Nuclear Power

[Simon]

...tonight's Supermoon (the closest to the Earth in 18 years)...

If that is true, (and I have no reason to doubt it), then logically it must have been closer 18 years ago. What happened then?

[charles t]

I presume you have now realised that 3 of the 4 'corners' of the tectonic plate on which Japan, New Zealand + Chile sit have now had significant quakes within the last year or so - the 4th North Eastern corner is the San Andreas fault - not too far from you I suspect - due for a quake sometime soon though possibly not a force 9 though a smaller one wreaked havoc in 1906.

Frances - Yes, dreaded fault in vicinity:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38037974@N00/5019961745/

[Anna]

Hola Cassandra!

Gringo, 'e believe everything you say :)

Hola, the moon last light, that's a typo, but it was amazing, it loomed over the hills and was totally amazing and I awoke and thought I had left an energy lightbulb burning somewhere. The resulting frost was amazing and as thick as snow.

[Anna]

If that is true, (and I have no reason to doubt it), then logically it must have been closer 18 years ago. What happened then?

Everyone had to listen to Marc Anthony Turnage

[Simon]

[Frances_iom]

If we are to believe the Doomsayers and the Soothsayers, tonight's Supermoon (the closest to the Earth in 18 years) is to trigger seismic activities and abnormally high tides. Just to strike a cheerful note.

Mega quakes would appear to be somewhat grouped (rather like the apocryphal 47 bus . There would appear to be some correlation between solar minimina which has an approx 10 or 11yr cycle (we have just emerged from one

[MrGongGong]

"somewhat grouped " ???
there is a danger of confusing correlation with causation

[Frances_iom]

"somewhat grouped " ???
there is a danger of confusing correlation with causation

I was quite explicit in noting correlation - there might well be some underlying cause of both but I would find it difficult to see how any terrestrial event could influence the sunspot cycle - if there is a correlation (I only judged it by eye) + of course as the list of known megaquakes is only reasonably complete for the last 100 years which is only 10 or so sunspot cycles and as such megaquakes are by their definition rare, it may be nothing more than the usual human predeliction to see patterns in random events

[Lateralthinking1]

I should have thought that the definitions of "random" and "patterns" are what anyone wants them to be. No one has to fully subscribe to the invented language of mathematics as the ultimate authority on what is and what isn't.

I guess a good example of what many would consider questionable is astrology. Personally, I am not convinced of it as a science but equally I'm not sure that it matters.

For some time, I have been considering looking at the economic predictions of 100 astrologers and 100 bankers and economists just before everything went down the pan. My gut feeling is that the astrologers would have the edge on accuracy and for no particularly good reason.

I see that radiation is now in the food chain.

[Frances_iom]

.... No one has to fully subscribe to the invented language of mathematics as the ultimate authority on what is and what isn't.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Yes there will be radio nuclides in the food chain - just as there will be many petrochemical nasties in local fish due to total destruction of refineries etc + no doubt pollution of local rice paddies by similar destruction

[johnb]

I should have thought that the definitions of "random" and "patterns" are what anyone wants them to be. No one has to fully subscribe to the invented language of mathematics as the ultimate authority on what is and what isn't.

I guess a good example of what many would consider questionable is astrology. Personally, I am not convinced of it as a science but equally I'm not sure that it matters.

For some time, I have been considering looking at the economic predictions of 100 astrologers and 100 bankers and economists just before everything went down the pan. My gut feeling is that the astrologers would have the edge on accuracy and for no particularly good reason.

I see that radiation is now in the food chain.

I'm not at all sure what your point is here. Astrology is most definitely NOT a science (the idea that it is a science is ridiculous) and neither is economics (even though it employs mathematics).

[Edited]

[Frances_iom]

I'm not at all sure what your point is here. Astrology is most definitely NOT a science (the idea that it is a science is ridiculous) ...

Arthur Clarke 1981: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and the reaction from those ignorant of the basics of science cannot distinguish it from any other 'magic' claims.

Re Astrology I once had a request from a poster asking could I find his exact birth hour (during war when mother was interned) - from other comments I guessed astrology was involved so I pointed out that if the exact hour was something important that he had some 50+years of lifetime to which to play possible predictions backwards and match against his life - thus he should be in a good position to estimate his birth time probably to nearest second - never heard from said poster again (maybe he applied my algorithm ? tho I doubt it - possibly I should have introduced him to snake oil ?)

[Lateralthinking1]

Statistics and damned lies etc. Every day we hear disagreements about the "reality" of situations, past, present and future, based on disputes about numbers. Frequently, both sides are right in a mathematical sense. You need to observe closely how the words around them are used. Similarly, there are daily disputes between scientists on "realities". Climate change is a good example. There are hundreds more. By definition, much of this is "illusory". Magic in a way. And it isn't just about a lack of knowledge. First and foremost magic requires a magician, not a naive audience. It is the trickster who makes it happen. The same is true of mathematics, science and economics. Consistently be awestruck at their knowing sleight of hand.

That aside, the main point here is one about values. In defining reality, are you wedded to what you can see as cause and effect or would you rather reside in the realm of language to describe such things, for undoubtedly all things mentioned above are languages? To look at this another way, do you prefer to base your perception of reality on the direct witnessing of human experience, including suffering, and then choose or not to find patterns based on that? Or do you look at them indirectly through a prism of handed down interpretation, much as someone would in seeing everything through the prism of a religion? :cool2:

[Lateralthinking1]

.....Chernobyl - The reality behind the science. Warning - some of these pictures may cause upset.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chernobyl--24-years-on-1954969.html?action=Gallery

("Scientists estimate that Prypyat and the surrounding area will not be safe for human habitation for several centuries. They also estimate that the most dangerous radioactive elements will take up to 900 years to decay sufficiently to render the area safe").

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Nuclear power is akin to religious faith. Just believe in it and the problems will go away.