1701

And it still won’t matter as much as the tens of thousands of dead and the massive damage wrought by the tsunami. But hey, it’s not like your lack of a proper perspective on world events is anything new.

1702

Bah, it’s titillating, nothing more. The tsunami and aftermath are ten times as “relevant and ongoing.”

H.

1703

Overall, it’s not ten times more relevant and ongoing to the politics of my home town. That’s the point. I’m not saying it’s not titillating.

Edit: If you really think the damage from the earthquake/tsunami is more relevant to the 65% of Americans that live within 50 miles of a nuclear powerplant or to the entire population as we make energy policy for the future, I really don’t know what to say. If you want to complain about the nature of the coverage, that’s a different complaint than the amount of coverage.

1704

I really don’t think it’s about relevancy. How aren’t earthquake relevant to Californians?

It’s the same with the focus on the few acts of violence and looting in Haiti after that earthquake. It’s a more dramatic narrative than the real and terrible suffering of the victims and grabs more headlines.

1705

We’re talking about comparative relevance of media reporting over a broad area (national and international reporting). The nuclear disaster has sparked a national dialog or coverage of our own (US) energy policy. It looks like it’s done that abroad as well. Kansas really doesn’t have to worry about earthquakes as much as Californians (and even then, only some californians) and in turn we don’t really worry about tornadoes in California. Likewise, we have the continental shelf that offers us more protection here in California against tsunamis than Japan. But nuclear is a hook that’s applies broadly to local decision making about the future and into national and global decision making as well.

Human suffering by itself isn’t a story that will keep traction for any length of time. There’s plenty of human suffering in the world that’s not being reported on for any consistent length of time. Why single out Japan’s suffering? Because Armageddon-sized disasters are titillating. That’s news as entertainment if you will, but it’s also not like there aren’t legitimate reasons viewers elsewhere would be more interested in the nuclear outcomes and after effects in Japan versus the relief efforts after the natural disaster.

Edit: Or to put it another way, you can only go, “Awww… isn’t that terrible” so many times before you’re kind of inured to it and it ceases being interesting. And anyway, most of the coverage I read (which is online) has made the reactor and Japan secondary to its other reporting. The reactor gets more updates in part because the situation still isn’t contained, but so do the big aftershocks from the earthquake.

It’s the same with the focus on the few acts of violence and looting in Haiti after that earthquake. It’s a more dramatic narrative than the real and terrible suffering of the victims and grabs more headlines.

I didn’t read much about violence in Haiti after its earthquake, just the massive infrastructure damage and massive loss of human life. I never came away with violence and looters as primary (or even secondary) narrative about the event.

1706

I didn’t read much about violence in Haiti after its earthquake, just the massive infrastructure damage and massive loss of human life. I never came away with violence and looters as primary (or even secondary) narrative about the event.

For what it’s worth, I found violence & “insecurity” (aka looting) to be major narratives in the Haiti disaster. Obviously, my anecdote doesn’t trump your anecdote, but it is another data point to consider.

1707

I wasn’t considering it terms of how it affects me, I’m interested out of concern for the Japanese, which is why the tsunami is much more relevant.

H.

1708

Fair enough and maybe I’m projecting, because I find the nuclear situation more relevant. Certainly titillation is a large part of coverage, but it helps that (nearly?) every industrialized nation has nuclear plants in their own backyards. And if you want to point out that the coverage is inaccurate, or fear-mongering, that’s fair game as well.

So it’s relevant to making you feel like an empathetic person? Is that kind of like Mother Teresa hanging out with dying poor people so she could feel closer to Christ?

Edit: Concern that amounts to voyeurism is irrelevant. And at this point, most news coverage of the relief and rebuilding efforts in Japan outside of Japan is just that: voyeurism.

1709

So it’s relevant to making you feel like an empathetic person?

1710

And who are you to judge? Ask the people in Fukushima and region, if it matters to them… You have an earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear catastrophe. But because radiation does not smell, is invisible and has long term effects, which we will not witness, everything is fine.

Medical experts can tell you that constant radiation, even low, is especially harmful to children. I just listened to a study about health problems of children around chernobyl. They might not have cancer, but there immune system is weakened to a point that they get chronic illnesses.

Today we saw the Japanese government leader eat a tomato in public. Eating a single tomato will not effect your health. But eating a tomato of that area on a regular basis will have negative health effects.

p.s. The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) is a joke. There mission is to spread the use of atomic energy. How do I know?

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world

This is a quote from their statute

http://www.iaea.org/About/statute.html#A1.2

That explains their appeasement policy to nuclear catastrophes.

1711

No, because the radiation hasn’t left tens of thousands of people dead and utterly destroyed an entire coastline I’d say that radiation is not at the top of their list of concerns. Those long term effects? Still not nearly as bad as the tsunami.

1712

You have an earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear catastrophe. But because radiation does not smell, is invisible and has long term effects, which we will not witness, everything is fine.

You know why we should be more concerned with the earthquake & tsunami than with the nuclear catastrophe? It’s not because radiation is invisible. It’s because the earthquake & tsunami FUCKING LEVELED A HUGE SECTION OF JAPAN. Tens of thousands of people are dead. You know what the long term effect of that is? In ten years, they’ll still be dead. In 20 years, they’ll be dead. In 40 years, they will… hmm… let me check the charts. Hmm… it appears that in 40 years there is a 100% chance that those people will still be dead. And these are just the deaths. There are also injuries, economic losses, and the sheer devastation that the people will have to recover from.

The mental trauma they experienced from the tsunami does not smell, is invisible, and has long term effects, and yet you seem unconcerned about it. Why is that? Could it be because you’re a fucking jackass? Why yes, yes, I do believe that’s the reason.

Medical experts can tell you that constant radiation, even low, is especially harmful to children. I just listened to a study about health problems of children around chernobyl. They might not have cancer, but there immune system is weakened to a point that they get chronic illnesses.

No, that’s not what medical experts would tell you. The first thing they would tell you is that “radiation” is way too broad a term to have any meaning. Some forms of radiation are completely harmless, while other forms of radiation are almost definitely harmful, although there is much that we don’t know regarding the effects of various dosages. What’s more, the body is able to repair a certain amount of damage caused by certain types of continual low dosage exposure. (e.g. We’re able to repair some of the damage that radiant sunlight causes our bodies.) That’s what medical experts can tell you. You should try listening to one for a change.

As for the special that you watched, I can guarantee that you understood very little. I’ve had training in radiation handling & treatment, and watching your ignorant blatherings in this & other threads has caused me physical pain. (Your ignorance has no smell, is invisible, and has long term effects too. More importantly, you can actually do something about it. You really should.) Just shut the fuck up about nuclear anything. You’re a fucking chimp, and you make education harder, not easier. At the very least, have the common courtesy to restrict your bleatings to threads about nuclear power in P&R.

Today we saw the Japanese government leader eat a tomato in public. Eating a single tomato will not effect your health. But eating a tomato of that area on a regular basis will have negative health effects.

What are those negative health effects, exactly? Don’t just blather on about “cancer”… I want to know the mechanism by which eating tomatos results in negative health effects. If you don’t have an explanation or link, admit your ignorance & shut the fuck up.

p.s. The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) is a joke. There mission is to spread the use of atomic energy.

Your second sentence doesn’t support your first. Learn how to construct rudimentary arguments before you open your stupid fucking mouth.

1713

Yessssssss

1714

Well, the tsunami flooded an area about the size of LA (about 500 square miles). That’s out of 145,000 square miles.* It’s harder to find actual flooding numbers for Katrina, but declared disaster area for Katrina was 90,000 square miles. It’s not exactly apples to apples because of population density differences over the affected areas and of course the loss to human life is about 20-30 times that of Katrina.

But I don’t think “fucking leveled a huge section of Japan” is technically accurate. It is a terrible disaster though.

*Which is like 0.3 or 0.4 % of the land area.

1715

The percentage is lot higher than that, most likely, since Japan has a lot of mountains not suitable for settling in.

Also, I just wanted to mention that the government system in Japan is horrible. The calm manner in which the Japanese people have been handling the crisis says more about the national character of Japan than the crappy-ass government system that exists.

1716

Fair enough, but one of the things I’ve heard is there’s some exaggeration going on in people’s minds about the extent of the disaster in part due to the startling images/video and people not realizing how big Japan is (about the size of California). I may have even read it in this thread! :)

1717

Ah, that’s true.

Tokyo itself hasn’t really been effected by the disaster directly, although there was fallout from the panic / electricity outages.

1718

I stand corrected.

BTW… thanks for putting some perspective on the numbers. (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically.)

1719

I’ve had training in radiation handling & treatment

So you’re a pro, eh? Your opinion on the nuclear catastrophe is not funded in reality. Why do you think that Japan raised it to INES level 7? And other than you, I think that Earthquake, Tsunami AND nuclear catastrophe are the worst tragedy for Japan … if this causes you pain, I am okay with it.

1720

Np. I’m sure the earthquake did damage over a broader area than the tsunami, but when I think of the phrase “fucking leveled” I think of the landfill like devastation left behind by the tsunami. You are dealing with newbrof though. Anyone’s bound to end up exaggerating out of sheer frustration. :)

And to be fair, it is a once in a lifetime (maybe even several) kind of natural disaster (at least historically from what I’ve gathered). It’s huge by that scale.