[O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

Oo-wee-oo!

 

Well, with search termas as biased as that, those are the links you're going
to find, aren't they? QED.

By some miracle, I found it easily by googling for "japanese comic book artist
predicted fukushima." And no links concerning the safety of Kodak's neutron
source came up. Therefore there must not be any links to the safety of Kodak's
neutron source. Which in turn must mean that Kodak must be a lying,
cost-cutting corporate demon, right?

Does that summarize your "reasoning" correctly?

What makes Wikipedia a definitive authority?

Why not remove the word "criticism" and the powerful bias it represents?

See above.

Google for "chemtrails." There are nearly nine million references. Therefore
chemtrails must be a reality ... right?

 

Golly, Gee! That's why I suggested those queries!

The point I'm trying to prove is not that the Tokyo Electric Power Company
did or did not fraudulently cut costs and build an unsafe reactor, only that
there is sufficient evidence for people to be suspicious when corporate
greed is coupled with nuclear devices to warrant caution. Hence, in the
case of Kodak, it is not unreasonable for people to want all the details
clarified.

If I were trying to prove your point for you, I would have suggested queries
more to your liking ... Doesn't that make sense?

No, once again, you (purposefully?) miss the point. I haven't tried to
conncet the disasters in any way other than to suggest that the general
public had cause to be suspicious in the case ofFukushima, as demonstrated
by the eventual disaster, hence, the concerns of those living in the
vicinity of the Kodak operation should also be taken seriously.

Close, but not quite, as detailed above...

It's actually a fairly good source. You might want to read, "The Last
Lecture" for more details.

OK, try Googling "fukushima unavoidable prventable" and see what comes up.
It's a neutral search term representing both sides of the issue. In
particular, you might want to listen to the Carnegie ITunes podcast that
shows up on the list ...

As noted above, I'm simply trying to show that, given the history of the
global nuclear industry, persons living in and around the Kodak site had
reason to be concerned. >

I couldn't say, the topic doesn't interest me...

But, these references in particular explain how, since 199, the
international nuclear energey comunity had reason to expect higher standards
than were adopted at Fukushima, that TEPCO knew of the reason why those
higher standards were expected but did nothing to meet them, that others
recognized the problem in Japan and upgraded at least one other reactor that
didn't blow during the tsunami because of the upgrades, and that the
Japanese government silenced at least one report that noted all of the
above.

All thise is grounds to suggest that corporate greed and nuclear energy is
not a good mix and warrants caution, as I've stated several times.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...evidence-ignored/story-e6frg6so-1226029356971

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/w...nings-of-nuclear-disaster.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.navhindtimes.in/opinion/fukushima-accident-was-avoidable

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/se/papers/se0403cb2-1625-4-e.pdf

 

Queries that deliberately produce results that are biased in a particular way
are not persuasive.

Your attempt to prove this point has thus far been unsuccessful.

The Kodak case has already been sufficiently clarified. Further details are
not necessary, as there was clearly no hazard to public safety.

No, it does not. Supporting an opinion requires objective evidence selected
without bias, not evidence that has been carefully sorted to exclude anything
that doesn't support the opinion.

In neither case has your point been made.

Ideally it should be lightyears away from your reasoning, if you wish to be
persuasive.

Wikipedia is a poor source when it comes to anything that generates
controversy.

That has the same bias.

No. A neutral search term would be "Fukushima," by itself.

In any case, Fukushima has nothing at all to do with a neutron flux generator
at Kodak, despite your attempts to somehow link the two.

The history of the global nuclear industry is one of unparalleled safety. I
don't see why this would provide reason for concern.

How long do you intend to continue talking about Fukushima? The nominal topic
of the thread is a neutron flux generator at Kodak, which has nothing to do
with Fukushima beyond the occasional occurrence of the word "nuclear" in
discussions thereof.

There is no evidence of corporate greed at Kodak.

 

You're confusing querying to find supporting details for a debate with
conducting an experiment to investigate a hypothesis ...

Why does that not surprise me?

You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, which would result in a
win for me in any debating forum I'm aware of...

From a strictly legal point of view, you are no doubt correct. But, from a
PR perspective, the handling of the situation clearly demonstrates poor
judgement on the part of Kodak; hence, there is "no wonder Kodak went
broke."

You haven't taken many courses in writing, / debating have you?

The idea is to argue a point, not present every detail of every study ever
conducted.

 

I'm not saying that before the tsunami nobody was of the opinion that
"Tokyo Electric made profits at the expense of Japanese public
safety". I was saying that it was not self-evident. If it had been
self-evident there would have been a great fuss about it as soon as
the plant was built.

 

Then why didn't you post links to and quotes from these various
examples?

What about the height of the protective walls?

 

No, I'm pointing out the blatant bias that you use to hunt for "evidence" that
supports only your pre-existing opinion.

It's not a contest, it's an illustration. I'm illustrating that you've adopted
your opinion from others, rather than developed one of your own. It's easier
to let other people think for you, until a situation arises in which you must
think for yourself.

From a rational point of view, I'm correct as well.

The PR incident came and went so quickly that no handling was necessary.

I'm naturally good at both.

When will you begin?

 

What do you mean by that ?
if you're looking for a particular point they are useful for that
purpose.

That doesn't make the point invalid does it.
All it means that it hasn;t been proved to you.

How would you know that unless you had sufficient information or
knowledge of the subject.

No it does not.

That doesn;t make any sense.

Theer;'s always been a consiracy as to whether or not man landed on
the moon.
In order to judge for myself I had to search for the evidence provided
by those that
dis-believe and those that believe. I needed to do that in porder to
form my own opinion.
For em toying in Did man land on the moon to google or ask jeeves was
not enough,
I wanted to go deeper so formj my own opinion and to do that I need to
have the opinions
and the evidence of others, searching out those opinions was
important.

I don;t think so as you can view the discussion and controversy, no
such thing in the encyclopepia britanica.
wiki also has link to referencies and sources if you wish to look
further into the subject.

Nothing wrong with that provided you look at more than just the first
or one result.

Hardly neutral as it's only showing things about Fukushima and listed
by hits or popularity.
Which is a problem if you're search fro the dangers of keeping
radioacive elements.
You may get the impression that the only danger they pose is if
destroyed by natrual causes.

Perhaps because at the time is was secret, unless you completly
undestand why it was secret.

How would you search for such a things, if I was searching for such a
thing I'd
try the easy route first and see if anyone else has come up with
anything I can investsigate.

Typing " corporate greed Kodak" would be a good starting point, but
maybe if you didn't want to find such things
out you'd use the seach "kittens kodak cute" that way you'd be
unlikely to find any results regarding coperate greed at kodak
which as you say would be the aim.

 

But that isn;t true, if yuo really are lookinh for evidence you
shouldn;t be
rejecting anything becaise the so called bias may poin tot rhe facts.

if you want info on the holocaust don;t you dare suggest Jewish
writers are biased so you
shoulnd;t look at their evidence. You should look at all evidence
biased evidence is usually easier to find
but it doesn;t make it wrong or not evidence.

Most peolpe do that.

Yes you seem to be proving that very point.
You;re the one stating what evidence should be loked at and what
shouldn't
don't forget that evidence is nearly always provided by someone else.

Yes I can see you can be consoidered a master bater

 

No, I think it's that I don't. In close calls I can recall, fight or flight
was not a factor and would not have helped. Rational behavior helped.

There are many astronauts, pilots, soldiers, etc., who will agree I'm sure.

You can panic when the emergency is over. If you panic during the emergency,
you're dead.

The Inuit didn't take flight from cold weather, but they are still around.

Emotion and panic are not rational processes at all. Both can be deadly.

Yes. If anything with "nuclear" in the name scares you, you'll definitely have
a perception very different from mine ... but not necessarily an accurate one.

Or they would be frightened for no reason. Like the change from NMR scanning
to MRI scanning.

They are just as dangerous as uninformed decisions.

By doing research, instead of guessing based on emotional impulses.

No, usually there is not. Just because something is unrevealed doesn't make it
bad.

They did, but they didn't anticipate such a large wave with such a high
probability.

I've heard that there's a saying in the military: two is one, and one is none.
Same principle, and I tend to agree with it. Ideally I like to have an extra
of everything, which allows me to use the first one more flexibly and with
greater reliability.

It's an illusion, and a dangerous one at that (like many illusions).

Yes, and pilots would be looking at the controls of their planes and not at
nuclear plants.

How can you tell which ones?

Three Mile Island has never killed anyone.

There are situations in which it's fine to let emotions control you,
particularly if those emotions are positive (empathy, compassion, etc.). But
in other situations, a failure to base your behavior on reason rather than
emotion can be fatal.

 

No. Uranium 238 has a half-life of slightly less than 4.5 billion years.
Uranium 235 has a half-life of a little over 700 million years.

Incidentally, the longer the half-life of an isotope, the less radioactive it
tends to be over a given amount of time. For this reason, uranium is only
weakly radioactive, and its hazard to people is correspondingly low. Plus,
it's everywhere, even in dirt, and especially in many types of rocks.

They are not simply well trained. They also have personalities that are devoid
of emotion in safety-of-life situations. That's something that you can't
really train into a person completely.

History and psychology. Once a person is emotional, you just tell him the
right things and he'll do whatever you want.

 

Facts can be verified again and again against multiple sources without change.

No, I did not.

I understand the dangers or lack thereof just as well as I understand the
theory and facts.

I do not depend on somebody else to tell me whether it's dangerous or not.

Opinions adopted from others cannot be defended. That's why people who have
such opinions become so upset when they are questioned.

He was not able to defend that opinion.

Opinions need not be original, but they should be the result of logical
analysis, not wholesale adoption from others.

 

A lack of bias will reveal the facts just as readily, and more reliably.

Many, but not all, Jewish writers on the Holocaust are biased. It's hard to
avoid.

Yes, but that doesn't make it a wise thing to do.

 

Most people go into debates with pre-existing conceptions ... even yourself
....>

Of course I've adopted my opinions from others. To develop one for myself,
I'd have to be working within that sector, which I'm not; hence, I have no
opportunity to do my own research. When was the last time you directed the
control room of a nuclear facility? If you don't work in the industry, or
at an academic research facility, you've adopted your opinion from the
research / papers / articles of others, as have I. I admit it, though; you
apparently don't.

I have no problem with that. Apparently, you do.

No, you are misleading yourself.

I didn't say it was an issue. I just said it is indicative of poor
judgement on the part of Kodak; hence, there is "no wonder Kodak went
broke."

Yes, I'd say your debating skills rank right up there with your powers of
observation, and your ability to document your work...


Funny, you aren't more celebrated ... >

As soon as you publish your observations ...

 

I engage people in debate when I know they are parroting opinions that they've
lazily adopted from others, instead of thinking for themselves. I force them
to think. Usually they don't like that, and often they aren't very good at it.

No. It's not difficult to look up facts yourself, and reason forwards from
those facts to conclusions you draw on your own. Of course, it does take a lot
more effort than letting someone else spoon-feed your opinions to you.

No, I have not. I've learned the facts, and I've reached my own conclusions. I
don't need someone else's research paper to draw conclusions for me.

It's your loss, not mine. I'm just trying to help.

Thank you.

I do not seek celebrity. It would be more of a hindrance than a help in many
cases.

 

Actually, they just get pissed off with you and become even more entrenched
in the opinion they have adopted -- regardless of why or how they've adopted
it ...

Actually, it IS quite
difficult for blind persons to look up facts. Try closing your eyes and
thumbing through a reference manual. Try it and tell me what you learn ...



your own. Of course, it does take a lot

But, if you don't come up with anything original, as in your case, why
bother?



Actually, it takes extraordinarily gifted people who are extraordinarily
interested in a subject to come up with something new. Most people are
content to read whatever literature is available and decide which side /
facet of the issue they agree with.

They should not be looked down upon simply because they agree with something
somebody else has already discovered / reasoned.

What original research / conclusion have you developed with all your
thoughtful contemplation? I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have an
original thought in your head.


Even your assertion that the nuclear industry is as safe as safe can be is
simply a parroting of corporate executives and government experts. The more
creative thinkers are the ones who question the status quo ...

If you like people who sift through tons of data and come up with their own
conclusion, look up a link to the Carnegie Institutes podcast on whether or
not Fukushima was preventable, it is quite interesting.


Or, better yet, if you want to read something about a truly independent
thinker who reasoned things out for himself and didn't give a damn about
what others thought, try Googling: Kotaku Wamura Fudai

Then, try telling me that nobody could have predicted the Fukushima
catastrophe ...

Your "observations" and "critical thinking" are pretty insignificant in
comparison.

From the research papers of others ...

and I've reached my own conclusions. I

So, if you have researched nuclear physics without reading anybody else's
papers, perhaps you'll enlighten every one as to how you arrived at the
exact same conclusions as all the corporate execs and government experts you
are parroting?

Enquiring minds are suspicious ...
Now, you are a mind reader?

I need no help. I'm quite comfortable with the opinions I've adopted.

What makes you think I need help?

I have opinions on the subjects that interest me. I agree with some experts
and disagree with others, as does every other person out there, expert or
not., even yourself.

That wasn't a compliment ...

That's the thing about celebrity. In most cases, celebrities become
celebrities, not because they seek it, but because others recognize their
genius.

 

That's their problme, not mine. Even if they do not profit from our
interaction, it can still be entertaining for myself and others.

That handicap didn't prevent you from reading and adopting the opinions of
others, which is no less difficult in a practical sense than looking up facts
instead.

The idea is not to come up with something original, the idea is to learn the
truth. The goal is not to create an impressionist painting, it's to perceive
the world clearly as it actually is.

There is never a new reality. Reality is already there, and it does not
change. Discovering reality is an interesting and very useful pursuit.

"Coming up with something new" is a creative process, unrelated to the
discovery of reality and nearly opposed to it.

Yes, they are lazy. But they run the risk of being egregiously wrong, and they
also run the psychological risk of seeing the opinions upon which they depend
for stability undermined or destroyed beneath them. This latter phenomenon is
what causes them to thrash desperately with strong emotion when their
indefensible opinions are questioned.

Opinions acquired in childhood or during a psychological crisis ("snapping")
are particularly important to individuals, so much so that they will continue
to defend them violently even when they know intellectually that the opinions
are incongruent with reality.

They are coasting through life, not using the brains that God gave them. It
hurts them and it hurts others.

All of my conclusions are my own, generally speaking. I only adopt opinions on
matters I consider too trivial to justify a more thorough analysis of my own.
These trivial matters are also too unimportant to form a basis for my
psychological well-being, so I'm free to adopt new opinions or develop some of
my own should that become cost-effective.

I don't recall saying that it's as safe as can be, only that it is very safe.

Most people are more afraid of an accident at a nuclear plant than they are of
smoking, even though the actual risks are precisely the opposite of what they
insist on imagining.

Only if there is a reason to question it, although I'm not sure what the
status quo has to do with this conversation.

I'll just look up the data myself. I don't need anyone else to draw
conclusions for me.

I prefer to be an independent thinker myself, rather than simply read about
one.

Why would I try to tell you that?

Not necessarily. Some facts don't require research papers. The atomic weight
of hydrogen is fairly easy to verify, for example, without consulting any
papers.

I don't know what conclusions they've reached, and I rather doubt that they
are unanimous in those conclusions.

No, enquiring minds are open.

Being comfortable is not the same as being right.

I see evidence that you are not thinking for yourself, which can only work to
your own detriment.

It's when you act on your opinions that their congruence with reality becomes
important.

Then why did you say "right UP there"?

Not so. Paris Hilton, for example, hired an expert publicist to make her a
celebrity, and so it came to pass. She is not a genius by any stretch of the
imagination, and doesn't even seem to possess any special skills or talent.
Many other examples could be cited. In fact, at times, "celebrity" and
"genius" seem mutually exclusive.

 

How do you know what rational behavour is ?
In very bright light we squint or cover our eyes, is that rational
or a flight or fight reaction where we automatically protect our eyes.
Even my cat does that.

That is a differnt senerio,, because of the situation required traing
for you to be in that situation.
Animals know for themselves that if they are in a fire they're flight
or fight tells them to get away from the fire.
Whereas you might prefer to set off a fire alarm, read the
instructions on a fire extingiusher or pull the emergency cord.
None of which get you away from danger so arent; adressing teh
original problem.
Remind me of a secratary here who on hearing teh fire alrm decided to
'panic' and go to the touilet as she
didn;t want to stand outside the building in the cold whie wanting to
pee. That's what rationalising teh situation did.

That was their life and they didn;t have anywhere to go, most animasl
moved to where they could hunt.
Most moved to Southren Europe driing the ice age.
Thats why most of precent mankind came from asia and Southern europe
and places of warm
as those that stuck to the cold climates werent as sucessful a species
from the point of population growth.

Depends on the degree, both can be none deadly too and even save a
life.
It is only our emotions that stop us eatign rotten food we don;t liek
the smell of rottening flesh
for a very good reason it's the flight responce stay clear because it
can kill.
That is also why children genrally prefer sweeter tasting stuff
because most poinsenous
plants taste bittor or sour so the natural flight reaction to sour
berries is to spit them out
not swallow, even animals have this inteligence.

Most peole also think it's advantagous to kiss a partner/lover but why
is this flight or fight well kissing was original used for passing
food humans don;t use that method any longer
but teh animal instict is still terhe isn;t it, it's not rational to
kiss, it passes diseases on and so does sex for that matter
so why is it improtant for teh species, any species , you want to
aplpy your ratiojnal responses to romence then go ahead.....

Lets here yuor rational reason for kissing........

But I work less than 100 yards from the old nuclear enginaerring
depament
I went to the reactor we had in marshgate lane.
If it scared me I wojh;lt have gone, but also having a healthy respect
for radioactivity is a good idea.

Or they might have a reason, that you fail to understand.

Your reaserch in to the half life or uranium didn;t go to well did it.
So hwo would you evalute such as thing is your reaserchy is a factor
of 1000 out.

it doesn;t make it bad, but most will be suspicvious that it's maybe
not good
and that is the best option, if someone ask me to move a box of metal
from place A to place B
and didn;lt given me a reason why they couldn't do it I might be
suspicious.

In the UK they built on previosuly floood ed areas not that the told
anyone and then a few years later the new
houses were flooded, what a suprise, now why dod the delelopers keep
it quite that they'd built on flood planes ?

Correct because they were basing it on records which is pretty much
all they could do.
I'ts easy with hindsight to say it should have been bigger.
In fact I'd have built it 100miles high enough that no one could fly
planes into it,
I said the same about the twin towers, they should have been better
protected.

yes but when someone else is holding the purse strings it get
difficult.
It's easy to decide to wera an extra jumper just incase it turns cold
but to spend a few million dollars
on a jumnper that;'s protect you from radioactive fallout due to an
enemy attack well how many do you own ?

It's called observation.

Luckily, but why did it happen ...
Why didn;t they have sufficint back up systems in place.
Did yuo hear about any possibilty that an aciidetn might happen
there......
Why wasn;t it knopw that such a thing could happen ?

Yes to what ?

Reason radioacive substances are dangerous, that is a fact.

 

which is also why throium reactors aren;t teh preferred but plutonium
fast
breedes were because they could produce weapons grade plutonium for
nuclear weaons
that;s teh reason the relatively risk nuclear reactors were build in
favour of the less dangerous ones.

i.e training.

You can in some but obviously not everyone otherwise eveyone could be
a fighter pilot.

Which is meaningless.