• A student is looking for help on tropical cyclone prediction. Please fill out the survey linked to this thread: https://stormtrack.org/threads/storm-and-hurricane-intensity-prediction-survey.32957

  • After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

8.9 Earthquake has struck Japan

Darren Addy said:
Curious: Where did all of the "experts" go who were "not worried" about the Japanese reactor situation?
Click to expand...

I have seen experts, not just "experts", in the media discussing this event, just as much as I've seen "experts" in the media espousing on the global nuclear fallout of a bomb-like detonation. Is the implication of your quotes that those who didn't foresee the worsening scenario were not really experts? Even experts can disagree (we see that come severe weather season in the Plains!), and the expert whose forecast does not verify isn't downgraded to "expert".

From what I can gather, and I haven't watched much TV news given the propensity to talk about low-probability "worst-case scenarios" so frequently, it seems like a lot of folks are just being patient and watching things unfold. The situation has already unfolded beyond what many nuclear folks thought it would, and it's not entirely professional to get drawn into apocalyptic worst-case scenario discussions. Just because a low-probability event occurs doesn't mean that similar events are now high-probability (rolling a pair of snake-eyes on one throw doesn't make rolling snake-eyes more likely on subsequent rolls).
 
Greg Campbell said:
(Edit)

Upon further review, it's clear the author GREATLY over reached his knowledge, drawing conclusions from thin air.

The article's authoratative tone swayed me far more than it should have.
"There's always some idiot on the interwebs that will be happy to tell you what you want to hear."
Click to expand...

It's been tough to get any real information on what is going on. I wish there was a credible source we could all trust.
 
David Wolfson said:
Well, now they're thinking outside a harmful radiation zone, since otherwise they'd just drop a hose into it. What engineering geniuses decided to put open spent-fuel pools near the top and outside the main containment? Oi.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was totally a genius move. I also read that the fuel-rod pools have far more rods in them than they were designed for.
 
It may seem crazy, but the trustworthy news sources that have proven themselves over time are handling themselves admirably on this one. (No, I don't count CNN, FOX, etc as "handling themselves admirably over time"). BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, and the new rising star Al Jazeera are doing a bang up job of covering not only the nuclear crisis but the entire disaster. This is how journalism is supposed to be done.
 
I don't check out the NYT or WashPo very often, but I do like what I'm seeing from Al Jazeera. It's funny but Al Jazeera might be the best news org out there right now.
 
Upon further review, it's clear the author GREATLY over reached his knowledge, drawing conclusions from thin air.
Click to expand...

At the time it sounded pretty good (and reasonable). Now add in an explosion which damages other units, flaming debris crashes into a fuel pond, they can't cool the fuel ponds, etc. these issues release more radiation, uh oh... cascade of bad things.
 
Benjamin Smith said:
I don't check out the NYT or WashPo very often, but I do like what I'm seeing from Al Jazeera. It's funny but Al Jazeera might be the best news org out there right now.
Click to expand...

Have to agree, their coverage of the Northern Africa political situation was superb. Interesting piece on NPR 2 weeks ago about how their online viewership has increased by over 2000% in America. Maybe will get some cable/sat companies to give us this great resource.
 
I've read in a couple of places now that the radiation levels have fallen back to non-harmful levels this evening near the plant. Can anybody confirm?
 
Jeff Snyder said:
Is the implication of your quotes that those who didn't foresee the worsening scenario were not really experts? Even experts can disagree (we see that come severe weather season in the Plains!), and the expert whose forecast does not verify isn't downgraded to "expert".
Click to expand...

You make a good point.
My problem was not with those who pointed out that the reactor design was different than Chernobyl and the reactors were not still running (as they were in Chernobyl) so this could be no Chernobyl. My problem is with some of the stuff that I read before the event that were things like "Why I'm Not Worried About Japan's Reactor Situation". If the article went on to explain it was because the person was not worried because they lived thousands of miles away and were really not in a position to access the control efforts on the ground in Fukishima, then I would have even been fine with that. Or if they said it was because they were making their assessment only on the little bit they were getting through CNN or something, that would be one thing. But I'm no expert and I could see that there were multiple issues that had to be dealt with and I would not want to be the "expert" who pooh-poohed the seriousness of the problem before the all clear was sounded.

You are right about the news people scrambling to find somebody in the field to put on the screen and having a propensity to put the most hand-wringing up there. But just as bad as those who go to the other extreme and paint the rosiest possible picture. What is the matter with "playing it straight". Many did that, and are to be commended. But for the other side, go back upthread and take a look at some of the links (if they haven't been severely edited since they were written and the events unfolded in Fukashima). Links such as this one: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

I'm just your average Joe, and it was obvious to me from the get-go that this was a potentially HUGE situation. Not because I wanted it to be, or because I enjoy sensationalism, or because I have an agenda, but because each piece of news that came out seemed to be going in the wrong direction. As time went on, anyone who was congnizant of the facts as they were being reported, was more alarmed. Not less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top