Collapsed dam in Japan sweeps away 1,800 homes.

[NNadir]

And a dam in Fukushima Prefecture failed, washing away homes, Kyodo reported. There was no immediate word of casualties, but the Defense Ministry said 1,800 homes were destroyed.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1">Widespread destruction from Japan earthquake, tsunamis

Uninteresting I'm sure, but true.

[1776Forever]

1. Terrible! It is like dominoes falling - It is devastating! n/t

:cry:

[tinrobot]

2. Much easier to mop up water than radiation.

[joshcryer]

3. ???

Did you really write that?

[eppur_se_muova]

4. I'm sure the casualties appreciate that. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meow mix]

6. your infer this is worse than the nukes... because you make the same kind of posts constantly

this time you were careful to mask it more because you know its out of line. pathetic

[madokie]

8. Trust me when I say this

he don't get it. :hi:

You see we don't have any idea how many of the cancer deaths are attributable to nuclear power plants due to the fact its hard to trace back so the mem will be that nuclear kills way fewer than coal or oil does. He might even throw in the numbers of people who die each year from breathing dust, smoke what ever and the deal with that argument is that most of those deaths are in third world countries where they cook and heat on open fires or poorly designed stoves. Shallow is the word.

[FBaggins]

11. Why don't we know how many cancer deaths are attributable to nuclear power?

We can certainly come to some educated guesses. We know roughly what percentage of total radiation exposure comes from these plants, as well as how much comes from earlier nuclear testing... and even how much comes from nuclear accidents like Chernobyl.

It really isn't "hard to trace back".

[madokie]

14. Maybe it can be but we're always told there is none when its pretty obvious

there is. TMI for instance they claim none the last I read but many studies have shown that incidences of cancer down wind of that accident has definitely gone up after the accident,
Now you're going to ask me for a link like I keep something like that around when I've better things to do. I know what I read and have been reading about this.
Russians claimeds after chernobyl 400 or so deaths when the total is in the thousands and climbing by all other accounts.

The nuclear power industry can't be trusted to be honest with us and thats what we seen early on when we put a stop to PSO building a reactor a few miles upwind of me here. Blackfox if you want to google it.

[FBaggins]

9. You mean "imply" rather than "infer", but are you saying that you don't agree?

Let's all agree that the nuclear situation can still get LOTS worse, but what impact are they looking at right now?

The dam break has certainly done more damage (though possibly not financial damage).

And neither of the two compares to the bigger story.

[GliderGuider]

7. Surely there must be some less facile response to all this devastation

Um, um, um?

[phantom power]

10. At the bottom of it, these posts are about risk assessment...

which I know is a topic you also share an interest in.

For example, what is the ratio of "media stories pertaining to Fukushima (specifically)" / "media stories pertaining to quake/tsunami damage" ?

Now, what is the ratio of "casualties from Fukushima (specifically)" / "casualties from quake/tsunami damage" ?

The reason these two ratios are out of whack is because of badly calibrated risk assessment. As you yourself mentioned this morning, our survival depends in large part on properly understanding the threats facing us. We continue to operate in a mode of effectively evaluating the risk from nuclear power as "total" -- an existential threat. Meanwhile, actual damages and casualties from our other activities continue at a far greater pace.

This will un-do us.

[GliderGuider]

12. I agree with you.

And yes, I think that the risk posed by the nuclear element of this clusterfuck is far smaller than the real tragedy here. However, the Fukushima problem has been the perfect attractor in this situation for a number of reasons:

1. "Nuclear safety" has a long-standing, heavily entrenched public constituency.
   
2. The nuclear problem has an easily identifiable set of human villains, unlike the quake/tsunami that was a natural event.
3. Focusing on the nuclear incident allows us to evade the sense of powerlessness we feel in the face of natural forces and satisfy our atavistic urges for revenge and "being right".
   
4. The nuclear incident is a human-scale tragedy, so demanding action on that issue allows us to evade the feeling of guilt we feel at being complicit in allowing the planet to be wrecked by much larger, though still human, activities.

That being said, the main objection I had to NNadir's post was not the message but the tone, which is why I used the word "facile". I think his motive may have been partly to shift attention away from an area where he is now vulnerable, under the guise of redressing the balance.

[phantom power]

13. Yes, NNadir knee-caps himself with his "tone" ...

It makes his actual arguments easier to ignore, in favor of "lolz, NNadir has turrets!" arguments.

As far as I can tell, NNadir decided a few years ago that he didn't care. I'm so old, I can remember when he made regular efforts to be polite. His basic logic seems to be that it doesn't move anybody's opinions much in any direction. Which appears to be true.

:shrug:

[madokie]

15. So why does he come here if his only reason is to be ugly to anyone who doesn't agree with him

Its happened to me and to anyone on here who doesn't agree with him. It seems to me we'd all be better off with out that kind of agitation, wouldn't you think. I know it pisses me off and I'm sure it does many other when someone like him starts with his tripe. I tried to fight back to let him know that two can play that game that it isn't the way it should be but he don't get it.

Ignore sucks then because if it a thread I want to read and he's making a lot of comments I can't see whats being said so it makes it hard to follow whats going on. None of us and him included knows everything. My impression was this was a place to discuss not score points.

[phantom power]

16. Over time, I have adopted a 3-prong "e/e" strategy

1) If a particular post is more offensive than enlightening, and if I care enough that day, I flag it for the mods.

2) If a particular thread devolves into endless flame wars, and I'm finished extracting information from it, I hide it.

3) Otherwise, I do my best to not take the noise too seriously.

[Kolesar]

18. Maybe he has developed a brain tumor...eom

[FBaggins]

17. You don't see even a little of that on the other side?

I'm not saying that I agree with a give tone or tactics, but I certainly don't see it on just the one side.

"happened to me and to anyone on here who doesn't agree with him" would seem to me to apply to a handful of posters.

I tried to fight back to let him know that two can play that game

And I'm sure he thinks that's what he's doing. It's a vicious circle.

My impression was this was a place to discuss not score points.


Well chyeah... but why not shoot for both? :)