Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

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

#102 Mar 25 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
94% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#103 Mar 25 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
I'm sure I'll regret making even the most minimal effort, but can you not see how the essential problem your describing exists in ALL statistics? Roughly 50% of doctoral students do not complete their program. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of not completing my program? Of course not. Maybe my program has less attrition. Maybe my personal abilities drastically improve my odds of success. Statistics (especially morbidity statistics) describe populations. That is what they do.

When you're fundamentally talking about two different things climbing up on your high horse and acting like a pedantic prick serves nothing but your ego and the negative light we all see you in.

Both of you.
____________________________
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]
#104 Mar 25 2011 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Around 60% of the time
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#105 Mar 25 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,870 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Around 60% of the time
4 out of 5 doctors agree with these posts.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#106 Mar 25 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Around 60% of the time
4 out of 5 doctors agree with these posts.



I agree with this statement 31.622778^2%

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 3:40pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#107 Mar 25 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,909 posts
Kachi wrote:
Hell, if nothing else, it never ceases to amaze me that you think that you, in all of your infinite wisdom, have identified some glaring fundamental flaw in the world of morbidity statistics where thousands of others who are learned in statistics, actuary, health, and travel, have failed.


Sweetums wrote:
I'm sure professional statisticians know how to present different aspects of data and the difference between what is essentially an expected value and a probability of an event occurring.



I'm quite sure that the professional statisticians understand the difference. But those people usually aren't the ones who write the articles and statements that are presented to the general public. My whole point was about how those statistics are incorrectly presented for public consumption. So statistics using passenger miles will be presented by saying something like "YOU are X times more likely to die traveling in a car than in a plane", when that's not even remotely what the statistics actually show. The statistics actually say that X times more "people" will die per Y miles traveled in a car than in a plane (which is clearly not the same thing). Even ignoring specific variations (being a good driver in a safer car, etc), the statistics those statements are based on aren't the correct ones to use (assuming the intention is to convince someone of the safety of one choice versus another).


That's all I was saying. And it's an accurate statement. I'm not trying to change the freaking world here or anything, just maybe raising awareness about how statistics are often less than accurately presented to the public after they travel through the lenses of media and politics. I've made a similar point in the past about the very real statistical differences between the use of "median" and "mean", but that the two calculations are often used interchangeable in publications meant for general consumption.

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 5:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Mar 25 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Your example is also a pretty bad one because that's just the marginal probability and not a more accurate conditional probability that takes other factors into account, which really has nothing to do with the difference between what gbaji is talking about.


What gbaji is saying is that the marginal probability is "ridiculous" because it's not a conditional probability, and that's why my analogy highlighted the distinction between marginal and conditional probabilities. If you're referring to his criticism of how the marginal probability is calculated, then he's just wrong. That is the way it is calculated because that is the best way TO calculate it and it is the most conveniently meaningful way to present it.

MoebiusLord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I'm sure I'll regret making even the most minimal effort, but can you not see how the essential problem your describing exists in ALL statistics? Roughly 50% of doctoral students do not complete their program. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of not completing my program? Of course not. Maybe my program has less attrition. Maybe my personal abilities drastically improve my odds of success. Statistics (especially morbidity statistics) describe populations. That is what they do.

When you're fundamentally talking about two different things climbing up on your high horse and acting like a pedantic prick serves nothing but your ego and the negative light we all see you in.

Both of you.


Neverminding that I reserve the right to respond in tangent to gbaji whenever I damn well fancy, what happens when we're talking about the same thing and you just don't understand?

You might as well just accept this-- I don't come here for the fictional camaraderie, and least of all do I give a sh*t about my public image. I come here primarily to mercilessly harangue people for their idiocy. It amuses me. It feeds a desire that remains unfulfilled in my public life, like when gbaji watches rape porn, or when you fantasize about being likable. So if you want to insult me back, be my guest, but please don't bother to appeal to my need to be accepted, because it simply doesn't exist. Not in this forum, anyway. Wherein you are concerned, I'm not just an egotistical ass-- I'm a straight up sociopath. Learn to be ok with 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.
#109 Mar 26 2011 at 12:06 AM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,914 posts
Woah, Gbaji, are you gonna take that? Another rape-related allegation?

You need to stand up for yourselef, man, and the way to do it is legal action.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#110 Mar 26 2011 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
That would be a great rant if he weren't talking about an expected value vs a probability, which are both interesting in their own rights. I know it's fun to pile on gbaji but you seem to have this creepy obsession with him that sounds like the concept of some weird romantic comedy.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#111 Mar 26 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I know it's fun to pile on gbaji but you seem to have this creepy obsession with him that sounds like the concept of some weird romantic comedy.


This.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#112 Mar 27 2011 at 1:46 AM Rating: Good
The day I see *proof* that gbaji was a poor "sleeping in my car" Horatio Alger bootstraps-to-success-story I might believe his histrionics.



Until then, Imma gonna go with "fell out of a lucky vagina" theory.

How about it, gbaji, show us your Facebook?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#113 Mar 27 2011 at 4:19 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,914 posts
Uh, Gbaji's not rich in the slightest. You know that, right?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#114 Mar 28 2011 at 1:21 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Sweetums wrote:
That would be a great rant if he weren't talking about an expected value vs a probability, which are both interesting in their own rights. I know it's fun to pile on gbaji but you seem to have this creepy obsession with him that sounds like the concept of some weird romantic comedy.


Now I'm just wondering why you're reaching to defend him when he's clearly wrong. Maybe you have some obsession with him and are worried that I'm muscling in on your love interest? Don't worry, if I were bringing on a third, I think I could do better than gbaji. Not that you two won't make a cute couple!

Gbaji is the most interesting person on this forum-- I will concede you that. That's why he solicits so much of my attention, that and our mutually adversarial natures.
____________________________
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.
#115 Mar 28 2011 at 2:19 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,914 posts
Kachi wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
That would be a great rant if he weren't talking about an expected value vs a probability, which are both interesting in their own rights. I know it's fun to pile on gbaji but you seem to have this creepy obsession with him that sounds like the concept of some weird romantic comedy.


Now I'm just wondering why you're reaching to defend him when he's clearly wrong. Maybe you have some obsession with him and are worried that I'm muscling in on your love interest? Don't worry, if I were bringing on a third, I think I could do better than gbaji. Not that you two won't make a cute couple!

Gbaji is the most interesting person on this forum-- I will concede you that. That's why he solicits so much of my attention, that and our mutually adversarial natures.


You're rubber, then, are you? I suppose that means Sweetums is glue.

You've regressed.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#116 Mar 28 2011 at 6:53 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
I'm more appalled by your tenuous grasp of statistics, really. You should be ashamed of yourself when gbaji comprehends the subject at a higher level.

People generally don't want to be on a plane where there are going to be fatalities at all, regardless of whether or not they're going to die themselves. They probably want to know the probability of being in a plane crash serious enough to have any fatalities, even if it's somebody else. At that point you kind of stop caring about the per passenger mile statistic and then start caring about accidents per flight hours (which the FAA uses, by the way.)

Deaths per passenger mile just looks pretty good in press releases, whereas deaths per passenger journey looks significantly worse than the corresponding car deaths per passenger journey (this is the statistic airline insurers use).

Statistics are very interesting to manipulate.


Edited, Mar 28th 2011 9:33am by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#117 Mar 28 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,909 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Statistics are very interesting to manipulate.


Yup. That was pretty much all I was pointing out. There's usually a number of different ways to present the same data, and it's not surprising that groups will tend to present things in the best way possible based on what they're trying to sell. It's really based on what you're trying to get and what is important to you.

There's actually an interesting corollary to my own field (lots of fields in fact). We tend to measure failure rates as "device/time". Often this is labeled as MTBF (mean time between failures). That's a measurement of how long a typical device will operate before it croaks and is a relatively useful measurement by itself. But, if you're running a business, what you really want to know is how much you can do with that device before it fails. A hell of a lot of the EDA tools world is about maximizing the amount of work you can accomplish with a given cost of equipment. And that's going to include things like failure rates. Interestingly enough (but not surprising at all), is that the more efficiently you utilizes a piece of hardware, the more work you can get out of it before it fails.

From a cost perspective then, you can calculate "jobs/work per failure" (or some equivalent) in order to measure this. Um... That's an awful lot like the passenger miles per crash statistic above (arguably, it's the exact same thing). What the airline industry is really calculating is how many passengers they can move how many miles before a crash happens. And since profits are based on numbers of tickets sold, they are directly calculating their rate of "loss" from a crash to their rate of "gain" from ticket sales. I would assume they also plan out the size and passenger load of planes to maximize that same transport efficiency, just as we do when planning out the mix of sizes of different computers to run different jobs. You want to maximize the amount you get done over time, while minimizing the relative loss when a system crashes (cause whatever work you're doing on that system is lost and has to be done over, or in the case of a plane crash, you have to pay lots of money to the families of the passengers).

Obviously, human lives aren't the same as a computer design simulation, but the statistical principles involved are pretty much identical.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118Kachi, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 12:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm genuinely interested in why you're so eager to defend him, but sparing me that, I would suffice with you understanding how deaths-by-journeys is not actually the statistic the individual in question would want. Hint: There are more people on the average plane flight than car trip herp derp.
#119 Mar 29 2011 at 1:50 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Kachi wrote:

I'm genuinely interested in why you're so eager to defend him, but sparing me that, I would suffice with you understanding how deaths-by-journeys is not actually the statistic the individual in question would want. Hint: There are more people on the average plane flight than car trip herp derp.

Now look, I can deal with being rated to sub-default for being a jerk, but Ima prolly cry a little if people are just too stupid to see that I'm right. lern 2 math folks

Edit: on second thought, ya know what? I'm going to apologize to gbaji. He's obviously not being egregiously stupid if other people agree with him, no matter how wrong they may be. Sorry, gbaji.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 11:43pm by Kachi
Yeah, and I'm sorry you've never taken a class in statistics.

Hint: n_1* Pr(x_1) + n_2*Pr(x_2) = average numbers of passengers dying per journey. Pr(x) being probability that the plane crashes on a specific journey, x_1 and x_2 being the events where the plane crashes and doesn't crash, respectively. You can extend this to a probability function relating to miles if you so wish. The main reason I'm not doing this is because I have no @#%^ing idea how to type out an integral on these boards and the miles function would be continuous whereas the journey one is discrete so a sum is sufficient.

n_2*Pr(x_2) is effectively zero if we want to talk about fatalities actually related to the crashing and not Grandpa's heart attack.

n_1 is the number of passengers dying in your average plane crash. That can likely be represented by a probability function as well, but for the sake of brevity, let's leave it out, because it's like, turtles all the way down and sh*t.

Now, I am more interested in the value Pr(x_1), because I'd rather not have to hurtle down to earth, regardless of the fact that I'm not going to die.


PROTIP: I never said deaths by journey was the one passengers wanted, just the one insurance companies used. I said accidents per flight hours would be the one passengers would likely prefer, since it just gives the probability of the plane crashing without consideration for the number of passengers involved.

It was supposed to illustrate that, you know, different statistics for different situations, and that even the professionals will use a wide array of statistics which you seem to be discounting, but you seem stuck on one statistic, so whatever.


Edited, Mar 29th 2011 3:53am by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#120 Mar 29 2011 at 2:09 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Yeah, and I'm sorry you've never taken a class in statistics.

Hint: n1* Pr(x1) + n2*Pr(x2) = average numbers of passengers dying per journey. Pr(x) being probability that the plane crashes, x1 and x2 being the events where the plane crashes and doesn't crash, respectively.
n2*Pr(x2) is effectively zero if we want to talk about fatalities actually related to the crashing and not Grandpa's heart attack.

n1 is the number of passengers dying in your average plane crash. That can likely be represented by a probability function as well, but for the sake of brevity, let's leave it out, because it's like, turtles all the way down and sh*t.

Now, I am more interested in the value Pr(x1), because I'd rather not have to hurtle down to earth, regardless of the fact that I'm not going to die.


PROTIP: I never said deaths by journey was the one passengers wanted, just the one insurance companies used. I said accidents per flight hours would be the one they prefer. It was supposed to illustrate that, you know, different statistics for different situations, but you seem stuck on one statistic so whatever.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 3:06am by Sweetums

The staff is going to stop giving us nice things if you don't use them.
#121 Mar 29 2011 at 2:12 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Yeah, and I'm sorry you've never taken a class in statistics.

Hint: n1* Pr(x1) + n2*Pr(x2) = average numbers of passengers dying per journey. Pr(x) being probability that the plane crashes, x1 and x2 being the events where the plane crashes and doesn't crash, respectively.
n2*Pr(x2) is effectively zero if we want to talk about fatalities actually related to the crashing and not Grandpa's heart attack.

n1 is the number of passengers dying in your average plane crash. That can likely be represented by a probability function as well, but for the sake of brevity, let's leave it out, because it's like, turtles all the way down and sh*t.

Now, I am more interested in the value Pr(x1), because I'd rather not have to hurtle down to earth, regardless of the fact that I'm not going to die.


PROTIP: I never said deaths by journey was the one passengers wanted, just the one insurance companies used. I said accidents per flight hours would be the one they prefer. It was supposed to illustrate that, you know, different statistics for different situations, but you seem stuck on one statistic so whatever.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 3:06am by Sweetums

The staff is going to stop giving us nice things if you don't use them.
Excuse me if the board doesn't have LaTeX markup like every real board should
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#122 Mar 29 2011 at 6:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,909 posts
Kavekk wrote:
You've regressed.


Regression implies prior progress.

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

#123 Mar 29 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,627 posts
I see this thread has degenerated into a correspondence course on statistical analysis...
____________________________
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.
#124 Mar 29 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,143 posts
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
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#125 Mar 29 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,909 posts
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.


Statistically, it's much safer.

see what I did thar?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Mar 29 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,712 posts
Samira wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
You've regressed.


Regression implies prior progress.



No, Regression implies a linear method of modeling the relationship between two variable axis focusing on the conditional variable groups, allowing future progress in the refinement of relational data.

Thus regression implies future progress.

Oh, wait, you mean he was being infantile.

uh.. well then you're right.

I thought we were still doing statistics :(
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#127Kachi, 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.
#128 Mar 29 2011 at 11:28 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
599 posts
If it took you 6 tries to pass a statistics course, you probably shouldn't talk about the subject Smiley: schooled
#129 Mar 29 2011 at 11:53 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,914 posts
Don't do this, man. You're just fuelling his delusion.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#130 Mar 30 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
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
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.
____________________________
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
#131 Mar 30 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,909 posts
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
#132 Mar 30 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,025 posts
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 Fukushima, 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 Fukushima 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.”


Airborne levels are decreasing in Fukushima 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
____________________________
日本台湾友好!
#133 Mar 31 2011 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,712 posts
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.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#134 Apr 01 2011 at 1:54 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
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 dick, which-- let's face it-- you warrant.

Oh well, forget 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.
#135 Apr 12 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
The Fukishima disaster was raised to a level 7 event yesterday.

Level 7 means :

Level 7: Major accident
Impact on people and environment
Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures

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.

#136 Apr 12 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,428 posts
Ya i read today it is the same level now as Chernobyl
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#137 Apr 13 2011 at 1:09 AM Rating: Good
***
1,025 posts
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. Fukushima's 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 Fukushima 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-FukushimaDaiIchi, 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
____________________________
日本台湾友好!
#138 Apr 13 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,909 posts
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 Fukishima 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
#139 Apr 13 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
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 Fukishima 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
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#140 Apr 13 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
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 Fukishima 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.
#141 Apr 13 2011 at 10:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,389 posts
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.
#142 Apr 14 2011 at 5:24 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,428 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The scale would be much better if it used colors instead of numbers.

LOL
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Apr 14 2011 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The scale would be much better if it used colors instead of numbers.
Done and done.

ROYAL RAINBOW
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#144 Apr 14 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,909 posts
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 Fukishima 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
#145 Apr 14 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
631 posts
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 Fukishima 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
#146 Apr 14 2011 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
A Windscale local.

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

#147 Apr 17 2011 at 7:51 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,428 posts
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 Fukishima 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 fukishima. 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 BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CDT