Posts by xperroni

"Giant" is not a valid metric unit

Great, a giant scorpion-spider hybrid with huge venomous fangs and claws that could crush a bus.

Giant? The article says the critter had a length of three centimeters! Hardly a stompful, actually.

I know you islanders and your colonies just can't let go of that retarded rollercoaster of a measurement system, but do try to keep in touch with the conventions of the 20th century* will you? Here, let me help.

* Yes, the 20th century. I'm trying to be reasonable with you guys, one step at a time and all that.

Re: swearing

For the love of God? Is that really swearing?

Well, it's forum-compliant, at any rate.

THAT IS THE SINGLE-WORST EDITED ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ

Agreed. Most of us have learned to tolerate El Reg's sub-optimal proofreading standards by now, but pour l'amour de Dieu*, have we got rough edges this time around.

* I personally feel nothing says "pissed off" quite as much as swearing in French. I wonder if our British friends agree?

Re: Radiation Superstition

Ahh yes, the usual "but that's natural radioactivity" claim that leaves me speechless, as if somehow it's magically different.

It gets worse. Telling my friend radiation doesn't work like that, and that he was ill-informed about the subject, only got him angrier, but after he calmed down I convinced him to let me send some articles on the subject to his e-mail, so he'd see how the matter isn't at all like what is broadcast in the mainstream media.

And so I sent him various articles (ranging from scientific papers to Wikipedia entries) about nuclear engineering, natural radioactive areas in the world, facts about high-profile nuclear accidents and the like. His answer?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree to none of your justifications.

So a dimly remembered news piece on someone who died of cancer right after Fukushima's plant was hit by the tsunami is definitive proof that nuclear energy is Evil (C), but a scientific paper giving quantitative evidence that more people died in the evacuation than would be lost if they stayed put is a "justification".

Christ.

Re: At the risk of...

Why is everyone so neurotic about nuclear fission power? Because when things go wrong, they can go wrong in a BIG way.

I wonder, though: when you say that "when things go wrong, they can go wrong in a BIG way", what do you have in mind? Because two of the three worst nuclear accidents in all time, Fukushima and Three Mile Island, have not claimed a single soul as far as nuclear power is concerned – and in the case of Three Mile Island, not a single soul, period.

Now how many people did die in the third worst oil industry accident of all time? I bet it was more than zero.

I guess the possible evacuation requirement of the most populous metropolitan area on the planet is not worthy of concern - or did everyone forget that little part of this topic?

It would have been if that was the case; alas, it wasn't, Tokyo was never at danger. In fact, recent studies of the Fukushima evacuation concluded that forcing people out of the area claimed more lives than would be lost if they were told to stay put:

(...) [T]he “Reconstruction Headquarters” has reported approximately 1100 disaster-related (premature) deaths among the evacuees, due to psychosomatic effects (67%) and disruption of medical and social welfare facilities (18%) (Saji 2013, Table A5). *

Also, the waste lasts hundred of thousands of years and can contaminate a huge area if containment fails, as well.

Yes, it can leave a huge area about as contaminated as... The beaches where my family would spend summer vacation when I was a kid. Not much of a disaster, then – specially if compared to recent incidents such as the BT oil spill.

So, in other words, it is the SCALE of a single incident that is of concern, not simply the odds of the incident occurring in the first place.

This is a bit like that argument against flying – "oh, sure airplanes kill less people relative to number of passengers than cars, but on the other hand each car accident kills only a few people, while a single plane crash can kill HUNDREDS!" – which ignores the fact that, if a plane crashes with me inside, it makes no difference to me whether other people also kick the bucket, as I won't be around to miss them anyway.

Likewise, whether a given energy source kills a little people every day, or hundreds in a single snafu, is irrelevant to the deceased – the only thing that makes a difference is how much people get stuffed over time.

Re: At the risk of...

a severe downvoting, it's worth remembering that the 'safety' of nuclear power is largely a product of neurotic attention to what could happen if it all goes seriously pear shaped. The 'safety' isn't intrinsic to the process, it comes at a phenomenal cost, as does the power produced.

That's debatable to say the least. Rod Adams among others thinks much of the "safety" built into nuclear engineering could be dismissed without significant hazard increase, and at huge cost savings. And let's not forget there is a vast difference in energy density between nuclear power and other energy sources, so even if it does cost more to make it this safer, it's also far more worth the trouble.

Re: At last, real scientific method!

WTF are you on about?

My guess is that he was thinking something along the lines of "when you come across reliable data that don't fit your theories, you rework the theories to fit the data, not the other way around".

Yes, I know. Poor naive fool will never get tenure with notions like that!

Re: name calling of people providing free service

Caveat emptor - it's free, so what do they possibly owe anyone?

I don't owe you anything either, however you'll most likely not like it if I'm a dick to you. You might even speak your mind about it, too.

Re: name calling of people providing free service

Yes, because drawing people into a system and then telling them to sod off without appeal or recourse isn't dicky in the least.

Complaining about it, however, is.