I gave the paper a quick check and found that the equation is really a
/family/ of equations, because the X is a vector of values that
changes based on the research approach and the data set used.
Furthermore, a number of different equations are given in that paper,
not just the one Stefan copied (the HTML came out quite nicely -
thanks Stefan).
These are empirical relationships. In other words, researchers are
looking at the huge amount of data available about natural disasters
and are trying to find relationships in the data. We can't do better
than empirical relationships here, because the alternative would be to
conduct experiments - i.e. cause a natural disaster in a controlled
environment and observe.... rather silly idea, I think we all agree.
So I'd say right now there's a number of competing models (equations)
that correlate different factors together. That there are multiple
models tells me the matter is still open. It would be useful to
have a good model because it would help with developing contingency
plans - like how much of different resources should be stockpiled, and
could inform decisions like "should we build a nuclear facilty
/there/?"
Still, this research was done by economists, and I would remind us of
the old joke about economists existing to make weathermen look
good....
Cheers.
Fil
On 21 March 2011 04:49, Stefan Holmlid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I just found a formula to describe the direct costs from a natural disaster. It's published in the report "The Economics of Natural Disasters" by the Inter-American Development Bank.
>
>
>
> To read this properly you need to turn on HTML
>
> DISit =α +βXit +εit
>
>
>
> Or in long-hand DIS(index:it)=a+bX(index:it)+e(index:it)
>
> http://www.iadb.org/res/publications/pubfiles/pubIDB-WP-124.pdf
>
>
>
> It’ll be really interesting to see how this holds over a longer period with more data points. And whether the idea that there can be an equation for this will be embraced.
>
>
>
> /Stefan
>
> --------------
> Stefan Holmlid, associate prof Interaction & Service Design
> E: [log in to unmask] | P: +46 13 285633
> W: http://www.ida.liu.se/~ixs/ | T: @shlmld
> A: IDA, Linköping University, 581 83 LINKÖPING
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Filippo A. Salustri
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
>
>
>
> Jeffrey,
>
>
>
> NIMBYism is one of society's greater evils, a staggeringly arrogant
>
> position usually taken by those without the wits to see how
>
> mean-spirited they're being to their "neighbours." I don't deny
>
> NIMBYism exists, I just deny its place at the table of discussion.
>
>
>
> Sorry but energy gained is energy gained. I don't much care what the
>
> psychological impact is. This is why we're supposed to listen to
>
> experts. The psychological impact you speak of certainly exists, but
>
> it's wrong. The facts tell us otherwise. The way you write sounds
>
> like you actually believe that
>
>> energy gained
>
>> through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
>
>> burning organic fuel
>
>
>
> Do you honestly believe that? I hope not. And if not, then why are
>
> you assuming the voice of those who are wrong? Don't you see that as
>
> legitimizing their position?
>
>
>
> You also wrote:
>
>> I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
>
>> energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
>
>> measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions.
>
>
>
> Why? And how so? And how are the "large future unknowable and unknown
>
> repercussions" of nuclear energy any different from all kinds of other
>
> technologies, including petroleum, plastics, GM foods, rampant use of
>
> computers, etc. This is just the way things are. We can hope to
>
> someday achieve the enlightenment necessary to make sense of it all,
>
> but we can't just go back to living in caves while we wait for that
>
> enlightenment, can we?
>
>
>
>> It looks
>
>> like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
>
>> is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
>
>> energy shortage.
>
>
>
> On the contrary, I support certain types of nuclear power exactly
>
> because there is no energy shortage to speak of, even though we do
>
> waste a great deal of it. The problem is where the energy is coming
>
> from.
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
> Fil
>
>
>
> On 18 March 2011 22:56, jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Fil,
>
>> Typical 'permanent' and consolidated storage such as the Yucca Mt Proposal
>
>> do not get built and used because no one wants this in their backyard. We
>
>> can all bet that even if the political base of the final location is weak,
>
>> there will be strong opposition--an injustice in one part of the world has
>
>> the capacity to resonate throughout the entire globe, says Habermas!
>
>> Furthermore, I don't think insofar as nuclear wastes are concerned, applying
>
>> the kind of cost-benefit analysis (i.e., harvesting residual energy by
>
>> decay) is even the way to think about this issue. After all, energy gained
>
>> through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
>
>> burning organic fuel: the psychology of perception is vastly different. Just
>
>> like recycling our waste-water under water conservation policies in any arid
>
>> locale, the first battle has to be a psychological; and this entails a
>
>> deontological battle of conviction over simple utilitarianism. Similar logic
>
>> applies to medical isotopes.
>
>> I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
>
>> energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
>
>> measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions. It looks
>
>> like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
>
>> is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
>
>> energy shortage. If we as a civilization is driven about by the things we
>
>> have designed for the allocation of resources, then we have indeed lost
>
>> control and all talk of design and the designer is no longer valid or
>
>> relevant.
>
>> Finally, if we look at where are the places where nuclear plants are being
>
>> proposed, the correlation between rocketing population growth and a seeming
>
>> consensus to build them are quite telling. As a species, are we contend to
>
>> allow the paradox of rising populations diminish the probability of
>
>> populations down the road? A paradox indeed--and a frightening one. This is
>
>> one technology that we know how to build and harness, but we have no good
>
>> theory or practice of containment. I always thought we would have by now
>
>> invented robots and improvisatory measures to fight nuclear fires. The
>
>> helicopters dumping water and boric acid fire-fighting tell me that we don't
>
>> yet have very accountable measures in place. Until we have accountable
>
>> measures, it is the responsibility of a designing species to forestall any
>
>> further development of something that is patently harmful and unknowable
>
>> with long lasting undesirable consequences.
>
>> Jeffrey Chan
>
>>
>
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:27:02 -0400
>
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>
>>> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to
>
>>> Norman - a Fukushima solution by Germany
>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>>>
>
>>> It depends on the technology used.
>
>>> For instance, IF the Yucca Mountain repository ever gets built & used, the
>
>>> stored waste will generate enough heat to keep the ambient temperature at
>
>>> around 200C. You can boil water with that kind of heat. Which you can use
>
>>> to run turbines that generate electricity. And that heat source will be
>
>>> available for thousands of years. Wouldn't it be good to find a use for
>
>>> that nuclear waste?
>
>>> Also, if we used thorium based reactors, then we wouldn't get as much
>
>>> waste,
>
>>> and much of the nuclear byproduct would be highly-valued "medical
>
>>> isotopes."
>
>>>
>
>>> That said, I would not advocate to "depend on Nuclear energy for hundreds
>
>>> of
>
>>> years." It's a temporary measure, and, I think, a very good one.
>
>>>
>
>>> See my blog posting:
>
>>> http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/rethinking-nuclear/
>
>>>
>
>>> Cheers.
>
>>> Fil
>
>>>
>
>>> On 18 March 2011 13:27, Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> > I wonder how many spent fuel rods we will have to dispose of if we
>
>>> > depend
>
>>> > on
>
>>> > Nuclear energy for hundreds of years. It seems like lazy short term
>
>>> > thinking
>
>>> > again.
>
>>> >
>
>>> > Rob Curedale
>
>>> >
>
>>> > .....................................................................
>
>>> >
>
>>> > email: [log in to unmask]
>
>>> > url: www.curedale.com
>
>>> > address: PO Box 1153 Topanga CA 90290 USA
>
>>> > skype: rob.curedale
>
>>> > profile: http://tiny.cc/92p9t
>
>>> > twitter: @designresearch
>
>>> >
>
>>> > .....................................................................
>
>>> >
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> --
>
>>> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>
>>> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>
>>> Ryerson University
>
>>> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
>
>>> M5B 2K3, Canada
>
>>> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>
>>> Fax: 416/979-5265
>
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>
> Ryerson University
>
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
>
> M5B 2K3, Canada
>
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>
> Fax: 416/979-5265
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
