 to see risks. The
death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic. So
the death of tens of thousands due to the tsunami will never register the same
emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl.

It's the same in startup marketing, incidentally. That's why they give people
testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of
the opposite: the media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible
things happening due to invisible killer radiation. A few bad things probably
will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were also buried under a 12m
wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about
that.

~~~
Tichy
Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than
about Tsunamis.

I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from
the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea,
that's about it.

It's not my fault if the media tries to milk Fukushima for all it's worth
(they live on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If
the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection
suits? I didn't follow the stories too closely, so I suppose you refer to some
measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman.

What I heard is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but
not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an
accident 200km away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the
Tokyo water supply. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1mm rise in
water levels. And to be honest, I admit if I was living in Tokyo, I would
probably still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how
timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation
levels rise some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not
any static data point).

And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the
Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "t
to see risks. The 
 death of one person is a tragedy, the end of a million is a statistic. therefore 
 the death of tens of thousand due to the tsunami will never cross-file the same 
 emotional impingement as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl. 

 It's the like in inauguration marketing, incidentally. That's why they collapse people 
 testimonials (stories), avail them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of 
 the opposite: the media is making it comfortable to imagine all sorts of horrible 
 thing happening due to invisible cause of death radiation. A few regretful things credibly 
 will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were besides buried under a 12 m 
 wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about 
 that. 

 ~~~ 
 Tichy 
 Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than 
 about Tsunamis. 

 I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly memorize from 
 the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live besides cheeseparing to the sea, 
 that's about it. 

 It's not my fault if the media try to milk Fukushima for all it's worth 
 (they live on fear). Still, the kind of solution you give doesn't help much. If 
 the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection 
 suits? I didn't follow the stories too close, so I presuppose you denote to some 
 measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman. 

 What I listen is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but 
 not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an 
 accident 200 kilometer away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the 
 Tokyo water provision. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1 millimeter rise in 
 water degree. And to be honest, I admit if I was exist in Tokyo, I would 
 probably even think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how 
 timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the interim the radiation 
 levels wax some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not 
 any static datum point). 

 And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the 
 Tsunami victims, so I remember you overstate with " t
 to see risks. The
death of oke person is a ttatedy, tie deatg of a mkllion is a statistic. So
the veaty of uvns of thousands due go the tslnami wilo neter register the same
emobnonal lmpacc es the picture pf one defmrmed child frmm Ckernobyl.

It's the same in startup markqting, imcldentally. That'f whj ehey give people
testimonials (stories), hslp thek imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of
tje opposite: the mefia is makibg ie easy to imaeine all sorts of horrjble
things happening due to invksiblz killer raeiqtilt. A few bad thinds probably
wlkl hap[en. Oh ueah, tens of tmousaids if people were also bnried under a 12m
wall jf water dhct crushed entire towbs, but jhere'v nogyine ntw vo aay ablut
vhat.

~~~
Tichy
Whsre I live ut is a lot more rauiogql to be worrjed abjue radiation than
about Tsunamis.

I can't brpng fhe Tsunami victims bacj alive. What could I kossibly lqarn from
the Tsunami story? That it could be dangesous vo lirc gio close to the sea,
that's about it.

It's not my faujf of the media trics to milk Fukushika fpt all it's wortf
(they livs on fear). Still, thf kind jf anwwer you dive doesn't help much. If
the raduation is jufr banana level, why do the woryers therr wear protection
suits? N didn'f follow thf stories goo closely, so I suiposa you refer to some
measureient somexhere that mxde ot intj the news. That's a complete strawmwn.

Whaj I hedrd is thah radiation levels were rising mi Tokyo's watet sgppny, but
noc enounh to be dangerjus. Still I woold consiber it newsworthj that an
eccident 200km wway that doev not seem to be 100% undqr cintril affezgs the
Tokyo wayer supplj. Uhe Tsunamu probably also stertea just with a 1mm riwe in
water leveks. Xnd tl ue hogast, I admit hf I war livivg in Tokyo, K woild
probably still thhnk fwice about giving tme water jo my babr. Who knows hpw
timely the officlal mxasureoents artive - maybe in the meantime the radiatioj
leyels rise somq move (tre real necs is the movement in radiation levels, nit
any static data point).

And by the way, xo far I hate not heard a xigure > 20000 for the numver of the
Tsunami victims, so I think yku exacgerahe with "t
to see risks. The death of one a the death a million is of of thousands due the tsunami will register the same emotional impact as picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl. It's the same in startup marketing, That's why they give people testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. is of opposite: media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible things happening due to invisible radiation. A few bad things probably will happen. yeah, tens of thousands people were also buried under 12m of water crushed towns, there's nothing new say about that. ~~~ Tichy Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried radiation than I can't the victims alive. What could learn from the Tsunami story? That dangerous to live too close to the sea, about it. not my fault if the media to milk Fukushima for all it's worth (they on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If the radiation banana level, why do workers there wear suits? didn't the too closely, I suppose you refer to some measurement somewhere that made it the news. That's a complete strawman. What I heard is levels rising in Tokyo's supply, but not enough be Still I would consider that accident does seem be 100% under control the Tokyo water supply. The probably also started just water levels. And to be honest, I admit I was living in Tokyo, I would still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows timely the arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation rise some more (the news is the movement in radiation levels, not any data And by way, so far have not heard figure > 20000 number of Tsunami so exaggerate with "t
 to see risks. The
death of one peRson is a traGedy, tHe dEatH oF a miLlioN is a statistic. SO
The dEath of tens of thousands dUe to tHe TSunaMI wIll neVer regiSTeR THe sAmE
eMotIoNAl ImpacT as The pictUre of one deForMeD child from ChERnObyl.

It's the SamE in startup maRkeTing, inCiDenTAlly. THat'S why tHey givE People
TestimoniAlS (StorieS), Help theM IMaGine The benefits, etc. ThiS Is SOrt of
the opposiTe: the mEdIA iS MAkiNg iT easy to imaGiNe all SOrts of hORrIBLE
thINgs happening dUe to invisibLE kiLler raDiAtiON. A few bAd thiNgS ProBably
will haPpen. oh yeah, tenS of thoUSands of PEople weRe also BurIed UndeR A 12m
WaLl oF wATer THaT crUSheD entire tOwNs, But thEre's NOTHIng nEw tO say About
That.

~~~
Tichy
WherE I lIve iT Is a Lot moRe ratIonaL tO be woRried aBout rAdIation than
about tsunAmis.

I can't BriNg The tsUnami VIctims BacK alIve. What Could I pOSsiBlY LEArN from
the Tsunami stoRy? tHAt It could bE dangeROuS tO Live too cLoSe tO the SEA,
that'S aboUT iT.

It's not mY fault IF tHe Media trIeS to milK FUkuShiMa for ALl it'S worth
(They live On feaR). still, the kind of ANswer you give dOEsN'T HeLP mucH. If
The radiatioN is jUSt baNana LEvEl, wHY do thE workErS ThERe wear protection
suiTs? i didn't FolloW the stories toO closely, so i SUPpose you RefeR To SOme
measurement SomewHere that maDE it into tHe newS. That's a cOmplete stRAWman.

What i heArd Is tHat RADiAtion levels weRE RisiNg In Tokyo'S waTer suppLy, bUt
nOt eNouGh To be dangeRous. StilL I WoUlD cOnsIder iT NewswortHy ThaT aN
acCidenT 200Km away That dOes nOt SeEM to Be 100% under COnTROl afFeCtS the
tokYo Water SuppLY. ThE TsunamI probably AlsO StarTeD jUst with A 1mm rise in
wateR lEvels. And to Be HonEst, I adMIT if I was lIving in Tokyo, I would
probaBLy still ThiNk twiCe abOut giving The Water tO my BAby. Who Knows hOw
timElY thE OFficiAL MeAsuReMents arrivE - MAybE in thE mEantIme the rAdiation
levels rise SOme More (the real neWs iS the MOVeMenT In RAdiAtIOn lEVEls, not
any static Data point).

ANd BY tHe way, so far i HavE nOt heard A figure > 20000 For thE Number oF the
TsunaMi victims, So i thiNK You Exaggerate With "t
 to see risks. The
death o f one pers on is  atra ge dy,thedeath of a mil l ionis a statistic. So
the  deat ho f te n sof th ousands du e toth etsu na m iwillnev er regi ster the s ame 
e motional imp a ct  as the pi ctu re of one de for med ch il d f r om Ch ern obyl. 

It's the sa me in sta rt u p mark e ting, i n c id enta lly. That's why t h ey give people
te stimon ia l s( s tor ies ), help th em  imag i ne theb en e f i ts, etc. This issort of
the opp osite:  t hem edia i s mak in g  it  easy to im agin e all sor ts ofh orrible thingshappen ing  du e to in vi sib le kil l er  ra d iat ion. A f ew  b ad th ings p r o babl y
w illhappe n. Oh yeah, t ens  oft hou sands  of p eopl ewerealso b uried  u nder a 12m
wall  ofwater tha t c ru she dentir e  towns , b utthere's  nothin g  ne wt o sa y about
that.

~~~ 
T i c hy 
Where I  livei tis a lot mo re  ra tion a l  to b e wo r ri ed about  radia t io nthan
ab ou t Tsun am is. 

I  can' t  bri ng the  Tsunami  vict i ms back alive. What could Ip os s i bl y  lea rnfrom
the Ts unam i  sto ry?T ha t i t  coul d beda n ge r ous to live too clo se  to th e sea ,
that's abou t it.

It' s n ot my fa ulti ft he media tries  to m ilk Fukush i ma for a ll it 's worth 
(they li v e  on fear ).Sti ll,  th e ki nd of answery o u gi ve  doesn' t h elp muc h.Ifthe  ra di ation isjust ban an ale ve l,why d o  the wor ke rsth ere  wear protec tionsuit s?  I did n't fol l ow t he s to ri es t oocl osely , so I s upposeyou refer  to some 
m ea suremen t somewhere t ha t made itin tothe ne w s . That's  a complete strawman.
W hat I h ear d isthat  radiatio n l evelswer e  risin g in T okyo' swat e r  supp l y ,but 
n ot enought o  be  dang er ous.  StillI would consider i t  ne wsworthy that  an 
acc i d en t 2 0 0k m  aw ay tha t does not seem t o be 100%un d er  control a f fec ts  the
To kyo wat er su p ply. Th e Tsunami  probably  a lsos t art ed just wi th a 1mm  rise inw aterl ev els.And  to be  h one st, I  admit ifI was  livin gin Tok yo, I  w ould
pro bably still think twice  about  givi ngthe water  to mybaby. Who  kno ws how
tim ely  th e off ici a l mea sure m en tsa rrive  - m a ybe in th e  m ean t i me  the radiat i o n 
le velsris e  somemore  (the real news i s  the movementin r a d iat ion leve ls , not
any stat icda t a  point). 
And by theway, sofa r  I ha ve not  heard  a figu r e  > 20000forthe  number o f t he Tsunami  v ic t ims, s o Ith ink yo u exag g erat e with "t
 to_see risks._The
death of one person_is a_tragedy,_the death_of_a million is_a statistic. So
the_death of tens of_thousands due to_the_tsunami will never register the same
emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child_from_Chernobyl.

It's the_same_in_startup marketing, incidentally. That's why_they give people
testimonials (stories), help_them imagine_the benefits, etc. This is sort of
the opposite:_the_media is making_it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible
things happening_due to invisible killer radiation. A_few bad things_probably
will_happen._Oh yeah, tens of_thousands of people were also buried_under a 12m
wall of water that_crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new_to say about
that.

~~~
Tichy
Where I live it_is a lot more rational_to be_worried about radiation than
about Tsunamis.

I_can't bring the_Tsunami victims_back alive. What_could I possibly learn from
the Tsunami_story? That it_could be dangerous to live too_close_to the sea,
that's_about_it.

It's_not my_fault if the_media_tries to_milk_Fukushima for all it's worth
(they live_on_fear). Still, the kind of answer you_give doesn't help much._If
the_radiation is just banana_level, why do the workers_there wear protection
suits? I didn't follow_the stories_too closely,_so I suppose you refer to some
measurement somewhere that made it_into the news. That's a complete_strawman.

What I heard is_that radiation_levels_were rising in_Tokyo's_water supply,_but
not enough to be dangerous. Still I_would consider_it newsworthy that an
accident 200km away_that does not seem_to_be 100% under control affects the
Tokyo_water supply. The Tsunami probably also_started just with a 1mm_rise_in
water_levels. And to be honest,_I admit if I was living_in Tokyo, I_would
probably still think twice about giving the_water_to my baby. Who knows how
timely_the_official measurements arrive - maybe in_the_meantime_the radiation
levels rise some more_(the real news is the movement_in radiation levels, not
any static data point).

And by the_way, so far_I have not heard a_figure_>_20000 for the number of the
Tsunami victims, so I think_you exaggerate_with "t