Massive 8.9 earthquake and tsunami devastate Japan

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
Will I be fired from Halforums if I found Gilbert's jokes funny? Not really lol funny, more that's terrible and I'm going to hell funny.
Click to expand...
You can come sit at the Pariah table with the rest of us misanthropes.

I still think firing him was a dick move. If you don't want your spokesman making crass jokes, maybe don't hire Gilbert Gottfried.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm of the opinion they can fire whoever they want for whatever reason, and this is a better than most reason, but if it makes it sit better with you, consider it as them "un-hiring" him, having come to the realization that "Gee, maybe we shouldn't have hired Gilbert Gottfried, as it really was just a matter of time until he started ridiculing human tragedy in a public venue."

Then again, those duck commercials were getting tiring. This is probably for the best.
Click to expand...
I also refuse to believe that Gottfried is the only person who could do that voice.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Oh, I also agree they can fire whoever they want. I'm not trying to claim Gottfried as an innocent victim. I just find the thought of firing him for doing what he's made a career out of doing to be kinda odd.

I wonder how much he got paid... I can totally do that voice.
 
strawman

strawman

I can't believe they hired him to do the duck's voice anyway. All he ever did was say, "aflac!" They'll get a cheaper voice actor, and everyone will come out ahead.

And yes, his jokes were funny. However, it's tactless to make fun of someone while they are still suffering. Making jokes about someone's house burning down years after it happened? Sure, they probably laugh about it themselves from time to time. Bringing marshmallows and sticks to roast as you watch it burn? Tactless, not to mention carcinogenic.

Besides, the jokes the Japanese themselves are coming up with are going to be far funnier and darker than what Gilbert said. I can only hope the best ones are translated and published...
 
strawman

strawman

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-reactor-damage-20110318,0,6146639.story

Radiation from the plant is now reaching the west coast of the US. The amounts are insignificant in terms of human, plant, and animal health, but the increase and type of radiation is measurable and verified to be from this plant. Keep in mind that the radiation we are receiving now was emitted days ago, when they weren't leaking very much. Now that the storage pool of reactor 4 is actively spewing material we may see increases on our coast soon, though after a trans-pacific flight they should still be minimal.

Japan now officially considers this nuclear disaster to be a 5 on the scale of one to 7, where Chernobyl was 7, and 3 mile island was also a 5. Notably, the Japanese plant is spewing radiation, whereas there was no radiation emitted from the 3 mile island accident.

The winds over the plant are now shifting such that Tokyo is in the path of the radiation.

They should have power at the plant in the next 24 hours. They aren't sure if the pumps were damaged in the hydrogen explosions that occurred last week, however even if they are, getting power is critically important for the control and monitoring systems to work. They can't go anywhere near the reactors right now, but once they get the systems online they should have a lot of monitoring equipment (temperature, pressure) they can use to understand the situation, and control equipment (valves, etc) they can use to move coolant around the plant with external pumps if needed. They are operating in the dark at the moment, but with power they should have a lot more information, even if a lot of sensors were destroyed. The sensors inside the reactor should still be fine.
 
Espy

Espy

NPR has been doing some really fantastic reporting on this. Today on Science Friday I believe a good portion of Science Friday today will focus on it as well.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I didn't know bananas are naturally radioactive because of their potassium content. But you can apparently measure radiation in banana equivalents. I think that helps put things in perspective.
Click to expand...
There was an interested footnote at the bottom of that article:

Note: This is not a "nuclear accident". It is damage from an earthquake and tsunami. The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".
Click to expand...
 
bhamv3

bhamv3

Any mention so far of the Fukushima 50? I read a news article about these guys and got choked up. A bunch of scientists, technicians and emergency services personnel volunteered to stay behind, risking their lives to keep the plant under control.

These guys are willingly exposing themselves to radiation and other dangers, to keep the rest of the region and possibly the rest of Japan safe. They're the few who are sacrificing themselves to protect the many. It's like seeing a modern version of 300 or something like that.

The most admirable part, I think, is that this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision on their part. They've been in there for days. They've had days to reconsider their decision, and leave if they want to. But they don't.
 
Null

Null

They're people doing their job when it really matters, because completing it means more to them than their own safety. That's admirable indeed. I don't think the term "hero" would be wrong to use.

So this is about the same as Three Mile Island in terms of radiation leakage? That's actually pretty good - the radiation level from TMI was equivalent to a 6 hour flight in terms of exposure.
 
strawman

strawman

Null said:
So this is about the same as Three Mile Island in terms of radiation leakage?
Click to expand...
No, the radiation leakage from this situation is far greater than that of 3 mile island. Having the same number on the rating system doesn't mean the same amount of leakage.
 
strawman

strawman

You may have seen before and after photos, but the ones I've seen cover large areas, and while it's easy to see the after is more damaged, it's not as clear as it is now:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp

Select smaller areas. The photos are overlayed. There's a slider in the middle of each photo, move it one way to reveal the devastation, move it the other way to see the images captured prior to the tsunami and earthquake.

Very, very easy to see and comprehend the damage done.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
GasBandit said:
I didn't know bananas are naturally radioactive because of their potassium content. But you can apparently measure radiation in banana equivalents. I think that helps put things in perspective.
Click to expand...
Clay is fairly radioactive, too. Any clay-heavy areas like Louisiana or Mississippi have fairly high background readings.
 
strawman

strawman

In addition to soil samples outside the plant's exclusion zone showing plutonium, places as far away as Massachusetts are now detecting trace amounts of radiation in their rainwater due to the earthquake and tsunami's effect on the nuclear plant:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/uk-nuclear-japan-massachusetts-idUSLNE72R01I20110328

While the radiation amounts are trivial and pose no risk, we can pretty conclusively state that the earth is now blanketed with the effects of this nuclear accident.

Also, in semi-related news, I called DTE Energy this morning and found that the Fermi 2 Nuclear plant visitor's center has been closed for years. I'm checking the other plants, but it sounds like they locked things down due to 9/11. I was hoping to include visitor center info in my iphone app...
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Is it a nuclear accident? I thought it was the result of a natural disaster. It wasn't the result of someone accidentally sitting on the meltdown button.
 
strawman

strawman

Well, what would you call it? "nuclear __________" (fill in the blank please)

The plant was not designed to withstand the magnitude of either the earthquake alone or the tsunami alone. Lesser earthquakes and tsunamis, yes, but not the ones that hit, never mind the one-two punch of one right after the other.

The connotation of accident often implies human misconduct, but that's not necessary for something to be considered an accident:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

The first definition is fine by itself, although many ignore that one and only consider the second.

I just don't want to add a lot of qualifiers when talking about it, so hopefully there's a short two or three word phrase that can cover it. I don't want to call it a nuclear disaster, that seems to have a very heavy connotation of widespread destruction. The earthquake and tsunami are worthy of that moniker.
 
Tress

Tress

MindDetective pointed something out earlier in the thread.

MindDetective said:
There was an interesting footnote at the bottom of that article:
Note: This is not a "nuclear accident". It is damage from an earthquake and tsunami. The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
strawman

strawman

The author of that article uses definition number two. They want to avoid the word accident because many people assume it means that it was preventable and avoidable. However, the word doesn't necessarily mean that.

I agree that it can be ambiguous. Suggest an alternative. I'm not happy with problem, issue, damage, disaster and others for a variety of reasons.

An accident is an unforeseen, undesirable event, so it fits. Is there a better word? You tell me.
 
Tress

Tress

All I know is that the preexisting connotation for "nuclear accident" is incorrect for the actual circumstances of this problem, damage, disaster, and others. While you can pull out various definitions for the word "accident" and discuss how it may be technically accurate, the more popular usage denotes circumstances that lead people to a false understanding (somehow this is a failure of the very idea of nuclear power, for example). So, in the same way you are unhappy with problem, issue, damage, etc., I am unhappy with accident.

As you asked, is there a better word? Probably. But just because I don't have it right now doesn't mean the wrong word suddenly becomes acceptable.
 
strawman

strawman

Sounds like propaganda. The nuclear industry is pushing against using the word accident in connection with this problem. That's fine, they can use whatever words they see fit in their news briefings and press releases.

I am curious, however, how you arrived at the conclusion that this is the pre existing connotation and is popular usage.

Is saying "I was involved in an accident when the windstorm blew the utility pole over into the road in front of me" incorrect and wrong, as you indicate? "the tornado caused an accident"

People and news reports use the word accident for situations not involving human error frequently enough that I can't come to the same conclusion you have regarding common usage. Accident is not a synonym for mistake, and I'm not interested in it becoming one.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
stienman said:
People and news reports use the word accident for situations not involving human error frequently enough that I can't come to the same conclusion you have regarding common usage.
Click to expand...
People also say they could care less, use the word "deceptively" like it "supposably" means something, and use "I know" when they didn't know but merely agree emphatically.
 
Tress

Tress

stienman said:
So am I demanding too much from my audience here?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm sorry I don't have an exact source to point to at the moment, but I am supremely confident that when most (dumb) people hear "nuclear accident" they think of a problem that results directly from a failure to plan and/or manage the nuclear plant. Thus it's better to use another phrase, since that would be an unfair connotation.

Now, I fully understand that using accident should be considered correct. Technically you're right. It's just that there are too many people who won't see it that way.
 
strawman

strawman

Tress said:
Yes. I am supremely confident that when most (dumb) people hear "nuclear accident" they think of a problem that results directly from a failure to plan and/or manage the nuclear plant.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize you had such a low opinion of halforums regulars.

Oh well. You use the words you are comfortable with, I'll use the words I'm comfortable with, and if there's any confusion please refer to my previous (comprehensive) statements on the causes of the accident.

In regards to your inability to find a source, you would probably be happy with the following explanation from Wikipedia: "An accident is a specific, unpredictable, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence."

The implication is what you find fault with. The events leading to the accident could not have been avoided or prevented. Whether the accident could have been mitigated better than it was will have to wait until a full investigation, which will undoubtedly take years, is completed.

Back on topic:

As of today it appears that one of the reactors has melted through its steel pressure container into the secondary containment (concrete). Due to the explosion in the secondary containment previously, they are not sure that it is still intact, and radioactive products found in water outside the secondary reactor containment suggest that it is not intact. The radiation emitted from the water is significant and will harm human health with exposures on the order of 15 minutes.

It is clear that significant radioactive products are leaking into the environment, but since they are not significantly airborne the release is not comparable to what happened at chernobyl.

Latest reports suggest that efforts have switched from possibly saving the plant to merely trying to contain the radiation as much as possible. They have apparently given up on the idea that the plant can be saved for possible future use, and it's likely that it will be one of the more expensive nuclear cleanups in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top