Current Fukishima headlines #2:

[kristopher]

15. It is refreshing to have a well reasoned position presented

I don't agree with your conclusions but it is now possible to see why our thought on the matter diverges. You are placing primacy on the role of a bureaucracy in shaping this hypothetical future response. I can't prove it, of course, but I'm personally certain that would not be the case.

As you noted the "notion of a logarithmic scale is meant to condition media reporting" - and in fact it has done just that; the pyramid imagery and the log scale of emissions are irrevocably linked. Consequently for good or ill the conceptual basis has been laid in the public and media's mind and will (IMO) be a determining factor in the way a 'megameltdown' shall we say, is eventually placed into the existing mental models of those interested.

I believe we can agree that the "rhetorical purposes" of the designers are well demonstrated by the article in post 8 - they were attempting to downplay the risk and reassure the public. They were convinced that Chernobyl was a one off event and did not take into consideration the unintended consequences of the choices made to achieve their "rhetorical purposes". Sure, they controlled the design of the tool, but they will not control the way the other 99.999999999999% of the world instinctively uses that tool to do the new task of talking about a 'megameltdown'.


Let's hope we never have to find out who is correct.