Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (March 11, 2011)

[Athena]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72A0SS20110319

To make a summary, a very brief one.

Good news: Temperature seems to go down, the central cooling.

Bad news: Evidence of radiationn leaks, but it was expected with the quake and the tsunami.

Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee

Radiation found on farms near reactor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_...pan_earthquake

what are your thoughts about this

Very little radiation, but it's unknown if it could become better or worse.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by kira0802

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72A0SS20110319

To make a summary, a very brief one.

Good news: Temperature seems to go down, the central cooling.

Bad news: Evidence of radiationn leaks, but it was expected with the quake and the tsunami.



Very little radiation, but it's unknown if it could become better or worse.

Stop calling it central... Overall it is called a reactor.

However,

If you want a proper word that translates your idea of central it is

CORE

Your quick English lesson for the day.

It takes ten days to really shut down a reactor that has been SCRAMED

So we still have some waiting to do.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee

Radiation found on farms near reactor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_...pan_earthquake

what are your thoughts about this

Well for curiosity sake I would want to know the levels of the radioactive isotopes found in these areas BEFORE the accident.

1. I would do this to verify that the plant was working properly from before the accident and not leaking radiation. I would hope and pray that a regular analysis was being done by the relevant authorities before the earthquake.

Accidents can be prevented through careful and consistent monitoring of critical control points and process variables.

2. If the plant was working properly and the level of radioactive isotopes found are normal to the natural environment of that area, then these findings are more than likely due in-part due to the explosions at the reactors during first days of the struggle. Something had to have escaped.

3. The article does not give figures for reference. What are the values found at the sites and in the plants versus governmental and international accepted limits.
These numbers will make the article less irritable. We would need a before accident reading and a after accident reading.

If I were a journalist i'd look for those facts.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee

Radiation found on farms near reactor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_...pan_earthquake

what are your thoughts about this

In terms of long term risks?

I would not trust the authorities. Their goal is to prevent a food crisis and panic at all cost. If something like this happened in Germany, I'ld move at least 200km away from the site and would not eat or drink anything that comes from that region of the country (though I am not sure how I could identify the place of origin). Basically I would let those people who believe the authorities and nuclear power (safety) lobby, do what they want, eat what they want and drink what they want. I don't have to be part of it.

My point is, that they cannot reliably predict the risks. Nobody can, its like with the power plants itself. What is the worst designed based accident. Most of the times when something happens, it turns out that the incident was beyond what could have been predicted. (If it is realy beyond predictability is the question. I doubt it, its more like human lifes are to certain degree expendable for the perceived greater good - the question is, do I want to be part of the expendables).

[RRW]

@Zetsubo
calm down, s/he maybe annoying but you must know that there is 2nd language speaker here.

@CaptnAwesomee

it look suspicious to me.

if its true then this will be huge problem. even fukushima is not Chernobyl. the effect of fukushima can be same if not more severe (in different way of course.

because if radiation already leak to water, it can make long term logistic problem

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by bayoab

I'm not sure what the issue here is. CNBC is supposed to tell business people what they need to know so they can make investment decisions. The plight of the people is not really their concern.

While it seems heartless, there is a lot more to news than just "Look at all the suffering and pain" which media seems to ignore.

There's a natural aspect of "profit on misery" that is unavoidable. Rebuilding takes projects and contracts - money to be made. Its when market speculators and analysts make moves that maximize misery potential (like the recent yen speculation) that my ire is tweaked. It isn't too different from starting a war to profit by selling arms to both sides.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Jinto

In terms of long term risks?

I would not trust the authorities. Their goal is to prevent a food crisis and panic at all cost.

How do you prevent human panic in these situations ?

Typical definition of panic: A sudden overwhelming feeling of fear, terror and/or anxiety

Originally Posted by rrw

@Zetsubo
calm down, s/he maybe annoying but you must know that there is 2nd language speaker here.

I know.

I am not perfect either even though its my first language.

I can just imagine how my Japanese sounds to native Japanese.

But I am always open for help.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

3. The article does not give figures for reference. What are the values found at the sites and in the plants versus governmental and international accepted limits.
These numbers will make the article less irritable. We would need a before accident reading and a after accident reading.

If I were a journalist i'd look for those facts.

It's an AP summary article. It's not meant to be an in-depth article. AP likely has another article with the numbers. The Kyodo article I linked earlier had some of the numbers so they are definitely out there.

[Solafighter]

Sorry to throw this question into here.

Can someone maybe help me out to donate for the Japanese Red Cross via Paypal? If i would send money via my bank, i have to pay extra, cause its a transfer into a country outside europe.

If i dont find a possibility with Paypal, i will do it over the bank.

Thanks a lot in advance.

[WanderingKnight]

Originally Posted by kira0802

So why does everyone say that some coverage are bad, if it is indeed similar to what the newspapers and other TV stations are saying?

You have to understand that what the different media sources say can be very different, even if the facts they are covering are the same. They might not be outright lying, but by using language in a specific way they spin the image of the facts the viewers get in a certain fashion.

A headline saying "RADIOACTIVE PLUME REACHES CALIFORNIA" may be a fact. What the headline omits to say is that the radiation levels might be 0.00001% more than the normal background radiation. But the headline is enough to provoke fear and uncertainty in the readers. In fact, it's something you see a lot, a huge headline saying that radioactivity has reached the US, and a minor remark in the body text that states that the variation in radioactive components is extremely low.

Things aren't black or white. No media speaks "the truth", because the truth doesn't exist as such. You need to understand how different media sources work and what is the intention behind them.

[RRW]

I believe that is the place that FOX thought was Nuclear Plant, but was actually a night club...

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by bayoab

It's an AP summary article. It's not meant to be an in-depth article. AP likely has another article with the numbers. The Kyodo article I linked earlier had some of the numbers so they are definitely out there.

Sadly people take these summary articles as the only info. The one source of truth. They dig no further and only come away with a tiny bit of info.

I have learned that tiny bit of information, especially out of context, can be a very dangerous thing.

People trust that overly digested info the media gives them is truly "nutritious" enough for their understanding and edification.

This is like junk food news bites. Snacks.

It can't be good.

You have seen how we in the West are getting fat

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

You have to understand that what the different media sources say can be very different, even if the facts they are covering are the same. They might not be outright lying, but by using language in a specific way they spin the image of the facts the viewers get in a certain fashion.

A headline saying "RADIOACTIVE PLUME REACHES CALIFORNIA" may be a fact. What the headline omits to say is that the radiation levels might be 0.00001% more than the normal background radiation. But the headline is enough to provoke fear and uncertainty in the readers. In fact, it's something you see a lot, a huge headline saying that radioactivity has reached the US, and a minor remark in the body text that states that the variation in radioactive components is extremely low.
.

So true ... .so so sooooo true.

However... it is still better than nothing.

Some Junk food news is still better than being totally uninformed and in the dark.


@rrw

LOL... you just destroyed my point

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Solafighter

Sorry to throw this question into here.

Can someone maybe help me out to donate for the Japanese Red Cross via Paypal? If i would send money via my bank, i have to pay extra, cause its a transfer into a country outside europe.

If i dont find a possibility with Paypal, i will do it over the bank.

Thanks a lot in advance.

I posted the link to the Japanese Red Cross bank data a few pages ago before the nuclear topic derailed this thread.

I'll check Paypal but they *also* charge a transaction fee that you might not see (9%~). Unless they've set up a non-fee special function, I'd say don't use them unless you're sending an amount that would incur less fee than what the bank is charging.

You might also shame your bank into waiving the fee.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

How do you prevent human panic in these situations ?

You must be rather close-lipped, hold back information until it is screened by experts who can give a hint on how one can say the truth without saying the full truth. That includes: never speak about a worst case estimation. When such an estimation exists, cloud it in something that is equally dangerous but known to the people as something good. This gives them the feeling that there is no risk.

Example, if a radiation dose causes a raised cancer risk you cannot simply comunicate it that way. This could cause a panic, even if you said for example only 0.01% of the people will die, they will panic, because everyone will assume to be among the 0.01% who will die. Instead choose something like an x-ray chest scan, this is known to be something that helps people, even though it technically increases your risk to get cancer. Now you implanted an idea into the people, you used something they approve of to explain something they would not approve of.
Most people won't question this oldest rethorical trick of lobbyism.

If you technically can, be vague in areas that are still debated among scientist.
For example: Is the short time exposure to a certain amount of radiation equivalent to long time exposure.
Or does a stationary hot spot that radiates concentrated in a small area can be compared with a technology that radiates a large area homogeneously with the same energy?
Be vague and claim what fits your point.

The next important thing is that you must be able to explain everything (even though you are not a qualified expert). When you can explain everything, than people think everything is under control because it is understood by the people who are in control. This is another convenient fallacy that works for most people.

When an accident like this happened, get an independent team of scientists to research the matter. For example a government funded laboratory or a team of dedicated scientist from a free university's chair that needs funding. You get the best results, when you tell them right before you give them the research contract what you are expecting to find. In the most cases this works. However, if it turns out that someone else who is realy independent made a reasearch and came to another conclusion, you have to intensify those research efforts in order to make the other parties point less convincing. When 5 experts say "no risk", and one expert says "risk". The single voice is soon marginalized. And don't worry the lobbyists will help in these efforts, there will always be another chair that needs funding (or more).

When something bad happened (for example a study found the risk of cancer increased), simply tell the people, that the danger is over. When something bad happens again (another study found that risk is still there but not so extreme), tell the people the risk is almost gone, they are save now.

If you can find an argument that makes a risk worth to be taken use it. For example, we need nuclear generated electricity, we can make it save but not completely. Still it is for everyone's good. We do our best to make it secure.
Most people are satisfied when you do the best you can and you only have their well being in mind.

If you can marginalize a bad aftermath do it. For example compare the risk of death by tsunami with the risk of death by radiation. Or better make one the direct result of the other. That way people think it can all be blamed on the tsunami.

Have a bad example, for example media outlets that completely overhype the danger. Now put all critical voices in the same category as the obviously bad example.

There are a more things one can do to prevent a panic. However, this is already to long to read anyway.

[Vexx]

Many members of the public are blissfully unaware that risk analysis and scenario planning involve thinking out terrible or highly unlikely situations as well as likely situations. You simply do not want to turn to the page of "what to do if..." to see a blank sheet. And just because you've thought about it or planned what to do for it means you were *expecting* it (i.e. expecting==likely to occur).

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Jinto

You must be rather close-lipped, hold back information until it is screened by experts who can give a hint on how one can say the truth without saying the full truth. That includes: never speak about a worst case estimation. When such an estimation exists, cloud it in something that is equally dangerous but known to the people as something good. This gives them the feeling that there is no great risk.

Example, if a radiation dose causes a raised cancer risk you cannot simply comunicate it that way. This could cause a panic, even if you said for example only 0.01% of the people will die, they will panic, because everyone will assume to be among the 0.01% who will die. Instead choose something like an x-ray chest scan, this is known to be something that helps people, even though it technically increases your risk to get cancer. Now you implanted an idea into the people, you used something they approve of to explain something they would not approve of.
Most people won't question this oldest rethorical trick of lobbyism.

If you technically can, be vague in areas that are still debated among scientist.
For example: Is the short time exposure to a certain amount of radiation equivalent to long time exposure.
Or does a stationary hot spot that radiates concentrated in a small area can be compared with a technology that radiates a large area homogeneously with the same energy?
Be vague and claim what fits your point.

The next important thing is that you must be able to explain everything (even though you are not a qualified expert). When you can explain everything, than people think everything is under control because it is understood by the people who are in control. This is another convenient fallacy that works for most people.

When an accident like this happened, get an independent team of scientists to research the matter. For example a government funded laboratory or a team of dedicated scientist from a free university's chair that needs funding. You get the best results, when you tell them right before you give them the research contract what you are expecting to find. In the most cases this works. However, if it turns out that someone else who is realy independent made a reasearch and came to another conclusion, you have to intensify those research efforts in order to make the other parties point less convincing. When 5 experts say "no risk", and one expert says "risk". The single voice is soon marginalized. And don't worry the lobbyists will help in these efforts, there will always be another chair that needs funding (or more).

When something bad happened (for example a study found the risk of cancer increased), simply tell the people, that the danger is over. When something bad happens again (another study found that risk is still there but not so extreme), tell the people the risk is almost gone, they are save now.

If you can find an argument that makes a risk worth to be taken use it. For example, we need nuclear generated electricity, we can make it save but not completely. Still it is for everyone's good. We do our best to make it secure.
Most people are satisfied when you do the best you can and you only have their well being in mind.

If you can marginalize a bad aftermath do it. For example compare the risk of death by tsunami with the risk of death by radiation. Or better make one the direct result of the other. That way people think it can all be blamed on the tsunami.

Have a bad example, for example media outlets that completely overhype the danger. Now put all critical voices in the same category as the obviously bad example.

There are a more things one can do to prevent a panic. However, this is already to long to read anyway.

I was hoping to hear a method that didn't involve subterfuge

I wonder if we had more scientists, engineers and medical doctors graduating collectively from universities world wide (instead of lawyers, liberal arts, poltics, social sciences and athletic or film studies) we would be in better shape.

A more highly educated and expert population is the only way to improve the lot of humanity... and I don't mean liberal arts and floral arrangement.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by kira0802

My sincere sympathy to that family, and also hope that they could recover as soon as possible from these awful events.



If CNN or BBC can't be trusted, then the entire TV news can't be either. CNN has one of the best and the most trusted coverage. It is still the best source for most people of the world.

I don't trust any TV news channels(including Fox) to tell the whole story. Every single one of them has their biases, some worse than others. You have to have a very broad range of sources for your information, if you hope to get the real scoop on any one story.

Getting tired of hearing the almost hysteria induced coverage over the Nuclear plants in Japan, and the radiation coming to the west coast and killing us all(or so they make it sound like). Can't have the TV on, can't have the radio on, can't go anywhere without hearing about it.

The Japanese are dealing with the situation that they are living in, far better than the rest of the world seems to be.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't trust any TV news channels(including Fox) to tell the whole story. Every single one of them has their biases, some worse than others. You have to have a very broad range of sources for your information, if you hope to get the real scoop on any one story.

Getting tired of hearing the almost hysteria induced coverage over the Nuclear plants in Japan, and the radiation coming to the west coast and killing us all(or so they make it sound like). Can't have the TV on, can't have the radio on, can't go anywhere without hearing about it.

The Japanese are dealing with the situation that they are living in, far better than the rest of the world seems to be.

We are trying our best to anyways, be it Japanese or the remaining foreigners.

Technically the mass exodus may prove good for us, less gaijin = more jobs and opportunities for us perhaps ^^

Will edit this post in a bit with links for websites to donate or some advice on what peeps in japan can do to help

[Solafighter]

Originally Posted by Vexx

(...) Japanese Red Cross bank data (...)

Thanks a lot, Vexx.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Solafighter

Sorry to throw this question into here.

Can someone maybe help me out to donate for the Japanese Red Cross via Paypal? If i would send money via my bank, i have to pay extra, cause its a transfer into a country outside europe.

If i dont find a possibility with Paypal, i will do it over the bank.

Thanks a lot in advance.

You can also donate with a visa or mastercard through google checkout via Google's main earthquake page.