·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- “The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,â€
“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,†Follow
#127REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 11:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) @Sweetums-- You do realize that none of that has anything to do with the argument that we were having? gbaji's point was that the death per passenger miles statistic was somehow inappropriate, perhaps even deceptive, statistical application for establishing the safety of travel by air. Yes, he was making a larger point about the presentation of statistics, but generally when making a point it helps to make remotely accurate arguments.
If it took you 6 tries to pass a statistics course, you probably shouldn't talk about the subject 
Don't do this, man. You're just fuelling his delusion.
paulsol wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I see this thread has degenerated into a correspondence course on statistical analysis...
I would imagine that is a lot easier to blah on about statistics than talking about radioactive seawater, plutonium deposition and the Japanese food export market that is about to collapse. Not to mention of course, the radioactive particles that have found there way around the Northern hemisphere via the jetstream and the seawater that glows in the dark and will support 2 headed fish for some time to come.
Because, of course, none of that will happen, and even if it did, its still a lot safer than 'other' methods of energy production
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Kachi wrote:
@Sweetums-- You do realize that none of that has anything to do with the argument that we were having? gbaji's point was that the death per passenger miles statistic was somehow inappropriate, perhaps even deceptive, statistical application for establishing the safety of travel by air.
For a single passenger contemplating a trip and wanting to know his own odds? It is. I've explained at length why and I'm not sure more explanation would help matters at this point.
Quote:
Perhaps the problem is not that I haven't taken any statistics courses (probably not considering I've had six)...
You should get your money back then, because somehow you never learned *why* you use different statistics in different situations. It's not just about the math. Knowing how to apply knowledge is just as important as the knowledge itself (arguably moreso).
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Everything I've read points to it mostly being negligible and that it's mostly being fuelled by uninformed drones like yourself panicking. Not to minimize the seriousness of this accident, it's still correct to compare nuclear power to other sources and when you do you'll notice that the negative impact is far lower.
I agree with you, a lot of people are saying all food of Japan is full of radiation, while it's only ********** Ibaraki, Tochigi and Gunma which have these issues. Even there, it will take the consumption of 58,000 glasses of milk from the region or 820 pounds of spinach to reach the amount where it reaches dangerous levels. Also note, that drinking water in the city of ********* is safe for consumption.
Hokkaido, which produces 25% of Japans food, is completely fine. Chiba, which is south of Ibaraki also has negligible radiation issues with its food, and is fit for consumption. Aomori, Yamagata and Akita also remain safe. All of Western Japan, including agricultural centres like Tottori and the entirety of Kyushu, are free of radiation.
Japan imports around 60% of its food, a significant amount from China, which doesn't exactly have a stellar food safety policy. Japan also consumes most of the food it creates, it doesn't export that much of its own food.
The nations that are banning exports, are specifically temporarily banning those 4 prefectures, NOT the rest of Japan. It would be correct to say that the East Tohoku/North Kanto food export market may collapse, but that is minor when looking at Japanese food exports as a whole.
Interestingly enough, the export market collapse isn't due to radiation levels in the produce, but due to radiation panic.
New York Times wrote:
Japanese officials began by banning the sales of only certain foods, including spinach and milk, which are especially prone to absorbing radiation. But the ban was later extended to a broad range of produce, even as officials stressed that the radiation level in any single product was not dangerous for anyone who consumed it at ordinary levels.
Farmers say the ambiguity has effectively shut down their sales. “We think we’ll lose 80 percent of our income,†Ryuji Togashi, who runs a Towa-area farmer’s co-op store, said last weekend. “We’ve been damaged by rumor. People think that all our vegetables are affected by radiation. We can’t even sell the products that aren’t affected.â€
Farmers say the ambiguity has effectively shut down their sales. “We think we’ll lose 80 percent of our income,†Ryuji Togashi, who runs a Towa-area farmer’s co-op store, said last weekend. “We’ve been damaged by rumor. People think that all our vegetables are affected by radiation. We can’t even sell the products that aren’t affected.â€
Airborne levels are decreasing in ********* and Ibaraki according to the NISA. Any particulates that made its way around the jetstream are minuscule, about as dangerous as eating bunch of bananas.
Edited, Mar 30th 2011 10:43pm by Keikomyau
paulsol wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I see this thread has degenerated into a correspondence course on statistical analysis...
I would imagine that is a lot easier to blah on about statistics than talking about radioactive seawater, plutonium deposition and the Japanese food export market that is about to collapse. Not to mention of course, the radioactive particles that have found there way around the Northern hemisphere via the jetstream and the seawater that glows in the dark and will support 2 headed fish for some time to come.
Because, of course, none of that will happen, and even if it did, its still a lot safer than 'other' methods of energy production.
Edited, Mar 29th 2011 11:56pm by paulsol
The nuclear breach in Japan is less devastating than what would have happened if the geologic destabilization happened near a deep-water drilling rig. That kind of a breakage would make BP look like highway litterbugs.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
For a single passenger contemplating a trip and wanting to know his own odds? It is. I've explained at length why and I'm not sure more explanation would help matters at this point.
No, gbaji-- oh lawd. That's what I've been explaining to you-- your explanation was incorrect, because you apparently don't even understand what the statistic you believe to be the "correct" one even means. This clearly requires too much braining for you. Suffice it to say that if someone could have successfully supported your argument, they probably would have. Instead I find myself in contempt because apparently people actually thought you were right and I was just being argumentative. I -am- argumentative, I'll grant you, but I have to /facepalm at the forum for A) not initially seeing that you were wrong, and B) in light of their apparent ignorance, they erred on your side. Or I'm just being a ****, which-- let's face it-- you warrant.
Oh well, forget it.
The ********* disaster was raised to a level 7 event yesterday.
Level 7 means :
Level 7: Major accident
Impact on people and environment
Major release of radioÂactive Âmaterial with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended Âcountermeasures
I'm surprised no one had thought to post about this yet.
Level 7 means :
Level 7: Major accident
Impact on people and environment
Major release of radioÂactive Âmaterial with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended Âcountermeasures
I'm surprised no one had thought to post about this yet.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Ya i read today it is the same level now as Chernobyl
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Keep in mind this means that it was a Level 7 initially after a revision of data, it doesnt mean that the radation levels jumped from 5 to 7 within the past few days. The levels are still decreasing.
The other key difference between the two level 7s is the rate of release. Chernobyl peaked at 300Sv / hour, which would kill somebody 40 times over, as a fatal dose is 8Sv. *********** peak release was 10mSv / hour or about 0.01Sv. The total release was 10% that of Chernobyl. The current level of 0.8mSv at the main plant building, 0.1mSv at the gate. Current bq levels remain under acceptable levels for infants at the ********* Water Purification Plant.
Also, just putting this out here, I'm not condoning nuclear power, but I am trying to get out that most areas in Japan not directly hit by the tsunami are safe to visit. Even post-***************** current radiation levels in Tokyo are lower than that of Cornwall, England.
I'm split on the food export issue, but I do think Japan should be consuming more of the food produced domestically, rather than exporting and importing.
Here are a list of recent levels if anyone would like to see for themselves.
In a seperate topic,
In terms of earthquakes/aftershocks, for anyone wondering how it might affect travel in the next week or so, there are Shindo 3 hitting Tokyo once every day. While not dangerous, they can be unnerving to those with no Earthquake experience. Building codes within Japan ensure that most new buildings can resist up to Shindo 5, and survive up to Shindo 7. I can't say how long these aftershocks will continue for beyond that, for obvious reasons. If mild aftershocks do concern you, and you feel that you still want to visit Japan. I would recommend travelling to Central / Western Japan. I would argue they are more interesting to visit as they have more historical sites pre-Edo period, and Osaka is still a modern metropolis with the same comforts as Tokyo.
Edited, Apr 13th 2011 7:59am by Keikomyau
The other key difference between the two level 7s is the rate of release. Chernobyl peaked at 300Sv / hour, which would kill somebody 40 times over, as a fatal dose is 8Sv. *********** peak release was 10mSv / hour or about 0.01Sv. The total release was 10% that of Chernobyl. The current level of 0.8mSv at the main plant building, 0.1mSv at the gate. Current bq levels remain under acceptable levels for infants at the ********* Water Purification Plant.
Also, just putting this out here, I'm not condoning nuclear power, but I am trying to get out that most areas in Japan not directly hit by the tsunami are safe to visit. Even post-***************** current radiation levels in Tokyo are lower than that of Cornwall, England.
I'm split on the food export issue, but I do think Japan should be consuming more of the food produced domestically, rather than exporting and importing.
Here are a list of recent levels if anyone would like to see for themselves.
In a seperate topic,
In terms of earthquakes/aftershocks, for anyone wondering how it might affect travel in the next week or so, there are Shindo 3 hitting Tokyo once every day. While not dangerous, they can be unnerving to those with no Earthquake experience. Building codes within Japan ensure that most new buildings can resist up to Shindo 5, and survive up to Shindo 7. I can't say how long these aftershocks will continue for beyond that, for obvious reasons. If mild aftershocks do concern you, and you feel that you still want to visit Japan. I would recommend travelling to Central / Western Japan. I would argue they are more interesting to visit as they have more historical sites pre-Edo period, and Osaka is still a modern metropolis with the same comforts as Tokyo.
Edited, Apr 13th 2011 7:59am by Keikomyau
I remember talking to some co-workers a few weeks ago about this when they set this at a 5 on the scale. My comment was that it was a pretty poorly designed (ie: useless) scale if Chernobyl is a 7 and ********* is a 5 (as well as Three Mile Island). Not a whole lot of granularity between 5 (which was pretty much a nothing) and 7 (which in the case of Chernobyl was pretty massively horrific). Apparently, I was spot on with my initial assessment.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I remember talking to some co-workers a few weeks ago about this when they set this at a 5 on the scale. My comment was that it was a pretty poorly designed (ie: useless) scale if Chernobyl is a 7 and ********* is a 5 (as well as Three Mile Island). Not a whole lot of granularity between 5 (which was pretty much a nothing) and 7 (which in the case of Chernobyl was pretty massively horrific). Apparently, I was spot on with my initial assessment.
Well yeah, they told me they raised it to a 7 based on your forum post.
shhh, Locke is the Japanese Government
gbaji wrote:
I remember talking to some co-workers a few weeks ago about this when they set this at a 5 on the scale. My comment was that it was a pretty poorly designed (ie: useless) scale if Chernobyl is a 7 and ********* is a 5 (as well as Three Mile Island). Not a whole lot of granularity between 5 (which was pretty much a nothing) and 7 (which in the case of Chernobyl was pretty massively horrific). Apparently, I was spot on with my initial assessment.
It's a logarithmic scale. Granted, I don't know if decimals are allowed like other logarithmic scales (which would make it pretty granular), but any system that attempts to reduce a massively complex event like a nuclear plant failure into a simplistic "here's how many particles are out there" type scale is doomed to failure from the start.
The scale would be much better if it used colors instead of numbers.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
The scale would be much better if it used colors instead of numbers.
LOL
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
lolgaxe wrote:
The scale would be much better if it used colors instead of numbers.
ROYAL RAINBOW
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Majivo wrote:
It's a logarithmic scale.
No. It's really not. While they make this claim, there is no math involved to make the determination that one nuclear event is "ten times worse" than another. It's pretty much subjective.
Quote:
Granted, I don't know if decimals are allowed like other logarithmic scales (which would make it pretty granular), but any system that attempts to reduce a massively complex event like a nuclear plant failure into a simplistic "here's how many particles are out there" type scale is doomed to failure from the start.
Yes. But pretending that your scale is logarithmic when it's really not much more than a ranking system of events is misleading at best. The result is that we've got two accidents, both labeled with the exact same number, yet the peak radiation release levels at ********* were something like 1/1000th of the peak levels at Chernobyl. They aren't really measuring the event itself (like we do with Hurricanes, Tornadoes, and Earthquakes). They're measuring a broader effect level, but for some bizarre reason use an incredibly constrained scale and want to try to equate their system to those used to measure those other events.
The scales used for other disasters measure just the effect/strength of the event, not its impact. So a magnitude 7 earthquake in the middle of the desert where it does no harm and the same earthquake right under downtown LA are both magnitude 7 quakes. No one adjusts the number to account for how significant the impact of that quake was. The nuclear event scale sounds like something that was created by committee and for political rather than scientific reasons.
And on top of that, it's pretty useless. It's kinda like measuring earthquakes but having your scale top out at 4, so everything above that is the same number. Apparently anything more than "basically zero radiation escapes into the environment" appears to be a 7. On a scale that goes from 1 to 7. Like I said: Useless.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Majivo wrote:
It's a logarithmic scale.
No. It's really not. While they make this claim, there is no math involved to make the determination that one nuclear event is "ten times worse" than another. It's pretty much subjective.
Quote:
Granted, I don't know if decimals are allowed like other logarithmic scales (which would make it pretty granular), but any system that attempts to reduce a massively complex event like a nuclear plant failure into a simplistic "here's how many particles are out there" type scale is doomed to failure from the start.
Yes. But pretending that your scale is logarithmic when it's really not much more than a ranking system of events is misleading at best. The result is that we've got two accidents, both labeled with the exact same number, yet the peak radiation release levels at ********* were something like 1/1000th of the peak levels at Chernobyl. They aren't really measuring the event itself (like we do with Hurricanes, Tornadoes, and Earthquakes). They're measuring a broader effect level, but for some bizarre reason use an incredibly constrained scale and want to try to equate their system to those used to measure those other events.
The scales used for other disasters measure just the effect/strength of the event, not its impact. So a magnitude 7 earthquake in the middle of the desert where it does no harm and the same earthquake right under downtown LA are both magnitude 7 quakes. No one adjusts the number to account for how significant the impact of that quake was. The nuclear event scale sounds like something that was created by committee and for political rather than scientific reasons.
And on top of that, it's pretty useless. It's kinda like measuring earthquakes but having your scale top out at 4, so everything above that is the same number. Apparently anything more than "basically zero radiation escapes into the environment" appears to be a 7. On a scale that goes from 1 to 7. Like I said: Useless.
Surprisingly enough this confirms what Gbaji said and this had me scratching my head.
The Windscale Pile (UK) and the Kyshtym (USSR) accidents sound serious, wonder what the effects are like now, over 50 years later.
Donbayne 100 Rng - Uinian 100 Dru - Breru 100 Sk - Nyenie 82 Brd - Ruusan 76 Clr - Braru 75 Mag - Syqen 100 Shm EQ Stromm/Luclin
A Windscale local.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Yes. But pretending that your scale is logarithmic when it's really not much more than a ranking system of events is misleading at best. The result is that we've got two accidents, both labeled with the exact same number, yet the peak radiation release levels at ********* were something like 1/1000th of the peak levels at Chernobyl.
The current scale has only been used since the 90's, Chernobyl didn't happen between then and now, it was "added" to the scale afterwards thus the discrepancy of severity between it and ********** Only 1 event in the top 3 (5,6,7 levels) has happened since the scale was introduced, the vast majority of dangerous nuclear events occurred beforehand.
I would wager it was designed more so to ease public fears on nuclear power post chernobyl given the number of minor events listed between that and 1990 when the scale was implemented.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Recent Visitors: 277
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (277)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- “The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,â€
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC