Nukes of Hazard (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#91

Post by tomp » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:11 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #74

Rapzid wrote: post #43

I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Con…

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

Apart from the points other posters made in reply to your comment, please keep in mind that it is not obvious that fearing an attack, military intelligence or threats of retaliation would reduce the probability of an attack happening (especially if it's a terrorist attack).

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#92

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:14 PM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #88

simonh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

> > The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. > I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMD yes, and their population was also kept in constant fear of the western WMDs that were actually aimed at them. All that also served similar ends in their governments's own little empires. Source: mu…

[deleted]

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#93

Post by mseebach » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:21 PM UTC

kghose wrote: post #73

arethuza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both "Better red than dead" and "better dead than red" were slogans thrown around in my youth here in the UK in the 70s and 80s. Utter craziness - all of it.

This attitude is part of 'better to be dead than a slave'. I think many people saw what the Nazis did in the occupied territories and their thinking was influenced by that (extending it to, what would happen if the Soviets invaded our lands).

By the 70s and 80s, people knew (or had the option to know - many chose not to know) what the Soviets did to people at home, so it wasn't totally out of whack to assume what would happen if they invaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_De...

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#94

Post by gdubs » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:24 PM UTC

swah wrote: post #65

The movie plug is in the article but most of us are only skimming so let me plug it again: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dr_strangelove/ I didn't like 2001, maybe because in 2014 its harder to appreciate, and it has a very slow pace. Dr. Strangelove a much easier watch.

"Fail Safe" [1] is also an excellent movie. I believe it was based on the same book as Strangelove, but is a drama and not a dark comedy. Excellent movie and cast.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#95

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:25 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #74

Rapzid wrote: post #43

I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Con…

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

> Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it.

We've lost more people in the Iraq/Afghan wars than were lost in 9/11, for little progress - Iraq's splitting into pieces and much occupied by folks hardcore enough that Al Qaeda goes "hang on, you're making us look bad!" What's your explanation to their families?

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#96

Post by sp332 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

mnw21cam wrote: post #86

axman6 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the design, isn't there some chance that the heat could detonate the conventional explosive used to force the nuclear material together? as far as I understand it, there is definitely a risk of detonation, though it's hopefully very low. Physics is not directly the reason for it being so low either, but more safeguards put in place to ensure detonation only happens when it's supposed to and is prevented…

Most high explosives will not detonate when burnt. They need to have a shock wave running through them for the detonation to occur. The initial shock wave is usually created using a detonator, which uses a very small amount of a much more risky explosive. You can get a lump of C-4, and use it as fuel for a fire to cook over without any danger, and in fact soldiers certainly used to do this. You can also hit it with a…

It's still very dangerous if the high explosives go if in an uncoordinated way. And then you have kilograms of enriched radioactive material spread all over. Not as bad as a supercritical reaction, but enough to worry about.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#97

Post by mariusz79 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:35 PM UTC

zorbo wrote: post #79

mariusz79 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear mongering? Let's see: First of all, Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 mile^2. [3] Life is not doing just fine there. And the effect of Fukushima meltdown are not going to be known for the next few years, but there are indications that it may not be as harmless as we are led to believe.[4] There are currently 62 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 31 states in the United…

I was more interested in your claim of "Life on Earth would become impossible". You've shown that there are reactors, and that there is a risk involved with having them. But the claim that a few earthquakes in some parts of the world would wipe out all life on earth seems so to me an exaggeration, and I consider that fear mongering.

Perhaps, you're forgetting about spent fuel pools, rods and other nuclear waste that is often kept at the plants.

" All the fuel in all the reactors and all the storage pools at this site (1760 tons of Uranium per slide #4) would be consumed in such a mega-explosion. In comparison, Fat Man and Little Boy weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained less than a hundred pounds each of fissile material."[1]

"Accordingly, the worst case scenario at Fukushima will not make the northern hemisphere uninhabitable and the total doom/ death of life on earth predicted by some is impossible. The most likely outcome would be catastrophic contamination of northern Japan forcing total evacuation of the population. The main global consequence will be serious contamination of the Pacific which may catastrophically affect Pacific biota." [2]

If "catastrophically affecting Pacific biota" would not cause the whole ecosystem to collapse,and make life impossible, I'm not sure what would.

If few nuclear plant meltdowns occurred at the same time, and there would be a problem with the cleanup effort (i.e EMP in the States) we could expect spent fuel explosions to release massive amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

[1]http://www.dcbureau.org/20110314781/natural-resources-news-s...

[2]http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukuworstcase.pdf

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#98

Post by mariusz79 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:37 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #90

mariusz79 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear mongering? Let's see: First of all, Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 mile^2. [3] Life is not doing just fine there. And the effect of Fukushima meltdown are not going to be known for the next few years, but there are indications that it may not be as harmless as we are led to believe.[4] There are currently 62 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 31 states in the United…

Actually life is doing better in the Chernobyl zone than it was when there were humans there. Humans stay away because they don't like slight increases in cancer probability, not because life is impossible.

Life is possible in many extreme environments. I should probably be more clear and indicate that I meant higher forms of life (i.e mammals)

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#99

Post by mariusz79 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:42 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #90

mariusz79 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear mongering? Let's see: First of all, Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 mile^2. [3] Life is not doing just fine there. And the effect of Fukushima meltdown are not going to be known for the next few years, but there are indications that it may not be as harmless as we are led to believe.[4] There are currently 62 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 31 states in the United…

Actually life is doing better in the Chernobyl zone than it was when there were humans there. Humans stay away because they don't like slight increases in cancer probability, not because life is impossible.

one more point

"Some claim that the populations of traditional Polesian animals (such as wolves, badger, wild boar, roe deer, white-tailed eagle, black stork, Western marsh harrier, short-eared owl, red deer, moose, great egret, whooper swan, least weasel, common kestrel and beaver) have multiplied enormously and begun expanding outside the zone. These claims, however, are not substantiated by any systematic census of any animal taxon."[41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_... [41] Møller, A P; T A Mousseau; F de Lope; N Saino (2008). "Anecdotes and empirical research in Chernobyl". Biology Letters 4 (1): 65–66. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0528. ISSN 1744-957X. PMC 2412943. Retrieved 2012-02-07.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#100

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:50 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #74

Rapzid wrote: post #43

I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Con…

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

"I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it."

Shark attacks are statistically rare. Lightning strikes (of a human) are statistically rare. Adrenocortical carcinoma is statistically rare. Having to explain this to the family of a victim doesn't change that fact.

In 2001, a banner year for terrorism, America lost more people to heart disease than terrorism. This should surprise no one. What's a little more surprising is the scale of the difference - not just more people, but 200 times as many people. To put it another way, if something on the scale of 9/11 happened every other day we'd still be losing more people to heart disease than to terrorism. Sure, there are criticisms to be had (e.g. we should be comparing years lost or quality of life not simply lives lost) but none of these come close to overcoming that 200 fold difference - one year lost by a 70 yo would have to translate to 200 years lost by a younger person, and those lost in 9/11 weren't especially young (average age was 40). Car accidents disproportionately kill the young, and also killed more Americans than terrorism that year. And of course those (and still other causes - many of them!) continue to kill many times more people than terrorism did in 2001 - terrorism does not.