Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” Follow

#1 Mar 14 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
Quote:
SOMA, Japan – Radiation is spewing from damaged reactors at a crippled nuclear power plant in tsunami-ravaged northeastern Japan in a dramatic escalation of the 4-day-old catastrophe. The prime minister has warned residents to stay inside or risk getting radiation sickness.
Link.
Quote:
I think the fact that the "second worst nuclear accident in history" will in all probability have a lower death toll and negative overall health effect on the surrounding area than the 100th worst coal accident


Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Quote:
pebbles



Quote:
/raise

Anyone got any more links to bloggers who can tell us all how swimmingly its all going?

Christ.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#2 Mar 14 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,943 posts
How long before Godzilla is awakened from the depths of the ocean?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#3 Mar 14 2011 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Mar 14 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This report needed its own thread.

Also, the title of this thread does not at all reflect the contents of the linked story.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Mar 14 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,056 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Also, the title of this thread does not at all reflect the contents of the linked story.

I was expecting paulsol to confess that he was autistic.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#6 Mar 14 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
My perception is that nuclear power actually isn't all that polarized politically. Granted, it used to be, but most of the liberal people I know are pro-nuclear.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#7 Mar 14 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,958 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
How long before Godzilla is awakened from the depths of the ocean?
After this volcanic eruption that may have been caused in part by the earthquake, maybe a day or two.
____________________________
MyAnimeList FFXIV Krystal Spoonless
#8 Mar 15 2011 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,566 posts
Kirby the Eccentric wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
How long before Godzilla is awakened from the depths of the ocean?
After this volcanic eruption that may have been caused in part by the earthquake, maybe a day or two.
Fuck.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#9 Mar 15 2011 at 2:23 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?



Sweet! The next time some radiographer wants to take a snap of a patient I will insist on being outside the 30km exclusion area and ensure the no-fly zone above the hospital is being enforced.

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


gbaji wrote:
Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...


There is nothing rational about building nuclear power stations next to the ocean, on a gigantic super-active faultline in a country that invented the word 'tsunami'. Exactly how many nuclear power stations have you got in Calfornia for example? How many of those are right on the coast using seawater for cooling? Hmmm..?

No-one controls MotherNature you dolt. That's the fUcking point.

Kachi wrote:

My perception is that nuclear power actually isn't all that polarized politically. Granted, it used to be, but most of the liberal people I know are pro-nuclear.


WTF does it have to with political persuasion?

Really..you dont have to be a card carrying green party activist to see that there may come a time when that nuclear power station you've got fizzing away down the road is going to be seen as a bit of a mistake in planning no matter how many jobs it provided around town.


And as far as the thread title goes I was quoting Mr. Gittus, the 'nuclear risk expert' from Swansea University (lol) who was linked by Joph as evidence that nuclear power stations are as safe as can be and everyone should be pleased to have one in their backyard.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#10 Mar 15 2011 at 4:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
847 posts
Here's a blow by blow report about what happened in the ********* Nuclear Power Plant. This is brought to you by people at MIT, who should probably know a thing or three about nuclear power.

The simple fact is that everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and yet, there's no significant death or damage caused by what's happening at the power plant should be a testament of how safe nuclear power really is.
#11 Mar 15 2011 at 5:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,248 posts
Quote:
The simple fact is that everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and yet, there's no significant death or damage caused by what's happening at the power plant should be a testament of how safe nuclear power really is.


Let's just wait until we can put this in the past tense before we get all smug and Shit, how 'bout it?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Mar 15 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,030 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
The released radiation and the potential for exposure will not remain in the plant. While high levels are necessary to produce acute radiation sickness (they're seeing these levels in Plant 4 I believe that was actually off-line when the eq hit). However, radiation is a carcinogen the more frequently, the longer duration and the higher the level the greater your chance to develop cancer. There is risk, substantial risk here. Not only to the plant staff but those in the community. I mean, presumably people live in there little space of this world for some good percentage of their time. So, the potential is certainly there for long-term exposure.

Like rape, effects from radiation may not be visible immediately or even until the next generation. Remember radiation is also a known mutagen.

So while the disaster will be no chernobyl, it will also not simply be a close-miss like 3-mile island.

What I've kind of thought about though, is how would a bunch of huge oil tanks, oil refineries and oil/coal burning power plants have faired under the circumstances, if Japan relied more on oil than nuclear power. Multi-millions of gallons of oil spread over a chunk of land, fires, and again long term exposure to possible carcinogens.

Nuclear power plants have only gotten safer. Theoretically, it's a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. However there is great potential for highly detrimental effects to people et al.





edit - i'm writing hurriedly...'sigh'.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 2:28pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#13 Mar 15 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Default
****
7,819 posts
The USA pulled all flights and even ships back from the area a day ago do to the levels detected. Right now if your there its glow in the dark status and getting worse. It may not be Chernobyl in it's extent but it may be as devastating to Japan if it gets to a full blown meltdown.
____________________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/ImGatomon/Request.jpg

. “Power even if it is raw uncontrolled potential is just as dangerous as a trained assassin. It is unpredictable and deadly if your are not prepared." ~Gatomon From the story A Fox Among Wolves.
#14 Mar 15 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
While I'm on your side of the nuclear power debate, let's not get stupid here. Nuclear power can be banned, Mother Nature can't. We can only control that which is controllable, so using deaths to Mother Nature in any argument vs deaths to nuclear power is varus level retardation.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 9:39am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#15 Mar 15 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


Wow. An X-ray? You get that its "spewing radiation" that isn't super dangerous unless you're exposed to it for prolonged periods of time and in close proximity, right?

Quote:
Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought.


Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...
The released radiation and the potential for exposure will not remain in the plant. While high levels are necessary to produce acute radiation sickness (they're seeing these levels in Plant 4 I believe that was actually off-line when the eq hit). However, radiation is a carcinogen the more frequently, the longer duration and the higher the level the greater your chance to develop cancer. There is risk, substantial risk here. Not only to the plant staff but those in the community. I mean, presumably people live in there little space of this world for some good percentage of their time. So, the potential is certainly there for long-term exposure.

Like rape, effects from radiation may not be visible immediately or even until the next generation. Remember radiation is also a known mutagen.

So while the disaster will be no chernobyl, it will also not simply be a close-miss like 3-mile island.

What I've kind of thought about though, is how would a bunch of huge oil tanks, oil refineries and oil/coal burning power plants have faired under the circumstances, if Japan relied more on oil than nuclear power. Multi-millions of gallons of oil spread over a chunk of land, fires, and again long term exposure to possible carcinogens.

Nuclear power plants have only gotten safer. Theoretically, it's a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. However there is great potential for highly detrimental effects to people et al.





edit - i'm writing hurriedly...'sigh'.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 2:28pm by Elinda


This, pretty much. There's certainly nothing happening yet that warrants paul getting up on his high horse, no matter how good they are at it in New Zealand.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 9:15am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#16 Mar 15 2011 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
paulsol wrote:
Exactly how many nuclear power stations have you got in Calfornia for example? How many of those are right on the coast using seawater for cooling? Hmmm..?

The only one I know of that's on the coast is the massive pair of tits in Southern California that's visible from the interstate.

There are no earthquakes in SoCal.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#17 Mar 15 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only one I know of that's on the coast is the massive pair of tits in Southern California that's visible from the interstate.

There are no earthquakes in SoCal.

According to the Googlenets, San Onofre is the other operational CA plant and sits half way between LA and San Diego. We could take out Hollywood and Gbaji with one well placed meteor strike!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 15 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
For whatever reason, radiation levels are dropping.
IAEA wrote:
At 00:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 11.9 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed. Six hours later, at 06:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 0.6 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed.

These observations indicate that the level of radioactivity has been decreasing at the site.

As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at ********* Daiichi occurred between units 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensible staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Mar 15 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,417 posts
Another thing to remember is at Chernobyl, the workers were sent in with shovels and flu masks. I'm going under the assumption that the remaining workers in ********* are wearing lead-lined hazmat suits. And if they're not, then we truly have learned nothing since the days people thought radium laced face cream was good for you.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#20 Mar 15 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Truth. Let's not put this in the context of how many people died somewhat unavoidably from a natural disaster. Ban Mother Nature!!! Lol...


There is nothing rational about building nuclear power stations next to the ocean, on a gigantic super-active faultline in a country that invented the word 'tsunami'.


There's nothing rational about anyone living in that area at all, let alone building nuclear power plants. In the grand scheme of "things that get people killed", can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will? Yet, oddly enough, people have to live somewhere and there are negatives to anywhere they might choose.

Quote:
Exactly how many nuclear power stations have you got in Calfornia for example? How many of those are right on the coast using seawater for cooling? Hmmm..?


All of them?

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 3:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Mar 15 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
Quote:
can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will?



Stop comparing natural events to choices that are made by people. As someone else said, its fUcking retarded.


A little secret that I've managed to learn after working in the health industry for some considerable time now....you can live anywhere you like and eventually you will die.

Its not that you die. Its how you die. Its how the children you produce are born with no legs or their brains on the outside of their skulls. and then their children (if they even manage to reproduce at all) are born with no eyes or kidneys. Or how you spend the last weeks of your life. Wether that is surrounded by family and friends, or attached to a ventilator in an isolation unit waiting for you lungs to disolve as your children look at you thru a 2" lead impregnated window...


And that is not about emotions. That is what happens.

Those are the risks of having nuclear power stations go bang.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#22 Mar 15 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will?



Stop comparing natural events to choices that are made by people. As someone else said, its fUcking retarded.


They are all choices though. You choose to live in one location instead of another. You choose to generate power by burning coal or via nuclear materials. You choose to bike to work or drive a car or take the train. All of those are choices. All of them have risks and potential consequences.

Quote:
A little secret that I've managed to learn after working in the health industry for some considerable time now....you can live anywhere you like and eventually you will die.


Yes. So perhaps we should assess the risk of dying one way versus dying another way and compare it to the pros connected to the choices in front of us. Instead of just pointing to the risk of nuclear power, let's look at the risks and costs of coal, or solar, or wind. And let's also compare those to not generating any power at all. How many populations can't be sustained at all if there isn't power? Remember where we're talking about.

Replace those nuclear plants with coal. Assess the total long term effects. You'll find that even with the very very rare event like this added in, nuclear is still safer by a long shot. It's not like it's a choice between putting a nuclear reactor on a fault line or not. It's a choice between putting a nuclear reactor on a fault line, or a coal fired plant, or natural gas, or some other form of power generation. All have risks. All have costs. And they're all susceptible to big natural disasters.

Quote:
Its not that you die. Its how you die. Its how the children you produce are born with no legs or their brains on the outside of their skulls. and then their children (if they even manage to reproduce at all) are born with no eyes or kidneys. Or how you spend the last weeks of your life. Wether that is surrounded by family and friends, or attached to a ventilator in an isolation unit waiting for you lungs to disolve as your children look at you thru a 2" lead impregnated window...


And that is not about emotions. That is what happens.


Um... That was 100% about emotions. Really? You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

How about how many people die of illnesses related to coal every single year? I'm not sure if it's a great comfort to their loved ones that at least they didn't have a one in a million chance of dying from radiation poison instead.

Quote:
Those are the risks of having nuclear power stations go bang.


Which happens very very infrequently. The direct harm caused by other alternatives happen all the time. Tell the thousand (more?) people who die from illnesses from coal related work every single year that their lives were worth sacrificing in order to prevent the 10 people from dying of radiation poisoning every 10 years or so.

If you're being unemotional, that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Mar 15 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
Quote:
You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

No. Its a reality. Its REAL. Nothing to do with emotions. But perhaps you forget or don't know or more likely dont care what I've done for a living for the last 1/4 century so thats ok.

I really honestly hope that no more nuclear power stations ever go wrong again.

And I really, really mean that.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#24 Mar 15 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,417 posts
Kinda glad I chose to live in a seismically stable area with no nuclear plants within 50 miles right now.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#25 Mar 15 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,248 posts
On the side of rational argument, the comparison isn't one of dying surrounded by loved ones in the fullness of age or dying horribly of radiation sickness. I think that was the point gbaji was making, although as usual it's a bit difficult to tell.

If you're going to compare apples to apples, then compare radiation sickness with black lung, or mercury poisoning. No great choices there. Solar is better, but there are human costs involved in manufacturing the panels. Etc.

My problem with nuclear power is that when something does go wrong, it's wrong for good. There's no bringing the land around Chernobyl back, ever. Write it off.

On the up side, maybe we can get the Russians to store spent waste there, since it's already gone and all.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Mar 15 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

No. Its a reality. Its REAL. Nothing to do with emotions. But perhaps you forget or don't know or more likely dont care what I've done for a living for the last 1/4 century so thats ok.

I really honestly hope that no more nuclear power stations ever go wrong again.

And I really, really mean that.


I'd like to hear about it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#27 Mar 15 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?

No. Its a reality. Its REAL.


Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.

If you want to make a non-emotional argument, try comparing the health costs of nuclear power per unit of energy generated over the last half century to the other predominant alternative: coal. How many people die every year from direct coal related illnesses? How many people have their health adversely affected in less direct ways from coal use (air pollution is kinda always there, right)? How many people die in various accidents? Compare the numbers.


The unemotional assessment would show you that people only die from nuclear power as a result of some form of accident. They die from normal coal power all the time. A statistical percentage of coal miners die every year, not just from accidents, but simply from the environment they work in. A statistical percentage of people working at or near the plants die of various lung illnesses every year. Again, not just in accidents but from the materials and environment they work in. A statistically measurable increase in a number of illnesses is introduced into the population every year as a result of coal power generation.


Want to compare the rate of illness among workers at nuclear plants to coal plants? Want to compare the rates at the mines? Want to compare the rates along both their respective process paths from raw ore to power generation? Because that's what you'd do if you were making a non-emotional assessment of the two power types. And just to remind you again, the population as a whole is absolutely not affected at all by nuclear power, while they are constantly being poisoned a tiny bit each day from coal.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 7:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Mar 15 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
****
4,150 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.




Interpret it however you want.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#29 Mar 15 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Samira wrote:
My problem with nuclear power is that when something does go wrong, it's wrong for good. There's no bringing the land around Chernobyl back, ever. Write it off.


Sort of. Much of the area is still pretty radioactive and poses long-term risks, but there are a few fairly safe areas around it now. Apparently they're actually going to be allowing guided tours soon too, for what that's worth. The immediate area around the reactor has been sealed with a concrete sarcophagus, which needs maintenance. They've got a pretty large staff there working on keeping the most harmful stuff from getting out.

What I find more interesting though, is that nature there is actually flourishing. The area reforested a ton when all the humans left. Used to be 10% forest, now it's up around 80%. Animals that hadn't been seen in the area for years have suddenly cropped up there in large numbers, and it's now pretty populated by a pretty decent variety of species. Some of them might have three heads, I guess. It remains to be seen what problems may result from the radiation that they're undoubtedly being dosed with. But it's not like the area is a wasteland anymore.

Pretty interesting stuff, I think. There's a lot of research to be done on the long term consequences of Chernobyl, and all the weird side-effects that it caused. As I mentioned before, I kind of nerd-out over nuclear stuff.

Here are some neat photos of the site, before and after: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/chernobyl-then-now/14634?image=1

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 11:03pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#30 Mar 15 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,976 posts
Moving back down to Westchester again, albeit not quite so close to Indian Point this time...

I'm okay with this.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#32 Mar 16 2011 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
catwho wrote:
Kinda glad I chose to live in a seismically stable area with no nuclear plants within 50 miles right now.

Hey, as it happens, US authorities have told Americans to stay at least 50 miles away from the ********* reactors right now.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#33 Mar 16 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Hey, as it happens, US authorities have told Americans to stay at least 50 miles away from the ********* reactors right now.

I'm doing MY part!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Mar 16 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,248 posts
Some people out here are rushing out buying up potassium iodine. 'S pretty funny, when you think about all the atomic bomb testing we've done over the years and what not.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Mar 16 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,943 posts
Samira wrote:
Some people out here are rushing out buying up potassium iodine. 'S pretty funny, when you think about all the atomic bomb testing we've done over the years and what not.



Isn't it in the table salt you buy in the stores? I thought you got plenty of iodine in your diet just due to that...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#36 Mar 16 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Some people out here are rushing out buying up potassium iodine. 'S pretty funny...

No, what's funny is some people HERE are rushing out and stocking up on potassium iodine.
Quote:
I thought you got plenty of iodine in your diet just due to that...

The idea is to pack your thyroid so full of inert iodine that the radioactive cooties can't get in. I'm assuming that attempting this by eating a giant bowl of table salt is contraindicated by the medical community.

Edited, Mar 16th 2011 8:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 16 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Dammit! I wonder if I can return those salt licks I bought...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 16 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Either that or invest in some deer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 16 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,976 posts
It looks like one of the reactors is going to go into full meltdown, which is a Really Bad Thing. It's too bad there's no way to get a massive amount of water into the whole facility. Like, say, flooding it with thirty feet of seawater.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Mar 16 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,248 posts
As I understand it, the problem now is that it's so hot, the water would flash to steam immediately, further spreading those radioactive cooties and possibly doing more damage.

I suppose if you could heat the water first it'd work. Dunno!

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#41 Mar 17 2011 at 4:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
Samira wrote:
As I understand it, the problem now is that it's so hot, the water would flash to steam immediately, further spreading those radioactive cooties and possibly doing more damage.

I suppose if you could heat the water first it'd work. Dunno!



Or add other substances with a high heat capacity into the mix, until it's the appropriate temperature for the water.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#42 Mar 17 2011 at 4:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.


Interpret it however you want.


There's nothing inherently fallacious about an appeal to emotion, you realize. In fact, appealing to emotion as a product is the way to win a debate. It's appealing to emotion as an argument that is frowned upon, but only if it's an attempt to forgo deliberation of the ultimate emotional result. i.e., relying on the salience of the emotion rather than the actual emotional impact of each position. It's a fallacy when it doesn't consider the overall emotional impact of the other side. A debate doesn't operate under the assumption that feelings don't matter.

I think that generally when you're talking about children born without limbs, brains outside their heads, etc., that's a powerful, perfectly legitimate emotional appeal that falls on the opponent to counter with their own account of the ethical/emotional impact of their position.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#43 Mar 17 2011 at 5:22 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Welcome to ZAM.com, home of serious debatez.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#44 Mar 17 2011 at 5:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
Kachi wrote:
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which does not change the fact that you're making an appeal to emotion. When you start talking about children born without limbs, and brains outside their heads, and dying lonely and alone from having your lungs melt, you are making an appeal to emotion.


Interpret it however you want.


There's nothing inherently fallacious about an appeal to emotion, you realize. In fact, appealing to emotion as a product is the way to win a debate. It's appealing to emotion as an argument that is frowned upon, but only if it's an attempt to forgo deliberation of the ultimate emotional result. i.e., relying on the salience of the emotion rather than the actual emotional impact of each position. It's a fallacy when it doesn't consider the overall emotional impact of the other side. A debate doesn't operate under the assumption that feelings don't matter.

I think that generally when you're talking about children born without limbs, brains outside their heads, etc., that's a powerful, perfectly legitimate emotional appeal that falls on the opponent to counter with their own account of the ethical/emotional impact of their position.


Oh, so you want vivid imagery?

How about the children in oil rich nations who are the victim of the perpetual resource war, who've been orphaned or those who are left mutilated or dismembered by stray military actions. Or those choking on their own breath as they succumb to black lung, or burned to death in an oil fire, or poisoned by a ocean spill. The many who die a more insidious death labeled natural causes, but truly poisoned from accumulated toxins in our air and water and food, left with no recourse and no recompense, those who's futures have been stolen by tyrants and warlords fighting over energy stockpiles, and those who struggle to fight against those tyrants, who have been enriched in money and weapons by the purchasers of that energy.

See why this is not useful for a logical debate?

For the record though, rooftop solar is the more deadly than chernobyl, but less deadly than the various fossil fuels.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#45 Mar 17 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
I suspect the only reason nuclear power has less deaths than solar/twh, is because nuclear power is heavily regulated with strictly enforced safety precautions, where as solar is installed by morons who fail to utilize safety gear. I would think wind is much the same as people are stupidly comfortable on top of a roof where as wind turbines people tend to strap themselves in or use cranes.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#46 Mar 17 2011 at 6:26 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,030 posts
This is even less of a logical debate. You can't compare injuries and deaths of untrained, unskilled homeowners falling off their roofs to mine cave-ins or refinery explosions. Besides the death is not attributable to the power being generated, but carelessness in climbing around on roofs.

If folks were installing their own nuclear power plants in their basements you'd likely see more injuries as a result.

It's a pretty stupid way to compare energy sources.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#47 Mar 17 2011 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
How about the children in oil rich nations who are the victim of the perpetual resource war, who've been orphaned or those who are left mutilated or dismembered by stray military actions. Or those choking on their own breath as they succumb to black lung, or burned to death in an oil fire, or poisoned by a ocean spill. The many who die a more insidious death labeled natural causes, but truly poisoned from accumulated toxins in our air and water and food, left with no recourse and no recompense, those who's futures have been stolen by tyrants and warlords fighting over energy stockpiles, and those who struggle to fight against those tyrants, who have been enriched in money and weapons by the purchasers of that energy.

See why this is not useful for a logical debate?


How is that NOT useful to a logical debate? You just articulated a number of consequences to the opposition's argument. That kind of emotional appeal is perfectly acceptable.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#48 Mar 17 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Yay, now the recommendation for foreign nationals is to evacuate out of Tokyo too.

1) because electrical blackouts and food shortages make living precarious in a modern city.

2) because of the dangers of a radioactive particle plume reaching Tokyo if/when the wind shifts.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#49 Mar 17 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
How is that NOT useful to a logical debate?

Because, logically, the stats regarding deaths, health issues, etc matter while the gory descriptions largely don't. Unless you want to come up with a chart measuring out how many 30 year olds with silicosis equate to one newborn with an external brain.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Mar 17 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Kachi wrote:
There's nothing inherently fallacious about an appeal to emotion, you realize. In fact, appealing to emotion as a product is the way to win a debate. It's appealing to emotion as an argument that is frowned upon, but only if it's an attempt to forgo deliberation of the ultimate emotional result. i.e., relying on the salience of the emotion rather than the actual emotional impact of each position. It's a fallacy when it doesn't consider the overall emotional impact of the other side. A debate doesn't operate under the assumption that feelings don't matter.


Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. I think the core issue is that most debate is rife with fallacy since it's more about swaying opinions of an audience than actually proving a position to be better than some alternative. While we tend to use the terms interchangeably, there is a difference between an argument and a debate.

The better question is whether we should base important decisions like whether to use nuclear power or coal power on emotion laden debate, or logical argument. Obviously, it's easier to sway people by using debate, but is that really a responsible thing to do in this case?

I tend to think it's not.

Quote:
I think that generally when you're talking about children born without limbs, brains outside their heads, etc., that's a powerful, perfectly legitimate emotional appeal that falls on the opponent to counter with their own account of the ethical/emotional impact of their position.


Sure. And politicians are great at this. But is that really the best way to make a determination as to the best course of action? There's a reason why societies quite often take actions that are directly harmful, or result in the exact opposite of what they were trying to do. It's because they are swayed by emotional appeals from leaders more interested in using a tragedy to gain support for themselves than they are in doing the right thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 17 2011 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kachi wrote:
How is that NOT useful to a logical debate?

Because, logically, the stats regarding deaths, health issues, etc matter while the gory descriptions largely don't. Unless you want to come up with a chart measuring out how many 30 year olds with silicosis equate to one newborn with an external brain.


And when you have stats, those things are great and should be used instead of anecdotal evidence. And when you don't, for whatever reason-- because they don't exist, or you simple don't have them-- a description of the possible consequences and their severity is a perfectly admissible contribution to a debate, emotionally charged or not. The fallacy in that case could be that an adjudicator is swayed emotionally without consideration of the facts at hand, but the fallacy is not inherent to the debater's contribution.

@gbaji: I think you're confused. Appeal to emotion if a type of logical fallacy. Another type of logical fallacy is equivocation, where you take a word or phrase that can mean multiple things and use it interchangeably, which is what is happening here. Just because there is a logical fallacy CALLED "appeal to emotion" does not mean that all emotional appeals are logical fallacies. e.g., "You should stop cheating on your wife, because it hurts her feelings," is an argument that appeals to emotion, but it is not the logical fallacy we classify as "appeal to emotion."
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
Kavekkk, lolgaxe, TirithRR, trickybeck, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (46)