I gave you the cutoff for Level 7... and I showed you that they clearly deal with a scenario hundreds of times larger than that threshhold... but left it at a 7 because that's the top of the scale. They even explicitly stopped calculating much larger releases because once you get to a 7, there's nowhere else to go.
Don't you think you should contemplate this total inability to recognize when you're wrong? The evidence here couldn't be clearer yet you keep up the spin? Don't you think that damages any credibility you might have with others when you make other pronouncements?
As I said, it doesn't matter what the toolmaker says about how they think this is going to apply to an event that dwarfs Chernobyl, they aren't going to control the message.
That's an interesting attempt at spin. We've cleverly shifted from the claim that this is how the scale is designed, to a claim that the design is irrelevant and some imagined public outcry would force them to change the standard if a real "Chernobyl on steroids" were to occur one day.
I remember how hard you flogged the idea that it was a log scale when they upgraded Fukushima to a 7 in order to promote the idea that Fukushima wasn't really consequential at all.
Then you remember incorrectly (is anyone shocked?). What I did say was that the scale didn't make sense if Three Mile Island was really a 5. That Fukushima (at that time not thought to have released anything close to the current estimates) was many MANY times worse than TMI but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl (clarification - Esentially that there wasn't enough room between 5-7 to fit Fukushima and the only 6 on the scale.) The mistake I was making was the same one that you're making here... the assumption that Chernobyl was anywhere near the bottom end of the seven range.
In reality, Fukushima could easily be 100 times as bad as TMI and still be nowhere near Chernobyl... because Chernobyl is roughly 100 times as bad as the bottom end of Level 7.
= new reply since forum marked as read