Misleading RTE headlines

donutface

Hi guys,

this feels a bit tabloidy to me

Headline

Second explosion at Japanese nuclear plant

When you read the article

The explosion is one of many emergency operations triggered by the earthquake and tsunami that devastated large areas of eastern Japan on Friday.

Radiation levels at the plant are 'normal', the UN atomic watchdog IAEA said.

That being said I'm having a tough time coming up with a better headline myself

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0314/japan.html

blaze1

seems to be the way to go...

Sky trypical scare mongering this morning. Prepare for a nuclear winter type report and then bbc confirming that the 2nd explosion was just super heated water and no nuclear radiation had been leaked.

Biggins

Its RTE, 'nuff said.

seamus

They're being described as "hydrogen-related incidents" by many places.

Water of course, being 66% Hydrogen, that's a valid description, right?

the groutch

not as bad as the spindo's headline on their site

Meltdown at reactors as 200,000 evacuated

orourkeda

Hows your nuclear reactor?

JustAddWater

Glowing away... yourself? How's your nuclear rod?

orourkeda wrote: »

Hows your nuclear reactor?

dolphin city

when chernobyl happened, they also said that everything was "normal" - it was only when everything settled down days later that they realised that nothing at all was normal.

Haven't they found radiation 90 km from the nuclear reactor, even tho they have only said the unsafe zone at the minute as 20 km.

Maybe the people talking about it being "normal" are the ones in favour of nuclear power and it's in their interests.

donutface

I agree with you Dolphin, I'm sure I read that all the reactors shut down successfully the morning of the Tsunami thinking wow thats some feat only to still have this stuff lingering a few days later.


I don't have an opinion myself in either direction, but this sort of headline just irritates me!

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

when chernobyl happened, they also said that everything was "normal" - it was only when everything settled down days later that they realised that nothing at all was normal.

Totally different situation tbh. Everything was "normal" at Chernobyl because the USSR government didn't want anyone to think anything was wrong. The Japanese haven't attempted to pretend that anything is normal. A couple of times they claimed to have it under control - and perhaps they did at the time, but as far as I can tell, there's been no delay or stifling in reporting problems at the plant (plants now).

Maybe the people talking about it being "normal" are the ones in favour of nuclear power and it's in their interests.

I don't think anyone is trying to say there's no crisis here, there most certainly is. But the media are massively jumping the gun here to suggest that there's been a meltdown or anything in that neighbourhood.

There are even hacks going on about whether or not it's safe to be building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones. That's a not a question we can answer until the situation is resolved (for good or bad).

Controlled explosions are somewhat necessary when you have an emergency situation in a nuclear reactor. You're dealing with insane amounts of energy.

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

Totally different situation tbh. Everything was "normal" at Chernobyl because the USSR government didn't want anyone to think anything was wrong. The Japanese haven't attempted to pretend that anything is normal. A couple of times they claimed to have it under control - and perhaps they did at the time, but as far as I can tell, there's been no delay or stifling in reporting problems at the plant (plants now).
I don't think anyone is trying to say there's no crisis here, there most certainly is. But the media are massively jumping the gun here to suggest that there's been a meltdown or anything in that neighbourhood.


Really? I would imagine that they didn't mention it because of the panic it would cause - can you imagine people, upon hearing that there WAS trouble, fleeing, causing uproar and panic - I can. When it comes to nuc. energy I't always best to err on the side of caution. I don't care what the supporters say.


There are even hacks going on about whether or not it's safe to be building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones. That's a not a question we can answer until the situation is resolved (for good or bad).

I'm not going to state the obvious here.



Controlled explosions are somewhat necessary when you have an emergency situation in a nuclear reactor. You're dealing with insane amounts of energy.

You are also dealing with insane amount of injuries and contamination.

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

Really? I would imagine that they didn't mention it because of the panic it would cause - can you imagine people, upon hearing that there WAS trouble, fleeing, causing uproar and panic - I can. When it comes to nuc. energy I't always best to err on the side of caution. I don't care what the supporters say.

I don't think you'll find anyone, supporters or not, saying that we shouldn't err on the side of caution. Chernobyl was an incident which occured under a totalitarian regime in the grips of an arms war with the world's other major superpower.
Information in and out was massively controlled (and there wasn't remotely the same kind of information freedom that we have today).
To try and compare the USSR government's reaction to Chernobyl with the Japanese's reaction to these incidents, is comparing apples and oranges.
The Japanese have already evacuated 200,000 people. Do you think they're not taking it seriously?

I'm not going to state the obvious here.

"The obvious" is that you shouldn't even have a country of 127 million people in a massively active tectonic zone. It is more dangerous to have any kind of power plant in such an area, but 127 million people need energy. It's about weighing up the dangers -v- needs. This is a 1 in 1,200 years event. Would enormous gas or oil power plants be safer in the long run? They have ongoing health and safety problems which are worse than the one-time possible problems you get with nuclear.
Again, until this situation has finished, for better or worse, we can't draw conclusions. If it becomes a nuclear disaster, then they do need to reconsider the wisdom of where they build the plants. If they get it under control, then their safety measures have (eventually) worked, and their plants' placements are justified, even if their safety procedures need improving.

You are also dealing with insane amount of injuries and contamination.

You're dealing with a handful of injuries and inconsequential contamination at the moment.

AnonoBoy

That doesn't seem too tabloidy a headline to me.

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you'll find anyone, supporters or not, saying that we shouldn't err on the side of caution. Chernobyl was an incident which occured under a totalitarian regime in the grips of an arms war with the world's other major superpower.
Information in and out was massively controlled (and there wasn't remotely the same kind of information freedom that we have today).
To try and compare the USSR government's reaction to Chernobyl with the Japanese's reaction to these incidents, is comparing apples and oranges.
The Japanese have already evacuated 200,000 people. Do you think they're not taking it seriously?
"The obvious" is that you shouldn't even have a country of 127 million people in a massively active tectonic zone. It is more dangerous to have any kind of power plant in such an area, but 127 million people need energy. It's about weighing up the dangers -v- needs. This is a 1 in 1,200 years event. Would enormous gas or oil power plants be safer in the long run? They have ongoing health and safety problems which are worse than the one-time possible problems you get with nuclear.
Again, until this situation has finished, for better or worse, we can't draw conclusions. If it becomes a nuclear disaster, then they do need to reconsider the wisdom of where they build the plants. If they get it under control, then their safety measures have (eventually) worked, and their plants' placements are justified, even if their safety procedures need improving.
You're dealing with a handful of injuries and inconsequential contamination at the moment.

three little words says it all.

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

three little words says it all.

You're totally right.

It is time to start cracking eachothers' heads open and feasting on the goo inside.

mike65

BBC did something similair last night, they had a graphic of the nuke planet and one of the reactors was labeled as Reactor Meltdown, the person doing the commentary said "possible reactor meltdown" (correctly as they couldn't have known for sure either way at that point).

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

You're totally right.

It is time to start cracking eachothers' heads open and feasting on the goo inside.

:rolleyes:
by the way, what does "inconsequential contamination" mean? Would that mean that if you were offered some nice fish from the waters of that region that you would squeeze some lemon on and feast on it? Go on - tell the truth now.

prinz

dolphin city wrote: »

:rolleyes:
by the way, what does "inconsequential contamination" mean?

Spider man instead of the Hulk.

On a serious note, thoughts and prayers with the Japanese in general, and with the people trying to get their power plant problems under control. Can't imagine what it's been like the last few days. Tragic.

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

:rolleyes:
by the way, what does "inconsequential contamination" mean? Would that mean that if you were offered some nice fish from the waters of that region that you would squeeze some lemon on and feast on it? Go on - tell the truth now.

The truth is I don't eat fish.

Inconsequential contamination is radiation below the threshold where it causes any ill-health effects. "Radiation" is a scaremongering word and in reality the entire planet is "contaminated" with a low level of radiation.

Yes I would happily consume plant materials from the affected regions without worrying about trace amounts of radiation which may affect me. Also worth noting that just because something has been exposed to gamma radiation, doesn't mean that it's radioactive.

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

The truth is I don't eat fish.

Inconsequential contamination is radiation below the threshold where it causes any ill-health effects. "Radiation" is a scaremongering word and in reality the entire planet is "contaminated" with a low level of radiation.

Yes I would happily consume plant materials from the affected regions without worrying about trace amounts of radiation which may affect me. Also worth noting that just because something has been exposed to gamma radiation, doesn't mean that it's radioactive.

what a silly thing to do. but then again in real life, I'm sure you'd run a mile, or a hundred

seamus

Present it, and I will eat it

Einhard

I don't really see the problem tbh. Headline states explosion at nuclear plant; story tells of explosion at nuclear plant; in reality, there's an explosion at the nuclear plant. Am I missing something?

seamus

Einhard wrote: »

I don't really see the problem tbh. Headline states explosion at nuclear plant; story tells of explosion at nuclear plant; in reality, there's an explosion at the nuclear plant. Am I missing something?

The OP's point is that the headlines insinuate that there is a reactor going critical and exploding, when in reality these are controlled explosions (and therefore not really newsworthy).

RTE can be forgiven though when you look at the nonsense that the Indo are putting on their front page;

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/4091/151582.jpg

tricky D

A lot of news outlets are really getting off on disaster pron.

Rixuraxu

A little education goes a long way, something that a lot of reporters lack.

This little article explains how modern nuclear reactors work and what has likely happened, and how "meltdown" may be kind of applicable to the situation but in no way reflects anything close to the Three Mile Island accident in the states, yet alone Chernobyl.
In truth I can't think of a country who would be better suited to handling such a situation than Japan.

http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

Dempsey

seamus wrote: »

The OP's point is that the headlines insinuate that there is a reactor going critical and exploding, when in reality these are controlled explosions (and therefore not really newsworthy).

RTE can be forgiven though when you look at the nonsense that the Indo are putting on their front page;

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/4091/151582.jpg

If they are controlled explosions then why are alot of people getting injured?

seamus

Dempsey wrote: »

If they are controlled explosions then why are alot of people getting injured?

Only a few people are getting injured.

"Controlled" is probably too nice a word for it. "Planned" or "Intentional" are more apt. It's an emergency scenario, these aren't run-of-the-mill processes.
The link in the post above yours explain it all very well.

Hard to say too. An injury could be anything from a burst eardrum from the blast, to a piece of masonry falling on someone's hand from the shockwave. Minor things in the scale of it - acceptable casualties. But they could also be serious injuries.

yammycat

seamus wrote: »

"Controlled" is probably too nice a word for it. "Planned" or "Intentional" are

they were neither planned nor intentional, far from it, it was known due to circumstances that there could be a hydrogen explosion that is all.

Dempsey

seamus wrote: »

Only a few people are getting injured.

"Controlled" is probably too nice a word for it. "Planned" or "Intentional" are more apt. It's an emergency scenario, these aren't run-of-the-mill processes.
The link in the post above yours explain it all very well.

Hard to say too. An injury could be anything from a burst eardrum from the blast, to a piece of masonry falling on someone's hand from the shockwave. Minor things in the scale of it - acceptable casualties. But they could also be serious injuries.

There are emergency procedures and they are probably following those.

I doubt they want any sort of explosion that could damage the containment or set off a partial meltdown.

Most likely some idiot went on a fag break :pac:

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

Only a few people are getting injured.

"Controlled" is probably too nice a word for it. "Planned" or "Intentional" are more apt. It's an emergency scenario, these aren't run-of-the-mill processes.
The link in the post above yours explain it all very well.

Hard to say too. An injury could be anything from a burst eardrum from the blast, to a piece of masonry falling on someone's hand from the shockwave. Minor things in the scale of it - acceptable casualties. But they could also be serious injuries.

would you still accept some foodstuffs and eat them this morning seamus?
"burst eardrum, piece of masonry" - don't make me laugh
any bright thoughts on what is happening now? pray tell. :rolleyes:

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

would you still accept some foodstuffs and eat them this morning seamus?

I would actually. As I said, just because something has been irradiated, doesn't mean that it's radioactive. We've yet to see any dangerous radioactive material released into the atmosphere.

any bright thoughts on what is happening now? pray tell. :rolleyes:

Sorry, my crystal ball must have failed me yesterday when I stated that it wasn't going to get any worse. No, wait, I didn't. :rolleyes:

We're still not in "everybody panic" mode yet. The plant is emitting radiation, but it hasn't released any radioactive materials. The levels are now high, but only dangerous if there is prolonged exposure. We're still a billion miles from a Chernobyl event and many many levels below a catastrophic meltdown event.

That's what's happening now.

Of course we're at the stage now that regardless of what happens, the anti-nuclear brigade won't be turned on how much of a disaster this is, having already decided that the wider Tokyo metropolitan area is now a radioactive wasteland :rolleyes:

Mister men

Seems about right to me.

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

I would actually. As I said, just because something has been irradiated, doesn't mean that it's radioactive. We've yet to see any dangerous radioactive material released into the atmosphere.
Sorry, my crystal ball must have failed me yesterday when I stated that it wasn't going to get any worse. No, wait, I didn't. :rolleyes:

We're still not in "everybody panic" mode yet. The plant is emitting radiation, but it hasn't released any radioactive materials. The levels are now high, but only dangerous if there is prolonged exposure. We're still a billion miles from a Chernobyl event and many many levels below a catastrophic meltdown event.

That's what's happening now.

Of course we're at the stage now that regardless of what happens, the anti-nuclear brigade won't be turned on how much of a disaster this is, having already decided that the wider Tokyo metropolitan area is now a radioactive wasteland :rolleyes:

don't you mean "thats what we ARE TOLD is happening now".

dolphin city

seamus wrote: »

I would actually. As I said, just because something has been irradiated, doesn't mean that it's radioactive. We've yet to see any dangerous radioactive material released into the atmosphere.
Sorry, my crystal ball must have failed me yesterday when I stated that it wasn't going to get any worse. No, wait, I didn't. :rolleyes:

We're still not in "everybody panic" mode yet. The plant is emitting radiation, but it hasn't released any radioactive materials. The levels are now high, but only dangerous if there is prolonged exposure. We're still a billion miles from a Chernobyl event and many many levels below a catastrophic meltdown event.

That's what's happening now.

Of course we're at the stage now that regardless of what happens, the anti-nuclear brigade won't be turned on how much of a disaster this is, having already decided that the wider Tokyo metropolitan area is now a radioactive wasteland :rolleyes:

I don't actually think it's the anti-nuclear brigade - I think it is anyone with a bit of common sense to be honest.

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

don't you mean "thats what we ARE TOLD is happening now".

Well I don't go in for conspiracy theories myself. That's not to say that the company are being entirely forthcoming, because that would be a miracle. But this isn't a government-owned reactor where they can control and co-ordinate everything. The company are relying on 3rd party support, including the government's, so they need to be forthcoming to them, which makes it much harder to control the information getting out into the public.
I have no doubt that they're downplaying it to a certain degree. When you see how hysterical the media get about downplayed information, it makes sense to downplay the facts a little, provided that by doing so you're not putting anyone in additional danger.

While I think they're downplaying the information, I don't think they're risking lives by doing so.

dolphin city wrote: »

I don't actually think it's the anti-nuclear brigade - I think it is anyone with a bit of common sense to be honest.

Common sense often doesn't apply with technology because people are hysterical about the word "radiation". Common sense says that using an internal combustion engine (which is thousands of tiny grenades per second exploding) in an enclosed space such as a car is asking for trouble.
Likewise it sounds insane that we would purposely create this kind of reactor but nuclear is still ridiculously safe.

chicken fingers

seamus wrote: »

They're being described as "hydrogen-related incidents" by many places.

Water of course, being 66% Hydrogen, that's a valid description, right?

LOL, just some graphite events, nothing to see here, move along!

I know this is AH and all and all but H2O doesnt just mean 2:1 ratio. You gotta look at the atomic masses, 16 for oxygen and 1 for hydrogen. They divide that out by moles per gram, blah blah yada yada. Its something like 12% hydrogen.

yammycat

nuclear plants cost a lot to build and maintain, the money should be invested in fusion power research.