ScribbleLive

Let the distractions begin.....I'm out

Not me.

Thanks @LM and @UKVal, I don't mind at all. Just wish I could talk with more technical authority. But the questions tend to be more synthetic, and I do know who to speak in an accessible way. But any techies who are willing to talk I will hook you up. Now, off to tatami land! See you in the morning. Mata.

Well, at least CNN is running something about Fukushima. Low reactor water level may have caused fuel rods to melt edition.cnn.com

@RBeaner I totally agree.

@RBeaner I completely agree and would argue that the 'outrageous' unsubstantiated stuff is wafting over from the anti nuke camp. That is why I am just as cautious. Extremes on both sides don't answer the right questions. I take everything with a grain of salt and sift through everything with an eye on the probable.

@lillymunster Exactly. I do that very often, being it with raw data or other less technical information. Double and treble check it with other sources. What we must bare in mind here is that all the readings we get from inside the plant come from TEPCO. If IAEA and JAIF trust their data, there is no reason for us not to. We can always compare TEPCO's data with outside sources regarding the trend of radiation levels to proof check if data is being tampered with or not. I have been doing that for a long time and haven't found a single piece of evidence that they are [tampering with information]. They even make it public every time they have to change something because the readings were compromised or calculations were flawed.

@lillymunster That annoys me as well.

@RBeaner It's common practice for governments to dispense the least amount of info possible. The problem is that we're only seeing a small piece of the big picture. I must admit they are seeing the big picture and don't want to let us in on it. Predictable.

and i'm not exactly sure that IAEA and JAIF 'trusting the data' is a point to, well, trust. Stands to reason a certain amount of partiality can be assumed.

@RBeaner To be completely honest, before this incident I was ambivalent about nuclear. I've since decided that it's not worth the risks. But I also believe that our info shouldn't be flavored by ANY special interests.

@Bobby1 I think you and I had this discussion before. Not to belabor the point, but the people of northern Japan, and all the other fish eaters over there, need to have a healthy level of concern. I the US, a few might die as a result (long term) of this event, but the number pales in comparisson with car exhaust, climbing up windmills and shoveling snow off roofs this past winter in the northeast.

@lillymunster If the true situation was disclosed, I don't think we would see huge mobs of mindless people destroying everything in their path. Instead, people would have a chance to change their behavior to reduce their risk. The only evidence I have seen of psychosis is with the governments involved.

@RBeaner Your last sentence was nonsense. There is no evidence to say it is true.

@RBeaner i don't want to belabor this point either, but this statement "car exhaust, climbing up windmills and shoveling snow off roofs this past winter in the northeast." seems irrational. climbing up windmills and shoveling snow off roofs is a personal choice to put yourself at risk. Being exposed to radiation that will lead to your death from another country is not a choice those people at risk of dying are making. apples and oranges.

@Pedro Jesus Comparing the radiation risk to snow shoveling is nonsense. The point is, we DON'T have reliable data. The worst case must be assumed.

@elainekirk understood. thank you for the refocus. :)

@Pedro Jesus I see it too and agree they assume we'll panic, but they should at the minimum not hide or refuse to publish the hard data. The average citizen isn't punching numbers anyway. I think we all ultimately agree. We just want the facts.