|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 16, 2011 19:24:11 GMT 1
We are poised on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe, another Chernobyl
The Japanese are not displaying the selflessness that the Russians displayed at Chernobyl
Russian pilots flew over Chernobyl dumping water and concrete, knowing that they would die a horrible death. The radiation they flew over was ghastly
They died a horrible death
The actions of ordinary Russians at Chernobyl was amazing, astounding, the bravest actions ever seen.
Not for those brave men and women the adrenalin of battle, but simply a calculation, a calculation that gave the answer DEATH and nevertheless off they went
Those Russians were outstanding.
Were.
The past participle is the key
Now they are dead
Largely forgotten
True heroes
One cannot expect such selflessness from others
The Japanese helicopter pilots were just human not to want to fly over Fukishama
Would you?
Would you save thousands of lives by condemning yourself to a horrible death?
Unfair question
The Russians did
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 19:53:56 GMT 1
No we're not. The design of the japanese reactors is head and shoulders above the chernobyl ones (which didn't even have proper containment for gawds sake!). In chernobyl, the very graphite in the core was on fire, without containment, spreading the very radioactive fuel into the atmosphere, free to be carried far and wide.
That is not what is happening in Japan, and irresponsible to scaremonger in this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 16, 2011 20:01:47 GMT 1
@sta
Could you answer the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 20:14:23 GMT 1
Why? I'm not a nuclear plant worker in Japan, so my answer is of no possible consequence. Plus would be laughably easy for me to say -- yes, I'd die a heroic death in that case. Any idiot could say that! (even me) (the boy stands on the burning deck etc etc)
I think the only people who have a right to talk meaningfully about such things are people who routinely have to confront such issues as part of their job -- fire crew, police, army/navy/air force, or the nuclear plant workers who are working in Japan. From the rest of us, it's just empty posturing either way. I'm not saying that ordinary people can't be very herioc in certain situations, but we can also be terrible cowards, and pointless to say which one you'd be unless you've been there. We all know what we HOPE we'd be, that's obvious.
I'm sitting here expecting more scare-mongering over Fukushima..............Why not, most papers and news reports seem to be indulging, so why not these boards?
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 16, 2011 20:48:29 GMT 1
@sta
Well, having been one of those who had to confront the issue as part of the job, and in particularly the nuclear incident scenario which was a regular stand-by duty, I can say that au fond it is a gender-thing. But when 'equality' was brought in in spite of this reality, it represented a triumph of presentation over substance, and I found a need to revise my attitude.
So, my answer today would have to be a no. I'd rather let the feminists and those other vociferous minorities volunteer do it, because they are so obviously 'dying' to prove their 'equality'.
|
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Mar 16, 2011 21:01:00 GMT 1
Seems to me that our media are over-dramatising the situation in Japan.
Although the earthquake and tsunami are a tragedy for the area affected, Japan is a large country and most of it is not seriously damaged.
There has not been a nuclear catastrophe, only a small amount of radio-active material has escaped, so far.
There is a risk of a serious leak but that is all it is, a risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 16, 2011 21:13:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 22:38:02 GMT 1
The media ramped it up when all we had was hydrogen explosions. Which aren't actually that bad -- they had to vent the hydrogen, reactor and containment vessels seemingly not severely damaged, and radiation released not too bad -- it wasn't actual reactor fuel, as it was at chernobyl.
But given that they had ramped that up, what more could they do without todays stuff, where fuel rods in dried-up storage pond is potentially more dangerous, since you have fuel outside containment building, as I understand it. And if they had stacked more rods than pool was designed for, these comments about a re-criticality are rather worrying.................
Just seems that to most people, nuclear accidents are too complicated (well, they are frankly!), and any radiation release is bad, whereas in terms of actual risk, a bit of stuff released along with vented steam such as radioactive iodine and caesium isn't AS BAD as great chunks of reactor fuel flying through the air, or being sent sky-high in a fire, as we had at Chernobyl.
A leak of radioactivity isn't the same as a large amount of fuel getting blown half-way across Europe.
A hydrogen exlplosion at a nuclear plant isn't a 'nuclear explosion' despite tabloid attempts to make it sound as much like one as they could.
Just if media hype means we can't distinguish between actual risks (like re-criticality stuff), and yesterdays not really as bad as they made it sound risks, then we are in danger of either getting too complacent when the situation is potentially really serious, or getting too caught up in the nuclear accident hype, and forgetting about the thousands of dead, and the thousands of survivors without food, water, shelter, sanitation, or health care, in the snow -- which could potentially cause more deaths than the reactor, to be totally frank. Just not as SEXY in catastrophe terms................
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 17, 2011 15:44:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 17, 2011 17:30:55 GMT 1
No. Why? One lot comes from a media that is in general fairly poorly educated when it comes to science, the other from specialists in the relevant science.
Isn't there ANYTHING that you won't try and twist to support your own particular agenda?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 17, 2011 19:26:25 GMT 1
But you're happy to accept the hysteria generated by the media when it suits your agenda?
|
|
