JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  March 2011

PHD-DESIGN March 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil

From:

jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:29:23 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (222 lines)

Hi Fil,
Responses to your questions:
1. 'Actuarial' data is data compiled through known cases based on a certain sample size. So even if you did not use the word 'actuarial', your suggestion that the probability of a nuclear related death is much smaller than that of a car crash directly implies an inference from actuarial data and logic. 
2. On data, you said data is the 'ONLY' thing that matters, and a sound logical argument is a distant second. Quite the contrary, a sound logical argument is perhaps the most important (I wouldn't close off other possibilities that are hitherto unknown) because without one, a data as a set of numbers or words cannot be organized and/or presented as a set of meaningful patterns for action. Furthermore, data cannot be the 'ONLY' thing that matters because how we use this data, and what is this data for, all matter and ultimately impact the act of data collection. I think by emphasizing on the paramount importance of data, you have conflated data as an entity and the way data is actually used. Clearly, the way data is practically use matters a great deal over the data itself: data has shown that a moderate amount of red wine helps our health. This data can be used both ways: (a) drink moderate amounts of red wine regularly (b) since the qualifier is 'moderate', maybe it is better to tell people not to drink red wine, since alcohol is addictive. As you can see, data doesn't do a thing until it is used or pitched in some way. By itself it does not activate practical choice or action; there is something beyond data that is doing the work. In other words, you cannot derive ought from is. 
3. You raised a question on why I trust risk debates more than singular statements from individual experts. The reason is twofold: (a) I like to hear more sides to the same story--even when some of it is sophistry or rhetorical contentions--when the issue is important and/or possess far flung implications; (b) novel possibilities ensue when there is a genuine debate, something that cannot be anticipated beforehand by any singular experts. On this, the emergence of these possibilities can also bring new people and their arguments into the midst. Clearly, there is a limit to this approach: we cannot let the forest burn while we debate how to save it (no pun intended on the climate change ordeal going on right now...). But if we solely depend on this expert or that, then it is a terrible gamble, IMO, on our part. This is a mysterious thing: how the world and its affairs have a developmental trajectory of their own while we bicker with our limited cognition and methods. Would the world overtake us? I am unsure but I will not be surprised if it does. This is why I say this is a mysterious thing: we do not have good tools to manage fast moving affairs in our complex environment yet even though we think we do. 
4. I do not live in the US but Singapore. I was acquainted with the health system in the US but in a flattening of the new economical (think neoliberal) landscape all organizations function similarly under an overriding set of survival mandates--healthcare or not. Does Canada have nuclear power? As I understand, NZ is nuclear free (correct me if I am wrong, Keith). Singapore is contemplating on nuclear power in the near future--probably nearer than I care to imagine. In fact, the entire South East Asian region is going nuclear. I think it will be one of those portable size reactors, possibly one of the newer Thorium reactors, for all the reasons advertised by the industry. So in fact, I will soon be living with this in my frontyard and backyard (Singapore is tiny). How's that for an irony? 
Best (and hope that this will provide some excitement along with your grading...),
Jeff 


> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:48:09 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Jeffrey et al, see the embedded comments.
> 
> On 21 March 2011 13:32, jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Fil,
> > You suggest that by accepting some undesirables on behalf of one's 'neighbor', one does not undermine society. But everyone must have a stand somewhere, right? Imagine if there is in fact a hypothetical individual as township or region in this world where this entity takes on this encompassing acceptance--all the refuse in this world will head straight there. Even if you accept on the first or second instances, there will come a point where the logic of free-ridership overrides your altruism, or capacity to be altruistic, whichever fails first. For this reason, your logic and practical choice, granted to be noble at first glance, is not sustainable in a wider community of autonomous agents.
> 
> If I was convinced by "experts" that the best course of action was to
> store a bunch of nuclear waste in my back yard, I'd accept it.  And
> then I'd move.  I don't have a problem with that.  And, I believe,
> neither should anyone else.  Why are you assuming that the people in
> whose backyards things would go, would not think of leaving that
> neighbourhood as a viable alternative?
> 
> ...let me qualify this a bit.  If they put the waste directly and
> literally in my back yard, I'd move and expect to be compensated for
> it.  If it were only figuratively in my back yard, so long as I was
> convinced that I was safe, I'd be just fine with it, and I'd continue
> to live wherever I was.
> 
> > You mentioned that someone would invent a new way of dealing with waste By induction, this line of thought brings to mind a whole slew of debates on technological fixes, which according to Jonas, is fundamentally predicated on a form of technological optimism--that subsequent technologies are capable of fixing the problems of prior technologies. If this was true, then we would not have something called Risk Society, don't you think?
> 
> That's not exactly what I wrote.  I believe you're referring to "It
> may be that someone will invent some new way of dealing with the
> waste."  So, it's not "would" but rather "could."  And I didn't commit
> to a technological solution.  I just said a "new way."
> I do not discount that we *may* come across a technological solution;
> it is one possible outcome.  I don't how likely it is.
> 
> BTW: I think that "technological optimism" is really just optimism
> about the humans who develop and use that technology.  If you accept
> that, then I'm happy to be labelled a technological optimist.
> 
> > I don't have a reference or a set of data to show that living near a nuclear waste dump would lead to a high rate of say, cancer, compared to living far away from it (or at least a critical distance). But not having that set of data does not undermine my case: similarly, no one would want to live near a chemical dump or an organic refuse dump for reasons beyond imagined or real threat to health--these places are not conducive to the prosperity and functioning of well-rounded communities. To the extent that we are not completely data-led to find new homes for ourselves in new neighborhoods, we do not need a piece of data to show a higher risks of cancer to warn us against living near nuclear dumps. I think for many dumps, they are not only buried so deep into the mountains under granite, but regionally cordoned off such that even if one wants to live near it, it may well be impossible.
> 
> Yes, it's likely true in most of the world that land would be
> appropriated and sequestered for use as a dump.  But that land might
> start out as land on which people live.  Think Three Gorges....
> 
> I was kidnapped by purple aliens who communicated in limericks last
> week.  I don't have supporting data, but that doesn't undermine my
> case.
> 
> I would say that data is the ONLY thing that matters.  A distant
> second would be a sound logical argument, but even those are suspect
> because the non-linear behaviour of physical systems is rarely
> captured well in any form except data.
> 
> Trivial, but relevant, example.  There's a claim that putting tennis
> balls in your clothes dryer will make the clothes dry faster.  It's a
> good logical argument: the balls bounce around and keep the clothes
> from getting tangled up and thus taking longer (more energy) to dry.
> I've never seen a proof of this, so I'm actually doing it.  We've run
> over 30 experiments.  We've not yet seen the effect.  We're still
> working on it, but it looks like the rational argument was defeated by
> factual data.
> 
> > Sure there is a difference between perceived risk and actual risk. But if the two are dissimilar, it does not follow from this that one is therefore true and the other false. In fact, both are true because they correspond empirically to the world. You cite actuarial data; but given a relatively smaller sample of nuclear deaths compared to the larger set on vehicular deaths, this actuarial risk data must therefore be only indicative, and hardly decisive for practical actions. Besides, do we really have any data on large scale catastrophes from nuclear disasters? No, and I hope not, 'not yet'. For this reason, where potential for large scale catastrophes is possible, actuarial data are considered 'fantasy documents'. The experience that Japan is undergoing now tells us so.
> 
> Did I use the word "actuarial"?  I think not.  I'm afraid we'll have
> to just disagree on this.  The actual risk is real; the perceived risk
> is mental.  The mental risk may "feel" true to the person experiencing
> it, but it isn't.
> Yes, extant data is only indicative.  But anything else is only a
> prediction.  And in case you haven't noticed, humans tend to suck at
> predicting things.
> We don't have data on large scale nuclear disasters except Chernobyl,
> which is an outlier to be disregarded when we talk about typical
> reactors in use or under design/construction.  But we do have usage
> data.  That is we know how many reactors have been used, how long
> they've been used, how many workers have been in them, etc.  We can
> compare that "exposure" to exposure in other situations/industries and
> see what falls out.  What falls out is that, compared to other types
> of exposure, nuclear reactors are "safe."
> 
> > To a great extent, I concur with you on the problem of where the wastes will go while 'we' argue about it. You are quite right: it is possibly safer to be locked under Yucca mountains than for it to sit in different locations near highly populated centers on the east coast of the US. This is a classic case of horned dilemma--I don't have a solution; I only have a reaction--that to reject it would prompt the outright banning of nuclear energy. Of course as you probably can see, this is not practical. We simply cannot afford a energy blackout for the sake of banning nuclear energy. Even if we tried cutting down now, our design commitments into all kinds of e-devices have committed us to an energy-hungry species.
> 
> Right.  Look, I'd rather not have nuclear reactors around - I'd rather
> have a Mr. Fusion from Back To The Future, or one of those beautifully
> transparent anti-matter reactors from Star Trek.  But while we figure
> all that stuff out, we need "base load" capacity.  I don't see any
> reasonable alternatives - for some sites - to nuclear power.  I *do*
> see choices of technology.  CANDU reactors are insanely safe compared
> to BWRs.  And thorium reactors should be even safer.
> 
> > You raised the possibility of trusting the experts. I think I can understand why and on what grounds. However, I think the issue is more complicated than simply 'trusting' or distrusting the experts. Just as a note, I don't trust my doctor because I have met enough doctors who seemed to represent their insurance groups more than they are concerned about my health. Similarly, I don't trust the experts personally because all experts, independent or institutional, have their own vested interests. But I trust public debates; I trust risk discourses: open, unfettered and discursive--where one expert argues against the another one, and perhaps with other watchdog groups. I find this to be more reliable, even though perhaps more fruitless in many cases, than outright trust or perhaps, distrust.
> 
> You think you understand why and on what grounds?  Care to explain that?
> 
> Jeffrey, do you live in the US?  Your line about doctors and insurance
> groups makes me think so.  I'm in the Evil Socialist State of Canada
> (or so it was termed by Crazy Joe, a veteran of both the Korean War
> and Colon cancer, who owns Crazy Joe's Smoke Shop in Palo Alto - true
> story!).  I can understand your position completely if you live in the
> States and are subject to the American-style health care system.
> Don't get me wrong, the Canadian system isn't all hugs & puppies, but
> it does have advantages.
> 
> Insofar as experts debating, I guess it depends on the issue.  I
> consider the debating to be something that most people shouldn't
> necessarily care about in any great detail.  They should be content
> with the consensus that comes out the back end, largely because
> they're unlikely to understand the details of the arguments made.
> Yes, it can be a long time coming, but the consensus is usually the
> best of the known possible solution.  I prefer the debates to be
> carried out in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences, and the
> consensuses (consensi?) being announced formally.  I strongly dislike
> the modern habit of announcing any scientific result to the media,
> even before sufficient validation and replication has been carried
> out.  This kind of thing usually causes more trouble than it's worth.
> 
> And perhaps "debate" is the wrong word.  The issues I'm talking about
> here are quantitative.  How good is this or that reactor?  What
> happens if it is struck by this or that kind of natural disaster?  How
> accurate is the simulation?  What assumptions were made?  Etc etc etc.
>  One doesn't "debate" those kinds of issues.
> 
> I can see debates mattering more in the more qualitative areas of
> decision-making, and there, yes, I'd be with you.  I just wasn't
> thinking of that when I wrote what I wrote.
> 
> > Yes, you are right: I am not against nuclear energy per se as a means to the end of producing lots of energy, but I am against nuclear fission I am not a nuclear physicist; and from the little I know, nuclear fusion produces alot more energy but produces alot less radioactive side-effects. Besides, if something is patently problematic, why are we still even interested to develop it further? To put this crudely, are 'we' as a species, patently foolish?
> 
> Fusion converts about 4% of the matter (hydrogen-y things) into energy.
> Fission on average (depends on what you're... fissing) converts about
> 0.1% of its mass into energy.
> So fusion can (ballpark) generate about 40x the energy of comparable
> fission reactors.  But fusion is now just about where fission was when
> Fermi was mucking about in the old stadium at U-Chicago.
> 
> The problem with fusion is that we still don't really understand how
> it works, except in... uncontrolled conditions.  Fission can be done
> with solid state fuel - which is comparatively easy to handle. Fusion,
> as far as we know, only happens with plasma, which is comparatively
> VERY difficult to handle.  Furthermore, extracting the heat is harder
> in fusion because to keep the reaction running you must isolate the
> fusing materials completely from the environment; whereas in fission,
> you can surround the fuel with material that carries the heat away to
> be turned into electricity.
> 
> Fusion is cleaner than fission - but we haven't figured out how to get
> a self-sustaining reaction.  The best effort to date, as I recall was
> a 1/2 second burst where the European JET reactor produced 1/2 as much
> energy as was put into the ignition process.  So fusion's no where
> near ready for prime time.  There's hope to get a reactor that
> produces more energy that's put into it by the end of this decade.
> 
> It will take about another 20 yrs after that before - assuming
> everything goes according to plan - before we can expect a sizeable
> population of fusion reactors to start coming online.
> 
> I'd say 30 yrs (optimistically) to 50 yrs before we start to see
> reasonable fusion reactors on our landscape.  Most /existent/ fission
> reactors won't last anywhere that long.  Therein lies the quandary.
> 
> Then there's cold fusion.  Dismissed as ridiculous science in the
> mainstream, there continues to be scientific study of the effect.  And
> it would appear that something is happening.  Whether it's really
> fusion or not is an open question.  One might tune one's browser to
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/
> 
> > You mentioned thorium reactors. I have heard about these reactors in the same way just like how certain car companies boast about cars that run on chocolates or undersea kites that generate electricity. In order that we even come to fully know about these new reactors, we have to put them to the test--over many years, and under a hosts of new contingencies. Until then, they are just as good as advertising rhetoric about the best cars, or best planes or the best engines--until every one of them catches fire or undergo uncontrolled acceleration. Safety until proven to be so--wouldn't you agree as an engineer that failures under duress are the best indicators of robustness?
> 
> They exist.  Indeed, the first working thorium reactor was running in
> the 1950s.  If we actually bothered to fund thorium reactors, we could
> get them running quite quickly.  They're not just rhetoric.  There are
> reactors in India that have been using thorium for years.  China has
> recently announced that they're going to push thorium reactors big
> time.
> 
> Here's an excerpt from an article in the Telegraph:
> "US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It
> has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating,
> longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope
> separation.
> The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for
> bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from
> old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner."
> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html)
> 
> Yes, we need to test these reactors much more, BUT the physics is
> promising.  If thorium is more abundant, safer, and cleaner than
> uranium, then it follows that thorium reactors will be that too.
> 
> > I hope you don't see this as a quibble. I find this discussion to be exhilarating and productive for my own thinking, and I hope the same for all who read our little debate. In this sense, we are merely carrying on the debates on nuclear risk in this forum--and I thank the moderator for permitting me to air my views against yours!
> 
> No quibble at all!
> 
> Cheers.
> Fil
> 
> > Best,
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/
 		 	   		  

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager