Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Roger Brown
climber
Oceano, California
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 09:24am PT
|
Ed,
Thank you for taking the time to answer questions asked by forum members.
Roger Brown
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical adventure
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 10:11am PT
|
Before I head off to a morning of spiritual sustenance, here is a link to a series of balanced articles about radiation and the related issues of Fukushima, by a chap who calmly examines and discusses some of the sensationalist aspects of data concerning Fukushima:
Here is the primer which might help people to sort out their concerns and find some answers.
John Nordin writes with an informed and balanced perspective. Ed and John agree on much, and I think for those who might still be having major concerns due to all the yellow journalism to which many subject themselves, this might help to provide a framework for consideration of various aspects of the present situation. I would suggest reading both parts as well as the accompanying primer.
One issue John considers concerns the relative safety of nuclear energy and how other reactors in Japan fared during and after the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
Thank you Ed for all your reasoned responses.
Kind Regards,
feralfae
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 11:00am PT
|
Carl warned that the rise of "fake science" should be seen as a threat to democracy and needed to be challenged and refuted. Thanks for your scientific replies on this forum.
Perhaps that is why the last book that he wrote tackled that exact problem: fluff science.
If you consider yourself even slightly well read, buy a copy of The Demon Haunted World.
That book is a triumph. It is a must-read for anybody working in science, and damn good for anyone who is trying to tell good science from bad science.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2013 - 12:39pm PT
|
The true size of the disaster, or even just the proper measure of the amount of radiation released, will take years to sort out. Media don’t understand that and want instant answers. They don’t know how to treat real uncertainty either and can assume it means a cover-up. They want a crisis, so reports of massive deaths, debris hitting the west coast and explosions will get immediate coverage. Plants that have problems that are overcome before disaster occurs, such as at Daini, will be ignored. And the scare around anything “nuclear” will always drive out reporting on sewage or petrochemical pollution, even if that’s a problem that kills more people.
People fear uncertainty. People fear what they do not understand.
As an engineer I work in risk analysis - usually for things like earthquakes. What always amazes me is how the general public doesn't have a rational understanding of risk. People are terrified of commercial air travel but will happily drive down I-5 at 80 mph in the fog. The probability that any person in California will develop cancer due to radioactive leaks from Fukushima is probably negligible in proportion to the other risks we face. Heart disease is still the leading cause of death but many still indulge in the the primary causes of heart disease - smoking, cholesterol and sugar.
It seems like the irrational behavior has to do with perceived control or lack of control. People smoke, eat poison chemical food, smoke, rock climb and drive crazy because they feel they are in control. People fear air travel, radioactive pollution, asteroids and uncertainty because they feel they have no control.
If you are concerned about your life expectancy, work on the preventable causes of death.
And don't go rock climbing.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
|
I too have worked professionally developing risk management plans.
In particular I was the NASA Ames systems engineer in charge of developing the risk management plan for the next generation air traffic system NextGen for NASA VAMS Virtual Airspace Modeling System. I lead a team of engineers that met every morning for over a year to develop this plan, which resulted in a joint FAA/NASA office in Washington DC to implement the plan. I would probably still be working there, but hired my replacement and made a choice to manage a related effort for the International Space Station and then for the Constellation Program to return humans to the moon and onto Mars. Sounds like interesting work, but really just a huge amount of tedium...massive spreadsheets and a mind numbing morass of details.
The way this planning is done is to list all known risk factors and analyze each one in terms of likelihood and consequence. Then you work out how to mitigate risks and assess the cost of mitigation against the likelihood and consequence to plan how to allocate available resources. There is a big book on this published by Carnegie Mellon University called Continuous Risk Management Planning that is sort of the bible on this. Much of its lessons learned come from the nuclear industry.
...and now trying privately to make sense of all the noise about Fukushima...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
|
Ron, you might try to understand a bit just what is being discussed and resist making it all into a cartoon. My opinion, of course.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 02:13pm PT
|
Bravo Tom for seeing where we're really at with Fukushima;
I have been following this topic on almost a daily basis since March of 2011, and finding it extraordinarily difficult to obtain a reliable assessment. However it appears that if the damaged and unstable Building Four fuel storage pool is not successfully unloaded before it collapses, we are into an unimaginable scenario equivalent to a simultaneous meltdown of 20 reactors, making the current situation moot. And this appears to present a nearly impossible challenge.
The lack of information and the presence of contradictory information is particularly disturbing. Yet this thread hardly scratches the surface of the available information. http://fukushimaupdate.com/
I would really like to know your viewpoint of commentary by people like Arnie Gunderson and Helen Caldicot.
My uncle and cousin, nuclear engineers at Hanford, tell me that one of the major risks is breathing or ingesting radioactive micro-particles or 'radioactive fleas' which are not easily detected. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/1-millioninth-gram-inhaled-plutonium-will-give-you-cancer.2012-06-13
I wish I could just take a deep breath of clean air and go climbing, however you can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
And, regardless of how Ron sees climate change, I understand why he feels like Tom. I'm certainly in the camp that thinks the affair is being downplayed. This thread is too much about Ed and not enough about Fukushima. Perhaps Fukushima deserves its own post. Ask Ann Coulter.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 02:44pm PT
|
If you ever catch me not agreeing with Ed, make sure I get a good kick in the ass.
I know that was said in jest, but people should realize that Ed is not in the business to be agreed with, but to have reasoned challenges placed. That's because he is an honest-to-God scientist, the nature of which is debate and challenge.
I am also a scientist, but not in this field. I also appreciate Ed's willingness to take highly complex information and distill it down to understandable and meaningful snapshots for the rest of us.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 03:38pm PT
|
I understand why he feels like Tom. I try to bridge whatever gap there is between Tom and Ron, and you, Bruce, attack 'feelings'. It's pretty clear I'm using 'feelings' in the intuitive sense rather than the emotional or prejudicial sense. Feeling out a situation doesn't have to be any more emotional that getting a hand on a life-raft. It's you that needs to take a flying leap Bruce, and try being less prejudicial and more cordial. Of all the people here, I would listen to you the least. You are best at simply showing your mean spirit.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 03:49pm PT
|
Ron,
If you are curious, I propose that you investigate it yourself.
Using the internet means using the very poorly vetted opinions of others, and in a case like this, which is simple physics, you could put your mind to work on it.
If I have any opinion possible, I can probably find something on the web which reinforces that opinion, no matter how goofy it is. That is the double edged sword of the web.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 04:05pm PT
|
odd how all the globull warming fanatics are dead against this enviro issue being an issue.. Im laughing so hard i may need a tissue..
It's not odd at all Ron. Nuclear is the only currently available viable solution to CO2 pollution. The risks from nuclear are significantly less than CO2. Even Chernobly pales in comparison to the impact of a single bad hurricane hitting the wrong place. Don't mess with momma nature.
Those who base their opinions on facts find this pretty easy to understand.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 05:21pm PT
|
how much news do you want? there seems to be dozens of stories written at each step...
maybe a live web cam in each and every room in the facility so you could watch in real-time?
In my opinion, that's Ed getting pissed at answering stupid questions from people (like myself) who don't understand math or science at his level.
Thanks Ed, for taking the time to explain things.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 05:33pm PT
|
It's interesting that Ed hardly participated in the 2 other threads he posted links of.
I knew an engineer that worked in the Hanford, Washington complex during the late 70s. He liked to say that they put Plutonium in their coffee. He had a pretty light-hearted attitude about the dangers.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/what-is-plutonium-mox-fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel ; TVA (currently the most likely customer) said in April 2011 that it would delay a decision until it could see how MOX fuel performed in the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi.[11]
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:15pm PT
|
It's interesting that Ed hardly participated in the 2 other threads he posted links of.
why?
this thread I was asked to provide an opinion, which I did...
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2013 - 06:16pm PT
|
I need to apologize to Ed for having asked him for his opinion in a public forum. He certainly didn't ask for the abuse.
It seems that some people cannot bear to accept that other people may have opinions that differ from their own. I pretty much don't care what most people decide to believe so long as they don't insist that I hold the same opinion. I will decide for myself who's opinion to accept.
Ron - Endless repetition will not change people's minds. We hear you, we have considered what you say. In the list of logical fallacies I suppose this might be proof by repeated assertion. I will drop the conversation but this does not mean I agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:25pm PT
|
nice excuse Ron, certainly I prefer an intelligent discussion in distinction to what you usually bring to a thread.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!