BethesdaWX Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I guess I'm just trying to think like a "normal" person. If I needed to know, would I understand "the temperature has shot to 84C, twice the normal value", or "to 357K from 313K, a 113% increase"? Either way, its not that important if it means the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You probably underestimate Chernobyl and overestimate this situation. I just naturally fear the worst case situation with multiple reactors in jeopordy. If the earthquake is 9.0 we can assume a great deal of buildings collapse. Are these containment structures even capable of withstanding a quake of that magnitude and multiple aftershocks close to 7? If the issue with chernobyl was containment structures, and we already have radiation several kilometers away from Fshima, I fear we could see a situation that rivals Chernobyl. Its obviously not contained if theres radiation escaping. The drop in radiation was simply a windshift. (Evident in the fact we saw USS Reagan sailors sick) If we have levels of radiation as high as reported in the nuclear reactor and control room that further dampens efforts. (Not to mention support for containment is radically lower already due to the worse disaster in Japan since WW2.) The governments resources are already crippled. I fear we (and the PM even) do not know the entire situation at hand due to ths communication issues across Japan. It all just smells such trouble, does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I guess I'm just trying to think like a "normal" person. If I needed to know, would I understand "the temperature has shot to 84C, twice the normal value", or "to 357K from 313K, a 113% increase"? Neither. As I've said many times already, we as humans don't really perceive temperatures in terms of ratios to begin with, so there's no intuitive basis for ANY of it. That's why I said... ... 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...
Ed Lizard Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 84°C is about 357K. 42°C is about 315K. The percentage increase is 113%, nowhere near 200%. I know what you're trying to say, but a 100% increase is double. Its 113% of the normal value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I guess I'm just trying to think like a "normal" person. If I needed to know, would I understand "the temperature has shot to 84C, twice the normal value", or "to 357K from 313K, a 113% increase"? Either way, its not that important if it means the same thing. It'd be113% it's NORMAL VALUE in Kelvin, not a 113% increase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Neither. As I've said many times already, we as humans don't really perceive temperatures in terms of ratios to begin with, so there's no intuitive basis for ANY of it. That's why I said... Then what was the point of your original post regarding "non-scientists"? They all mean the same thing. "effects" are relative, a small change in temperature is a sensitive situation regarding nuclear reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 It'd be113% it's NORMAL VALUE in Kelvin, not a 113% increase you know what I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I just naturally fear the worst case situation with multiple reactors in jeopordy. If the earthquake is 9.0 we can assume a great deal of buildings collapse. Are these containment structures even capable of withstanding a quake of that magnitude and multiple aftershocks close to 7? If the issue with chernobyl was containment structures, and we already have radiation several kilometers away from Fshima, I fear we could see a situation that rivals Chernobyl. If we have levels of radiation as high as reported in the nuclear reactor and control room that further dampens efforts. (Not to mention support for containment is radically lower already due to the worse disaster in Japan since WW2.) The governments resources are already crippled. I fear we (and the PM even) do not know the entire situation at hand due to ths communication issues across Japan. It all just smells such trouble, does it not? The shaking from the earthquake was not the main cause of disaster in Japan, the tsunami was. The main containment buildings were not damaged by either. One of the inner containment buildings was damaged by an unknown source, and several of the outer containment buildings by hydrogen explosions. The radiation that has been detected so far is NOWHERE NEAR the levels that were seen with Chernobyl. You are basically wrong on every single point of your post. It's honestly fairly aggravating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I just naturally fear the worst case situation with multiple reactors in jeopordy. If the earthquake is 9.0 we can assume a great deal of buildings collapse. Are these containment structures even capable of withstanding a quake of that magnitude and multiple aftershocks close to 7? If the issue with chernobyl was containment structures, and we already have radiation several kilometers away from Fshima, I fear we could see a situation that rivals Chernobyl. Its obviously not contained if theres radiation escaping. The drop in radiation was simply a windshift. (Evident in the fact we saw USS Reagan sailors sick) If we have levels of radiation as high as reported in the nuclear reactor and control room that further dampens efforts. (Not to mention support for containment is radically lower already due to the worse disaster in Japan since WW2.) The governments resources are already crippled. I fear we (and the PM even) do not know the entire situation at hand due to ths communication issues across Japan. It all just smells such trouble, does it not? The Tsunami cut power to the coolant source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You are wrong. What is the drastic differences between that situation and this one I don't see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 Just reading modern generation reactors, ("Third Generation") if ever built, now would be designed like the Navy's super quiet S8G reactors that powered the Ohio class missile subs, and have passive or natural circulation, and would not need pumps to circulate coolant, meaning the new designs would be safe even if power failed completely. Japanese reactors in question are about 40 years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I know what you're trying to say, but a 100% increase is double. Its 113% of the normal value. You're such a moron. A 100% increase is double. This was a 13% increase. Then what was the point of your original post regarding "non-scientists"? They all mean the same thing. My point was that if they had a scientist (of almost any kind) review the article, the error would have been easily spotted and corrected. "effects" are relative, a small change in temperature is a sensitive situation regarding nuclear reactors. Which has absolutely no bearing on what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 What is the drastic differences between that situation and this one I don't see? do some reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The shaking from the earthquake was not the main cause of disaster in Japan, the tsunami was. The main containment buildings were not damaged by either. One of the inner containment buildings was damaged by an unknown source, and several of the outer containment buildings by hydrogen explosions. The radiation that has been detected so far is NOWHERE NEAR the levels that were seen with Chernobyl. You are basically wrong on every single point of your post. It's honestly fairly aggravating. Mallow, I am not saying it has reached Chernobyl levels, but only that if things continue to to wrong it could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopycnic Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 What is the drastic differences between that situation and this one I don't see? There was not catastrophic loss of containment, the core did not have a total melt down while at full power and Chernobyl had a different type of fuel mix. This recent event is more like a 3mile Island sized event, only with 3 reactors and a storage pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You're such a moron. A 100% increase is double. This was a 13% increase. My point was that if they had a scientist (of almost any kind) review the article, the error would have been easily spotted and corrected. Which has absolutely no bearing on what I said. You phrased it incorrectly in the original post. It isn't a percentage increase of 113%, it is a percentage increase of 13%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro771 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You're such a moron. A 100% increase is double. This was a 13% increase. My point was that if they had a scientist (of almost any kind) review the article, the error would have been easily spotted and corrected. Which has absolutely no bearing on what I said. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Mallow, I am not saying it has reached Chernobyl levels, but only that if things continue to to wrong it could. And I'm saying that there's zero chance of it. Chernobyl was as bad as it was because of... 1. A lack of any kind of containment 2. A full-scale runaway nuclear chain reaction 3. Graphite control rods/casings burning and allowing radioactive smoke to pour into the atmosphere None of those are even remotely possible in this situation. There are containment structures. There cannot be a chain reaction. And there is no graphite. It's simply impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 You're such a moron. A 100% increase is double. This was a 13% increase. My point was that if they had a scientist (of almost any kind) review the article, the error would have been easily spotted and corrected. Which has absolutely no bearing on what I said. 84°C is about 357K. 42°C is about 315K. The percentage increase is 113%, nowhere near 200%. Your original statement was ambiguous, at best, I very politely pointed that out, and you called me a moron. OK then. A 100% increase is double. 100% of the original value is the original value. A 113% increase is more than double. 113% of the original Kelvin temperature represents a ~40ºC increase in temperature. You poorly chose your words, then compounded it with rudeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You're such a moron. A 100% increase is double. This was a 13% increase. My point was that if they had a scientist (of almost any kind) review the article, the error would have been easily spotted and corrected. Which has absolutely no bearing on what I said. I've understood your point, but the error is only valid when measuring in Kelvin, which was not done. Double the C is 13% increase in K... the statement was regarding C. 13% increase regarding a Nuclear reactor is more than enough to f**k it up, it may as well be higher. The public would find 13% misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I've understood your point, but the error is only valid when measuring in Kelvin, which was not done. 13% increase regarding a Nuclear reactor is more than enough to f**k it up, it may as well be higher. The public would find 13% misleading. who cares? give it up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You phrased it incorrectly in the original post. It isn't a percentage increase of 113%, it is a percentage increase of 13%. You're right. I should have said either an increase of 13%, or 1.13 times as high as the original temperature. That's part of the point... it's so easy to get terminology mixed up with ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needbiggerboat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 What's the proper way to read this/significance?...the last two digits have risen from 30 to ~84 over the last 30 minutes: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/%E3%82%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AC%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AB%E3%82%A6%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I've understood your point, but the error is only valid when measuring in Kelvin, which was not done. Double the C is 13% increase in K... the statement was regarding C. 13% increase regarding a Nuclear reactor is more than enough to f**k it up, it may as well be higher. The public would find 13% misleading. It's not the reactor...it's the spent fuel pool. It becomes a bigger deal when it begins to boil....ie 100C. Even then, the pools are very deep...so it takes a couple weeks to boil off all the water and expose the spent fuel rods...then they could possibly burn. Given the amount of time this takes to occur, one would think they can take steps so that wouldn't happen. For reference, Chernobyl went from a working nuclear reactor to a complete meltdown and uncontained explosion in about 2 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 And I'm saying that there's zero chance of it. Chernobyl was as bad as it was because of... 1. A lack of any kind of containment 2. A full-scale runaway nuclear chain reaction 3. Graphite control rods/casings burning and allowing radioactive smoke to pour into the atmosphere None of those are even remotely possible in this situation. There are containment structures. There cannot be a chain reaction. And there is no graphite. It's simply impossible. I understand better now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 What's the proper way to read this/significance?...the last two digits have risen from 30 to ~84 over the last 30 minutes: http://www.ustream.t...%83%B3%E3%82%BF 26.88 counts per minute...normal is about 10 to 20. So slightly elevated, but no risk to health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Your original statement was ambiguous, at best, I very politely pointed that out, and you called me a moron. OK then. A 100% increase is double. 100% of the original value is the original value. A 113% increase is more than double. 113% of the original Kelvin temperature represents a ~40ºC increase in temperature. You poorly chose your words, then compounded it with rudeness. Yes, I misstated. If that's one of the things you were trying to say with your response, you didn't state it very well at all. Pazzo did. You're a moron because of some of the other things you've said here, though. See... I've understood your point, but the error is only valid when measuring in Kelvin, which was not done. Double the C is 13% increase in K... the statement was regarding C. 13% increase regarding a Nuclear reactor is more than enough to f**k it up, it may as well be higher. The public would find 13% misleading. Then you haven't understood the point. Ratios of temperatures in Celsius have zero meaning. There is no such thing as "double the Celsius". It has no meaning. "Double" is more misleading than "a 13% increase" since it's demonstrably false and carries just as much weight with the public. It would have been quite easy (and meaningful) to simply say "a 40°C increase over regular levels". Accurate, and intuitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopycnic Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I tried to delete that post as soon as I hit enter, realizing it was 'tarded. Only 1968 more to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organizing Low 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. A+++ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 26.88 counts per minute...normal is about 10 to 20. So slightly elevated, but no risk to health. Been watching for a few minutes, 26.92 to 26.95. CNN talking about the spent rods catching fire/potential. I guess they can burn. Very little containment. 3-4th floors of the 4th building. Like he's saying we're all operating under fragments of information that may not be accurate but that the situation does not appear to be under control by any means. EDIT..26.96 ...26.98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.