled evacuation. I'm aware of that...which is why I would personally get as far away as I could...because I know which way they are going to lean in an impossible situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 All of a sudden you've made me want to go buy one, just for fun couple hundred bucks online...I'm sure you can get your bunker and 6-month canned food supply there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperNET Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Again, I don't see how the comparison to the Soviet response to Chernobyl is valid in any way, whether or not they're intentionally withholding information to prevent widespread panic. How old were you in 1986? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 How old were you in 1986? At the time of the Chernobyl disaster, 6 months. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yes, but the statement was on the temperatures in Celcius, not Kelvin. Would it be productive to the public for "Kelvin" to be explained and blur the issue? The public would most likely be better off getting the basics, and taking percautions. you were still way wrong any way you slice it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Balti Zen Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 it could bridge the divide between hurricane lovers and snow lovers by removing the argument that hurricanes are so much more dangerous. Top shelf. Golf clap to you, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopycnic Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think it has the potential to be much worse than chernobyl... which makes it a more dangerous situation... if I am wrong maybe I underestimate chernobyl You are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 you were still way wrong any way you slice it Until that post was deleted (?), I was going to respond that he needs to look at my edit. There are perfectly reasonable, accurate ways to get the magnitude across clearly. Basing a "double" statement on degrees Celsius is both incorrect and meaningless. There's zero reason to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.