Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

larssen: seeing a tv show that put a spotlight on the human cost of a nuclear power plant tragedy and the risk of more tragedy due to a bigger disaster caused by an explosion about 10,000 time larger than was really realistic made me rethink my support for nuclear power

dilbert: that show was dumb, they tried to say there would be a 2-4 megaton hydrogen bomb, but simple physics says otherwise. Why would you rethink your support for nuclear power based on a show with bad physics

larssen: I'm going to deny what I originally said and change my position on everything several times to prove I was right to start with even though I never said it but I'm still right

dilbert: if you saw bad stuff about coal or diesel, would that blow your support back to nuclear power?

me: whiny sarcastic comment

dilbert: what did i say that would make you think that?

me:
Fixed

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-19 20:27:51)

Epstein didn't kill himself
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5033|949

can you show me where he talked about his concern of an explosion 10,000 times larger than was really realistic?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX
I thought I knew and understood the history of the Chernobyl disaster until I watched the new HBO drama series about the subject. It's an entirely different experience to see the anxiety, horror and human cost of the event visualised. Simply reading about it doesn't do it justice. Some historical inaccuracies notwithstanding, it's an incredibly well made retelling of the story. Some things I didn't know about either, like the risk of a larger secondary explosion.
In episode two, Khomyuk informs the USSR that a follow-up explosion would carry a force of 2 to 4 megatons, which would wipe out “the entire population of Kiev and a portion of Minsk.” The release of radiation, she adds, would “impact all of Soviet Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarusia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungry, Romania, and most of East Germany.”
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cher … S&IR=T

I came up with the figure of 10,000 times, feel free to estimate one yourself.
Start with an explosion just big enough to take the roof off a concrete building, and extrapolate to one with a ~250-500km lethal radius.

I'm sure its possible to create a steam explosion which has the equivalent energy of all the explosives used in WW2, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, somehow. (2-4 Megatons ~3 Megatons)

The total energy of all explosives used in World War II, including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs, is estimated to have been three megatons of TNT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Examples

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-19 23:50:46)

Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX
This thread has gone south - can we at least agree that Uzique needs to work on his reading comprehension?
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+175|1854
i can read real gud. i’m even trusted to proofread nuclear physics papers sometimes. though my real forte at the moment is inverse problems. what were we talking about again?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ … -over-mh17

Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+5|289

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fixed
Dilbert, just when I thought you couldn't get any more obtuse you prove me wrong. If this is the extent of your ability to understand even 20 word paragraphs it's a miracle you managed to finish a degree. What did I just tell you about seperating key points from unimportant details?

First, the 'I didn't know about the possible second explosion' was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my argument against nuclear energy. I was merely pointing out that I learned something new from the series.

Maybe a little more insight into my background may help you. In the past I followed a course or two about nuclear strategy. Didn't study physics, but I'm aware of what makes a nuclear bomb and how we got from trinity to ivy mike to  MIRV warheads and the like & what concepts (in strategy & physics) drove that progression. At no point did I -ever- consider that the series 2-4 megaton number could be anywhere close to accurate. I can tell you how it ended up in the series though. Some scientist involved made the megatons claim, so the fault isn't on the part of the series' creators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYYBdcA1lo

Now it is my understanding that's impossible if only for the fact that the necessary conditions are absent and I don't think the right 'boosting' elements could possibly be present. I'm no physicist though, so maybe that pea brain of yours can surprise me by providing a more detailed refutation.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-06-20 01:19:10)

uziq
Member
+175|1854
dilbert? obtuse? are you new here?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fixed
Dilbert, just when I thought you couldn't get any more obtuse you prove me wrong. If this is the extent of your ability to understand even 20 word paragraphs it's a miracle you managed to finish a degree. What did I just tell you about seperating key points from unimportant details?

First, the 'I didn't know about the possible second explosion' was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my argument against nuclear energy. I was merely pointing out that I learned something new from the series.

Maybe a little more insight into my background may help you. In the past I followed a course or two about nuclear strategy. Didn't study physics, but I'm aware of what makes a nuclear bomb and how we got from trinity to ivy mike to  MIRV warheads and the like & what concepts (in strategy & physics) drove that progression. At no point did I -ever- consider that the series 2-4 megaton number could be anywhere close to accurate. I can tell you how it ended up in the series though. Some scientist involved made the megatons claim, so the fault isn't on the part of the series' creators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYYBdcA1lo

Now it is my understanding that's impossible if only for the fact that the necessary conditions are absent and I don't think the right 'boosting' elements could possibly be present. I'm no physicist though, so maybe that pea brain of yours can surprise me by providing a more detailed refutation.
To summarise then, you saw some actors cry in a fictional TV show and thats made up your mind on nuclear power.
Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5173|USA

"But think of the human cost!"
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+5|289
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/32/00/553200431f8b0cfa91151bb31f9e92d2.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5033|949

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

"But think of the human cost!"
should it not be considered?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5173|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

"But think of the human cost!"
should it not be considered?
Obviously it should. I don't think anybody's contesting that. But it should be considered in a way that doesn't exclude the impact other forms of power generation can have, and doesn't hinge on an HBO miniseries up to its ears in pseudoscience and alternative facts.

If you refer back a couple of pages, you'll find the post that started this whole thing. The quotations are for the paraphrastic purposes.
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+5|289
It's fucking unbelievable how many times I have to reiterate the same points. You two are a special kind of dimwitted. Let me ease your mental suffering and make a chronological compilation post of all my previous ones instead:

"[Chernobyl has] made me reconsider support for nuclear energy production. Not because I don't think it's safe or consider a repeat of chernobyl in any way likely - but because the cost in the event of disaster is just too high a price to pay."

"Regardless of the design of nuclear plants there will always be two unknown factors we can prepare for to an extent but not control, being humans and the environment. It could be that one freak natural disaster, human fallibility, intentional sabotage, war - the odds perhaps infinitesmall but probabilities certainly there. Given fissile material and water it only takes one disaster to instantly impact & threaten the lives of tens of millions of people and to make an area literally uninhabitable for generations. Not to mention the beyond agonising, slow deaths of people exposed to lethal doses of radiation and the stress/trauma endured by those responsible for the containment & clean up.

Apart from the above, when it comes to the nuclear debate people seem to see a binary option where we'll either die by global warming or live happily with nuclear energy. Reality doesn't align with that view. Likely we'd still be impacted by global warming while also upping the likelihood of a catastrophic event which future generations (or ours, with some bad luck) would have to deal with."

"I do not expect total historical accuracy from a historical drama produced by an entertainment channel"

" it was obvious they weren't trying to provide a totally authentic historical narrative of events, but to tell a story - a dramatisation. One about the trauma of the event (...) ultimately providing authentic insight into the mood & human dimension"

"My argument against nuclear focuses on the human cost of such a disaster not the fucking physics of nuclear reactors. In that sense, yes, the series as a work of art deepened my insight into the traumatic/emotional experience of the people who lived it."

"To me the value in the visual portrayal was in giving life to the human experience of that tragedy. Until the series came about I did not consider delving further into the event than I already had - 'I thought I knew'. "

"I reconsidered nuclear energy because of the traumatic effects / human cost of a nuclear disaster - visualised in the series (art)"
As to your personal opinion on 'it all sucks because it's not accurate':

"they had to creatively construct a script for many meetings and face to face conversations of which we have no historical record whatsoever (...) we easily underestimate the difficulty of portraying multidimensional, complicated real people within the constraints of the chosen narrative, medium, time and budget. No less by 'amateur historians'."

"You can't get past the event timeline and 'lies'. Uziq laments the portrayal of soviet communism & the inclusion of the female scientist. I didn't like the closing statement. Some quoted editor wrote a tirade against the depiction of ARS (...) Who is right? When is it 'good enough'? Understand that your opinion is wholly subjective. In the end almost the entire script was made up. A dramatisation will never leave historical fiction and the more you zoom in the more errors you will find."

"if they had kept the events exactly as is (...) would [the series] live up to your subjective and arbitrary definition of 'historical accuracy'?"
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5033|949

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

"But think of the human cost!"
should it not be considered?
Obviously it should. I don't think anybody's contesting that. But it should be considered in a way that doesn't exclude the impact other forms of power generation can have, and doesn't hinge on an HBO miniseries up to its ears in pseudoscience and alternative facts.

If you refer back a couple of pages, you'll find the post that started this whole thing. The quotations are for the paraphrastic purposes.
i have read and comprehended everything already written and discussed, and clearly understand the points everyone is making - i thought my summary above proved that point, but i'll concede that it could have been more exhaustive.  I didn't read Larssen dismiss any other forms of power -in fact he specifically mentioned the idea that the addition/inclusion of nuclear power will likely still result in global warming, plus an increased risk in possibility of a nuclear accident- that's a clear indication in my opinion that larssen is not excluding the impact of other forms of power, since global warming is a direct result of other forms of power. It's actually a bit silly to me to have to explain the logic behind this reasoning, but since virtually everyone coming at larssen is either misrepresenting his argument or creating strawmans to argue against, I consider it sadly necessary.

The accuracy of the science or alternative facts didn't/doesn't play a part in that argument - it wasn't the inclusion of alternative facts or pseudoscience or the general inaccuracy of the show itself that led to larssen's position change. I'm not sure why you don't understand that yourself, but I'm guessing it's because you are so emotionally invested in your position that the show was too inaccurate that it's clouding your ability to objectively view the argument larssen is making.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5173|USA

The post was oddly put. It acknowledges that there are inaccuracies, and with that in mind has some eyebrow-raising ideas. Among others:

* "I thought I knew/understood the history, until I watched this." (paraphrase; people still wouldn't quite understand the history if this show is their only exposure to, or otherwise replaces, or heavily supplements, their previous understanding)
* "Simply reading about it doesn't do it justice." (a subjective take, but unfortunate. the book by alexievich is a good example of reading that does do it justice, and should be picked up by anyone wanting to take this topic seriously.)

(More on anti-nuclear Germany predating Fukushima: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factshe … -phase-out)

Simply getting swept up in the story alone, knowing there are inaccuracies, is a non-issue. Beyond that, or thinking none of them matter, it gets a little concerning. Further, I don't think articles detailing these (sometimes serious) inaccuracies were being especially sensationalistic about it. Many praised other aspects of the show. But the show itself was sensationalistic, and dismissing justified criticism as coming from "ivory tower nitpicks" ("look at that one, the title is allcaps!") is bizarre and a little confounding.

I'm not as "emotionally invested" in this tedium as you might have thought before you descended from the heavens. At this point you couldn't pay me to post more about it.
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+5|289
What's wrong with Chernobyl being a gateway into the actual history? Sure, there's fiction in there but it's also littered with historical fact. We have google on our phones, checking veracity isn't difficult in 2019.

As for the 'reading about it doesn't do it justice' - a visual representation adds another dimension to a story. It's a different experience.

As for your point on the inaccuracies I think you're focusing on the wrong issues. Nobody in their right mind will look to the series as a factual representation of events. Uzi's point on the portrayal of communism is a much better one, as it's far more subtle.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-06-20 23:32:48)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX
Hey guys, I just finished watching this amazing docudrama - Real World Facts about MH370

The acting was great, and it really portrayed the suffering of all the people who died and all their relatives. People don't like dying and their relatives don't like it either, I didn't know this before - thank god for TV! There were some inconsistencies here and there, but they don't matter.

Also one thing I didn't know - the crash could have been much worse. Apparently an aeroplane weighing 50,000 tons and travelling at twice the speed of light hitting the Indian ocean would create a tsunami which could swamp Australia and wipe out the western side of South America - killing millions of people and upsetting their relatives.

Anyhoo, I've decided, the human cost of air travel is just too high, people should stop using aeroplanes because its just not worth the risk.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-20 23:52:33)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+175|1854
hahah d&st is still one of my favourite things in the world.
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+5|289

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hey guys, I just finished watching this amazing docudrama - Real World Facts about MH370

The acting was great, and it really portrayed the suffering of all the people who died and all their relatives. People don't like dying and their relatives don't like it either, I didn't know this before - thank god for TV! There were some inconsistencies here and there, but they don't matter.

Also one thing I didn't know - the crash could have been much worse. Apparently an aeroplane weighing 50,000 tons and travelling at twice the speed of light hitting the Indian ocean would create a tsunami which could swamp Australia and wipe out the western side of South America - killing millions of people and upsetting their relatives.

Anyhoo, I've decided, the human cost of air travel is just too high, people should stop using aeroplanes because its just not worth the risk.
I don't think there would be relatives left Dilbert, not even a planet. Twice lightspeed jesus!
uziq
Member
+175|1854
it’s like that scene in that dumb black panther movie when he says he wants to be buried like his ancestors at sea, tossed off the side of a slave ship ... his ... dead ancestors ... who died ... r i p
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2121

uziq wrote:

it’s like that scene in that dumb black panther movie when he says he wants to be buried like his ancestors at sea, tossed off the side of a slave ship ... his ... dead ancestors ... who died ... r i p
The guy was a prince from Wakanda. None of his ancestors were ever even slaves.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5033|949

haha do you have any idea how inaccurately black panther portrayed wakanda? tsk, relying on a hollywood film to inform you about the history of Wakanda. Read a book bro
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

I don't think there would be relatives left Dilbert, not even a planet. Twice lightspeed jesus!
First of all I didn't say any of that, the TV show did.

Secondly this is art we're talking about - don't nitpick the physics.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4507|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

it’s like that scene in that dumb black panther movie when he says he wants to be buried like his ancestors at sea, tossed off the side of a slave ship ... his ... dead ancestors ... who died ... r i p
The guy was a prince from Wakanda. None of his ancestors were ever even slaves.
With all their superpowers the Wakandans would have easily defeated the European slavers.
And with their cloaked spaceships they could have just gone to America and flown all the slaves back without even being seen on radar.

Makes . No . Sense

Clearly they didn't care about the slaves.
Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5173|USA

There's probably a mod for that on Victoria II or some other Paradox strategy title.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard