1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

stop being so political

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by TheDS, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,102
    Location:
    北京皇城
    You're a fool. Nuclear plants are dangerous. You have to maintain them so they don't kill everything. Sure, you lessen the danger considerably with good maintenance and vigilance, but the danger is still there - latent and terribly deadly.

    Mistakes do happen. I heard there was this Chernobyl thing.

    To those saying "Well Chernobyl had few casualties," consider this: that was a rather sparsely populated area. What if it was a nuclear plant built in Moscow? I'm sure many of you build nuclear plants in your big cities as well. The bigger the city, the bigger the potential tragedy.
     
  2. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Chernobyl happened because the Russians willfully ignored safety protocols. Should we ban knifes because kids might stab people?

    A better comparison would be with 3 mile island. The safeties kicked in, and nothing bad happened.
     
  3. frekk

    frekk Scourge of St. Lawrence

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    The first two words in that sentence are sufficient. The rest of the sentence is relevant to the mechanics of how it happened, but not to whether it did or not.

    Then it's a non-event, and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    Hmmm ... maybe I missed something, but were we talking about banning nuclear reactors here? Some people just can't leave politics out of this, can they!

    No, we shouldn't ban knives because somebody might get stabbed, but we shouldn't go around pretending they're "the safest thing ever designed" either. Unless you happen to like a little finger-meat with your potatoes. If people didn't respect the fact that knives are sharp and therefore dangerous, maybe we would have to ban them, but fortunately, most people do recognize that knives are inherently dangerous and therefore employ them with care.

    Properly managed, nuclear reactors are safe ... but only because they are properly managed and because their inherent danger is respected enough to go to a lot of effort containing that danger. Sometimes, corners are cut, less effort is made, things aren't properly managed, and/or somebody really messes up ... and then, bad things can happen. And they have.

    Then there are things that are beyond the control of the best safety practices - the most stringent safety protocols couldn't stop a major accident if the facility was seized by terrorists intent on causing one, or if a natural disaster hit the reactor.
     
  4. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Nice strawman. I never made any such claim. I just disputed the above facts. Who's getting political now? :rolleyes:
     
  5. Viconia

    Viconia Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Anyone who believes nuclear power, which creates toxic waste, but doesn't accerbate our current and most looming enviromental problem,n is worse then global warming, is being silly. Theres plenty of room left for garbage, but.. not a lot left for various coal related emissions. Nuclear power has been successfully vilified, even if it creates less harm then other types. And another thing ignored is that usually when a dam is created, many states force countless families to relocate, and destory homes, and permanently alter long term river systems. Read up on whats happening to the dead sea, or the draconian measures used to build three gorges..
     
  6. frekk

    frekk Scourge of St. Lawrence

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    Why would that be political? How ... bizarre. I would think to be political, someone would have to be advancing an agenda extending beyond the game, ie worrying about the pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear movement or about things like bans on nuclear power.

    The bit about "safest thing ever" was a quote (as indicated by the quotation marks) of a comment made by a different poster earlier in the thread.
     
  7. Woodreaux

    Woodreaux Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    So Cal
    I think a lot of y'all are barking up the wrong tree. The Nuclear Power Plant meltdown mechanics in [civ4] were not setup to model the average melt-down scenario, nor the worst case scenario. They weren't setup to model any accidental event at all. They reused nuclear weapon effect code (with some minor modification).

    Sort of like the way ICBM's and Tactical Nukes differ only by range, mobility and susceptibility to SDI. Think about it: ICBM's carry MIRV's which are designed to devastate large strategic targets. Meanwhile, tactical nukes are battlefield weapons which are only a few times more powerful than the conventional weapons. Their payloads' differ by orders of magnitude. The doctrines they support clearly indicate the scale of their application: ICBM's should affect an entire BFC (or maybe just surrounding tiles) while Tactical Nukes should only hit target tile. Yet, in the game, they have the same effect.

    Do y'all see where I'm going with this? Either Firaxis didn't have time to implement develop 3 different nuclear destruction events or they choose for simplicity to keep them the same. I do not believe, for one moment, Firaxis was trying to force an anti-nuclear political agenda down our throats. That said, just to be clear, I do believe the average noticeable nuclear power plant accident having the same effect as an ICBM is preposterous.
     
  8. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    @ frekk and Crezth. You're both cute, do you even know what you're talking about though? Here's an article for you:

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=15410&Cr=nuclear&Cr1=tsunami

    As you can see, even in the face of a Tsunami and extensive flooding the nuclear power plant was safely shut down with no contamination.

    That's not the first time flooding hit a nuke plant though, try Cooper nuclear station. The entire station was severely flooded.

    Here's some more knowledge for you:

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-c...congress-testimony/2005/katrina-testimony.pdf

    Imagine that, nuke plants have been exposed to major natural disasters with minuscule if any side-effects.

    By the way your argument of 'inherent danger' fails massively, as there is 'inherent danger' in everything we do. As I clearly stated before your posts, nuke plants are extremely safe but yes because of their nature if there is a massive accident then it is going to be much worse than a conventional power plant. The shear amount of safety redundancies built into nuke plants makes them incredibly safe, and as far as your comment about an 'accident at Chernobyl' only compounds your ignorance.

    Do a google search for Chernobyl and get enlightened kid, because I'm not wasting my time in trying to tell you what countless others already have.

    Finally, you bring up the inherent danger of spent fuel rods stored on-site. What inherent danger is there exactly? Do you have ANY idea how these fuel rods are stored exactly?

    More knowledge for you:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAq-siGEXgY
     
  9. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    @ people arguing about the possibility of nuke accidents like Chernobyl happening because in Civ there are nations represented that may cut corners; absolutely. I never disputed this. I'm merely correcting erroneous views about nuclear plants from dum-dums that have never so much as been within 1000 feet of nuclear material.
     
  10. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Death Happened. If the obvious solution to removing the threat of atomic explosions is to rid the world of nuclear power, then the obvious solution to ending death is to remove all life. Go at it. :rolleyes:

    Your arguments are infantile.
    Funny how a few changed words, and you sound like you are saying exactly what I said. Hypocrite much? :rolleyes:

    For added fun:

    Lol. :lol:
     
  11. frekk

    frekk Scourge of St. Lawrence

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    Uhmmm ... yeah, I do, and not from Google.

    I have a veritable mountain of documents from the NWMO on technical details of a proposed storage facility sitting right here in this room. I'd gladly quote if I could.

    Also, you should really read your own links. From the first one, for example:

    “There are scores of nuclear power plants operating in coastal areas and some of these may need to take a renewed look at this external hazard," IAEA Director of Nuclear Power Akira Omoto said. “It is also true for plants presently under construction.”

    I was responding to a fellow who stated that nuclear plants have no inherent danger. This is, of course, false.

    And your statement is entirely irrational. If all cookies are round, and I say that chocolate chip cookies are round, my statement is not a "massive failure" (or whatever other phrase you might choose to use for dramatic/emotional effect).

    Do nuclear plants have a large amount of inherent danger? YES. More than most anything else we do. That's why we take so many precautions. The danger is inherent, but not unavoidable (some people seem to confuse the two concepts).
     
  12. frekk

    frekk Scourge of St. Lawrence

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    Hmmmm ..... an attempt at being ironic?

    I'm not sure where you keep getting this very weird notion that anyone is proposing a ban on nuclear power here. Is that just your knee jerking, or would you care to explain?
     
  13. Ansible

    Ansible Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Why aren't dam failures modeled? These have occurred far more often than Chernobyl-type events, and in some cases with more devastation.

    E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
    - 10's of thousands killed
    - 100's of thousands injured
    - millions affected

    Maybe a dam failure event would wipe out the affected city and any cities down river?
     
  14. frekk

    frekk Scourge of St. Lawrence

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    Probably not a bad idea for realism, but in gameplay terms ... well people don't look at things very rationally, so most wouldn't appreciate the truth of such a mechanic, they'd simply howl in protest. People look at and remember things that are sensational, and Chernobyl was sensational. If we weren't like that and we did evaluate everything without sensationalism, all of history as we know it would probably be rewritten! Things that we are used to thinking of as major events would become minor and insignifigant, things we'd never heard of would become major, and so on.

    Also, it is just a game (something people in this thread seem to keep forgetting). Most of it takes a hyper-sensationalized view of history and the relative importance of events already; it's fun, pop history not serious academics. I'm pretty sure there's no conspiracy in the franchise to advance an anti-nuclear agenda! It's just an element that's been in the game since the beginning.
     
  15. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    1) Chernobyl was a perfect storm
    2) what he means is the odds of it going wrong are so small
     
  16. frekk

    frekk Scourge of St. Lawrence

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario
    No, not really. The management and safety standards at Chernobyl were pretty typical for the Soviet nuclear industry - in a way, it was inevitable. And there are probably other inevitabilities in store for corner-cutters. In fact, it may have already happened. And if it hasn't yet, there's a good chance it will
     
  17. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,561
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    Moderator Action: if this discussion is supposed to continue it would be good to cut any personal attacks
     
  18. kivanc

    kivanc King

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    895
    Location:
    1) Istanbul 2) Izmir (Turkey)
    not only russians but also power plants in many countries may not be built right. soemtimes you notcie some installation mistakes years and years later and sometimes you never notice. and sometimes the maintenance guys makes a mistake during he troubleshoots a problem. any way, sure there is always a human factor even if you have full automation system.

    we have some standards like OHSAS, ISO etc and so i know about risk factors. there is a formula maybe some of you know (i may have misused the terminologies in the below formula but formula itself is correct)

    Risk = frequency * possibility * damage

    for every periodical event that is applied by technicians, an engineer (manager of those technicians) has to calculate the risk factor. so as an example; the fire risk during a dust cleaning application in coal mill becomes:

    frequency: how frequent you make that dust cleaning application in the coal mill
    possiblity: the possiblity that a fire may happen during that dust cleaning inside coal mill
    damage: if a fire happens in the coal mill during cleaning, how much damage will the fire give

    all 3 factors may have different values.
    for ex: damage may have
    1) a guy hurt by small
    2) a guy is hurt seriously
    3) 1 guy dies
    4) multi-guys die

    frequency may have ; once in a week, once in a year etc (0.1, 0.001 etc)
    possibility is a constant parameter; never, possible, quite possible etc. each corresponding to a multiplicator

    So, it is clear that the "damage" factor of the formula in the nuclear plant is very very high (let's say 50k people die and some constant illness in 500k people maybe). and that makes the risk factor very high even if the possibility is small.
     
  19. mjs0

    mjs0 The 4th X

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,063
    Location:
    Central Florida
    By that logic the risk of the Earth getting destroyed by the Sun going supernova tomorrow is very high because even the though the possibility is small the damage is very very high (total in fact).
    In actuality no matter how large the damage factor becomes a low enough value for possibility can make the risk factor low also.

    Accurately estimating the possibility and whether the margin of error on the possibility is high are separate and valid concerns, but the absolute statement that very very high damage means very high risk is simply untrue.
     
  20. ETa

    ETa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    75
    It is not irrelevant. It describes accurately what happens to people when a plant goes boom, which is pretty much nothing. The key point is that nuclear power is absolutely superior way to produce energy in the real world, but in civ it's almost useless.

    Of course you can scrub it. It's even done in practically all major western cities when the ground contains too much heavy metals and new pop are being settled there. It's only a question of whether the land is valuable enough. In Chernobyl it wasn't.
     

Share This Page