stop being so political

[KrikkitTwo]

Since plants around the globe are not alike, and not all are build with all safety measures in mind, one may as well implement a wide variety of consequesnces should a plant go boom. One game you may lose the plant and nothing else, in the next five games you get no trouble whatsoever, the seventh game you play sees a plant blow up a city and the land surrounding it. That could work, and it reflects the fact that we obviously cannot oversee the possible consequences of what may go wrong. This thread does nothing if it does not demonstrate at least that.

Well hence the idea of
Cheap plant...80 hammers, with some significant (but possibly worthwhile) risk of meltdown... possibly through a not purely random process

Expensive plant...800 hammers... but totally Safe

 

[ETa]

One game you may lose the plant and nothing else, in the next five games you get no trouble whatsoever, the seventh game you play sees a plant blow up a city and the land surrounding it.

That is still exaggerated. Nuclear plant can not create a nuclear explosion. It is physically impossible since the fission fuel is not sufficiently enriched. Nuclear plant can only release radiation. Hypothetically radiation could kill a great deal of people, if the leader cuts communication to civilians and prevents evacuation i.e. wants to kill them.

 

[globalempire]

Eta you are saying that nuke plants cannot physically explode. i have one word chernobyl

 

[ETa]

Eta you are saying that nuke plants cannot physically explode. i have one word chernobyl

I'm saying that nuclear plants can not create a nuclear explosion like a nuclear bomb.

 

[globalempire]

chernobyl went off like a nuke.

 

[ETa]

chernobyl went off like a nuke.

It didn't go off like a nuke.

"On 26 April 1986 at 01:23 a.m. (UTC+3), reactor 4 suffered a massive, catastrophic power excursion. This caused a steam explosion, followed by a second (chemical, not nuclear) explosion from the ignition of generated hydrogen mixed with air, which tore the top from the reactor and its building and exposed the reactor core."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

 

[PieceOfMind]

chernobyl went off like a nuke.

lol, with a mushroom cloud and all!

Unless you're trolling, you might want to try reading a bit about the Chernobyl incident.

 

[frekk]

That is still exaggerated.

Only graphically. There may not have been a nuclear blast, but Chernobyl has been removed as anything other than a ruin.

 

[Shurdus]

That is still exaggerated. Nuclear plant can not create a nuclear explosion. It is physically impossible since the fission fuel is not sufficiently enriched. Nuclear plant can only release radiation. Hypothetically radiation could kill a great deal of people, if the leader cuts communication to civilians and prevents evacuation i.e. wants to kill them.

What I was saying however is that since people cannot reach an agreement on how to deal with these plants going boom, we may as well have several events for them. They may not occur in some games to please the 'they are perfectly safe!' crowd, in some games the plant may be destroyed but nothing major happens in so the 'they are safe' crowds are pleased as well. Finally people supporting the 'these plants will kill us all!' stance should be served by having the plants bow up every once in a while, causing innocent casualties and the destruction of buildings.

The fact that people from all camps can come with examples favoring their approach makes if so that all these events I described above could potentially happen. Now it will be very much boring to have plants blow up all the time, so there should be games where the plants work like they are supposed to and nothing happens. Other games might see some very catastrophic results indeed, and in some games the event where you lose the plant are soemthing like losing your theatre due to a fire: annoying but no biggie.

 

[ETa]

What I was saying however is that since people cannot reach an agreement on how to deal with these plants going boom, we may as well have several events for them.

I see. So people can vote if something is possible or not regardless of is it possible in reality?

The fact that people from all camps can come with examples favoring their approach makes if so that all these events I described above could potentially happen. Now it will be very much boring to have plants blow up all the time, so there should be games where the plants work like they are supposed to and nothing happens. Other games might see some very catastrophic results indeed, and in some games the event where you lose the plant are soemthing like losing your theatre due to a fire: annoying but no biggie.

This is annoying because impossible things are happening here when it is completely unnecessary and they don't add anything to the game.

 

[Shurdus]

I see. So people can vote if something is possible or not regardless of is it possible in reality?

This is annoying because impossible things are happening here when it is completely unnecessary and they don't add anything to the game.

Let me start out by saying that I am no expert on the subject. With that in mind, I cannot really claim to know what would happen if there was a major accident in these plants.

That being said, there seems to be quite a few opinions out there - from self proclaimed experts and professionals alike - about what the risks of these plants are. You may claim that these plants blowing up is something that may not happen in real life, yet it has happened in Chernobyl. Now I care not to go into the technicalities of what exactly happened, but we can both agree that it was quite devastating. Something that mimics this may very well be in civ. It needs not be an explosion or something similar, but something nasty.

Also there are examples of accidents that were within the foreseen risks, and therefore nothing happened even though the plants were destroyed. Those incidents can have a place in the game as well.

So here I have two expremes, these were accidents that actually happened with plants. One was devastating, one was not. How can you claim that this is not realistic? It is very much realistic in my opinion and therefore it can very well be in the game. It is not needed per se, just like slave revolts and fires that cause youto lose a forge are not needed to be in the game per se, but it does add some uncertainty which is exiting all in itself for some.

In the end this thread demonstrates that even people who supposedly know a bit about these plants cannot get to an agreement about the risks involved with using these plants. So there you have it: if experts cannot agree what the risks of these powerplants are, how are you and I supposed to decide if in-game incidents are realistic or not? Devastating accidents may happen and it did happen and it may as well be in the game. Less horrible accidents happen as well, these may be in the game as well. Everything in between is therefore fair game as well, it may be in the game if you leave events on.

 

[ETa]

That being said, there seems to be quite a few opinions out there - from self proclaimed experts and professionals alike - about what the risks of these plants are. You may claim that these plants blowing up is something that may not happen in real life, yet it has happened in Chernobyl. Now I care not to go into the technicalities of what exactly happened, but we can both agree that it was quite devastating. Something that mimics this may very well be in civ. It needs not be an explosion or something similar, but something nasty.

The so called technicalities are quite important. We should just face it that in Chernobyl 58 people out of 336000 died. So 0,017% of the population died in the accident. More people can die in train or airplane accidents, which of we have a very recent example, and they happen more often than once in 50 years.

So here I have two expremes, these were accidents that actually happened with plants. One was devastating, one was not. How can you claim that this is not realistic? It is very much realistic in my opinion and therefore it can very well be in the game. It is not needed per se, just like slave revolts and fires that cause youto lose a forge are not needed to be in the game per se, but it does add some uncertainty which is exiting all in itself for some.

Slave revolts and fires have actually happened and there were few order of magnitudes higher casualties in those compared to the worst nuclear plant disaster.

In the end this thread demonstrates that even people who supposedly know a bit about these plants cannot get to an agreement about the risks involved with using these plants. So there you have it: if experts cannot agree what the risks of these powerplants are, how are you and I supposed to decide if in-game incidents are realistic or not?

There is no disagreement among experts about the risks involved. Science is not a political consensus. Some things just are true and some are not.

 

[Shurdus]

What I do not understand though is that I claim that disasters happened, you go about and explain to me that it was not that bad... So what? It is still a plant blowing up which causes side effects. I may not know in finer detail how this 'blowing up' occurs. I did not know about it being gas-explosions and such. So even though the way I worded it is poor, the point remains that plants are not 100% failproof. Accidents do happen and when they do they are very notable. This is arguable notable enough to be in the game, just like earthquakes, fires, tsunami's and planecrashes are in the game.

Be that as it may, you cannot claim nothing happened. Casualties mean little to me since you should take into account sickness causes by radiation poinsening as well. Things like a shortened lifespan of the locals is not farfetched, so this may very well be in the game. Note that I did not get into specifics. I did not say 'Everybody should die in a scorching sea of fire', I am saying that accidents which causes casualties and people are still talking about 20+ years after it happened is notable enough to be in the game.

Edit: and science is sometimes based on consensus. For example, some people think that carbon-dioxide will be the end of us all and argue that we should go through great deals of trouble to reduce the amount of the gas that we produce every year. Others claim that it is not that bad the the reduction of the production of these gasses will do nothing for the environment. Obviously not both approaches can be true, and the truth is possibly somewhere in the middle, but the fact remains that experts are unsure on which version is true. That is not uncommon, and it happens on a wide variety of subjects. So for me to note that experts of science can be in disagreement about the facts is not off, even though it may have been misplaced in this context - I know too little of the subject to tell for sure.

 

[ETa]

So even though the way I worded it is poor, the point remains that plants are not 100% failproof. Accidents do happen and when they do they are very notable. This is arguable notable enough to be in the game, just like earthquakes, fires, tsunami's and planecrashes are in the game.

Yes, nothing is failproof. But when even the worst scenario did so little damage, then maybe the game could a bit more conservative in its depiction.

Be that as it may, you cannot claim nothing happened. Casualties mean little to me since you should take into account sickness causes by radiation poinsening as well. Things like a shortened lifespan of the locals is not farfetched, so this may very well be in the game. Note that I did not get into specifics.

There have been 4000 suspected cancer deaths over time related to the incident.

What I do not understand though is that I claim that I am saying that accidents which causes casualties and people are still talking about 20+ years after it happened is notable enough to be in the game.

With this I agree. Although there was marginal physical impact, the psychological impact has been massive even on a global scale. That's where some managed to fulfill the propaganda/culture victory conditions.

Edit: and science is sometimes based on consensus. For example, some people think that carbon-dioxide will be the end of us all and argue that we should go through great deals of trouble to reduce the amount of the gas that we produce every year. Others claim that it is not that bad the the reduction of the production of these gasses will do nothing for the environment.

This is a topic I'm not willing to participate, but considering that there actually needs to be a consensus should tell something of the scientific validity of the claim(s).

 

[Tee Kay]

Only graphically. There may not have been a nuclear blast, but Chernobyl has been removed as anything other than a ruin.

At Chernobyl only reactor 4 was destroyed in the 1986 blast. The rest were/are very much intact and continued operating until 2000.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes, nothing is failproof. But when even the worst scenario did so little damage, then maybe the game could a bit more conservative in its depiction.

I do think the game exaggerated things a bit, but you might want to reconsider the part where you said "the worst scenario did so little damage".

Imagine if Chernobyl occurred in a more populated area.

There have been 4000 suspected cancer deaths over time related to the incident.

That's very conservative.

 

[Shurdus]

Yes, nothing is failproof. But when even the worst scenario did so little damage, then maybe the game could a bit more conservative in its depiction.

agreed, but please note that I never mentioned anything about how severe the consequences needed to be in the game. I Civ IV the consequences are like that of a nuke exploding, which is grossly exagerated of course. I agree it needs to be toned down, I take it maybe the destruction of a building or two - so the plant and another building or two - and population dying should be fine. Maybe there should be some unhealth as well.

There have been 4000 suspected cancer deaths over time related to the incident.

Maybe. Can you tell me how they researched that? If you can, can you tell me how much margin of error one may statistically expect there? It could be way more, it could be less.

Also I do not know what you mean by a suspected cancer death. I take it this does not include people that were diagnosed with cancer and then cured. How does this supposed 4000 compare to the number of people who got sick? Did others die from illnesses other than cancer but still related to the incident? What other illnesses are they suffering from? Did the research that came up with the '4000 suspected cancer deaths' even look into other causes of death? 4000 out of a population of how many exposed to radiation? Did the research focus on people living close to the reactor, and if so where was the cutoff point? How many people live in that radius of the reactor?

Unless we have answers for questions like these the number alone means very little. It is not a question of 'here are the facts, they speak for themelves.' Numbers alone may be completely accurate, but even if the research was 100% right that there were 4000 cancer deaths, we know little about other causes of death, the ratio of people getting sick, etc. So in conclusion, the number alone is useless to us.

 

[frekk]

The so called technicalities are quite important. We should just face it that in Chernobyl 58 people out of 336000 died. So 0,017% of the population died in the accident.

This is taking a very narrow view of the costs. The city, all the land and capitol in it, all the buildings, all the infrastructure, everything was lost, even if the population was evacuated. Millions and millions of dollars worth of military vehicles and ships are just sitting there, abandoned, to this day:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

Plus there are the ongoing costs of monitoring, manning the roadblocks, health care costs, etc. Comparing this to a few car accidents is absurd.

A mechanic to resettle the population in other cities or the like, ok. But to be realistic the city should be lost and removed from the map. If you ask me the present system is much gentler than that, so I wouldn't complain on the basis of realism. If we want to get realistic you should lose the city, keep the population by resettling it in other cities. But game-wise, if you ask me, I'd rather just take the hit you get now. Admittedly it isn't realistic but it isn't as harsh as losing the city altogether.

 

[ETa]

Also I do not know what you mean by a suspected cancer death. I take it this does not include people that were diagnosed with cancer and then cured. How does this supposed 4000 compare to the number of people who got sick? Did others die from illnesses other than cancer but still related to the incident? What other illnesses are they suffering from? Did the research that came up with the '4000 suspected cancer deaths' even look into other causes of death? 4000 out of a population of how many exposed to radiation? Did the research focus on people living close to the reactor, and if so where was the cutoff point? How many people live in that radius of the reactor?

I'll answer to taillesskangaru as well. I don't know how the radiation caused cancer deaths are counted as diagnosing a cause for cancer is not trivial. I would imagine that cancer rate in the areas with most fallout is compared to areas without fallout and maybe by studying the type of the cancer. So it is some kind of epidemiological study. Considering that it didn't cause a significant increase in deaths would indicate that it isn't that harmful. I think that they would notice and study the cause if on some area people started dropping like flies.

 

[ETa]

I do think the game exaggerated things a bit, but you might want to reconsider the part where you said "the worst scenario did so little damage".

I'll rephrase: "The worst known scenario". We even had a totalitarian state with crazy operators as accident modifiers and still we get just 58 direct deaths and relatively low increase in cancers.