Comments by "SterileNeutrino" (@SterileNeutrino) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

  1. 77
  2. 61
  3. 43
  4. 41
  5. 41
  6. 29
  7. 27
  8. 26
  9. 26
  10. 21
  11. 20
  12. 18
  13. 15
  14. 14
  15. 14
  16. 14
  17. 13
  18. 13
  19. 12
  20. 12
  21. 10
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 9
  25. 9
  26. 9
  27. 8
  28. 8
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 8
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 6
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5
  51. 5
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. If Valery Vasiliev "scorch" citation is literally from "The Torygraph" (or sadly any other Brit publication really), you can assume he never said that. The RUS considers that territory "our land" inhabited by "our people" (whereas the Lvov junta considers them lower caste and expendable) and they won't "scorch" it or they would already have done so right up to Lvov, (which will become Polish in near future, but that's just by-the-by). On the other hand, as the Brits are so buddy-buddy with the Zelenskyy 3rd Reich regime, they could pick up the phone and tell "our bastard" to stop shelling the plant. One could even send Boris himself. Borrowing from *The Magical Distoring Mirrorworld of Ukraine's Fantasy War* by Aernur: > The Russians are bombing themselves as Amnesty International is labelled a terrorist organisation by Ukraine. > Donetsk City residents are suffering devastating foot injuries due to the placing of petal mines by its authorities so they can blame the Ukrainians. > Russia, having taken a nuclear power plant, is now firing artillery rounds from it to encourage Ukraine to fire back so as to start a second Chernobyl event. These things are in all seriousness being said by the Ukrainian president and government. (and, one might add, the "western 'free' press") The level of fabrication is on such an industrial level and occurring in every case possible that an entry into the Guinness Book of World Records appears unavoidable. Surely world weary journalists and editors look askance at such claims and greet them with acerbic statements and grimaces of barely concealed scepticism? *if only*
    4
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. A great article that should be read: "Systems Thinking 1.0 and Systems Thinking 2.0: Complexity science and a new conception of 'cause'" by Sidney Dekker. Insights from resilience engineering and complexity science all point to the importance of diversity [not the woke diversity]. Resilience in a complex system is the ability to recognize, adapt to and absorb problem disturbances without noticeable or consequential decrements in performance (Hollnagel, 2006). Diversity is a critical ingredient for resilience, because it gives a system the requisite variety that allows it to respond to disturbances. With diversity, a system has a larger number of perspectives to view a problem with and a larger repertoire of possible responses. Diversity means that routine scripts and learned responses do not get over-rehearsed and over-applied, but that an organization has different ways of dealing with situations and a richer store of perspectives and narratives to interpret them with. Systems that don’t exhibit diversity will be driven to pure exploitation of what they already know. Little else will be explored and nothing new will be learned; existing knowledge will be used to drive through decisions. This has been called a take-over by dominant logic, or group think (Janis, 1982). One of the positive feedback loops that starts working with these phenomena is selection. People who adhere to the dominant logic, or who are really good at expressing the priorities and preferences of the organization in how it balances production and risk, will excel and get promoted. This creates, reproduces and legitimates an upper management that believes in the dominant logic, which offers even more incentives for subordinates to adhere to it as well.
    1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. Wikipedia helpfully explains in an article laden with jargon and pedantic tut-tutting: > The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the subject of a conspiracy theory, which posits that the term was popularized by the CIA in order to discredit conspiratorial believers, particularly critics of the Warren Commission, by making them a target of ridicule.[59] In his 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America, the political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith wrote that the term entered everyday language in the United States after 1964, the year in which the Warren Commission published its findings on the Kennedy assassination, with The New York Times running five stories that year using the term. > In conspiracy theories, the conspirators are usually claimed to be acting with extreme malice.[62] As described by Robert Brotherton: > The malevolent intent assumed by most conspiracy theories goes far beyond everyday plots borne out of self-interest, corruption, cruelty, and criminality. The postulated conspirators are not merely people with selfish agendas or differing values. Rather, conspiracy theories postulate a black-and-white world in which good is struggling against evil. The general public is cast as the victim of organised persecution, and the motives of the alleged conspirators often verge on pure maniacal evil. At the very least, the conspirators are said to have an almost inhuman disregard for the basic liberty and well-being of the general population. More grandiose conspiracy theories portray the conspirators as being Evil Incarnate: of having caused all the ills from which we suffer, committing abominable acts of unthinkable cruelty on a routine basis, and striving ultimately to subvert or destroy everything we hold dear. Yes, these people DO exist.
    1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. More on this subject in a Q&A session (in Russian only: https://youtu.be/S2PPfthJUB8 ). A commenter writes (note that I don't think 72h emergency cooling is sufficient to cool the reactor after a SCRAM, so problem. Time to remove Ukrainian artillery from the board with extreme prejudice; I hope bombing Nikopol, from where the shells come, with thermobarics is not part of the contigency plan though) There was a recent program by Boris Martsinkevich concerning possibility of any serious disaster on ZAES (Zaporoshskaya NPP). it's in Russian, here's a short summary: - After Fukushima-1 disaster in 2011, it was checked to be compliant with the new security protocol. There were some things to change, but it was done. Also, there were 2 inspections - from IAEA and Euratom. - The main containment of the reactors can withstand a direct hit by 20 ton aircraft from above. Side walls are of 70cm thick armored concrete with additional 2cm steel layer inside. Anything less than said aircraft hitting it won't be able to do any significant damage. - Spent fuel holding pool is under the same containment, where it can't be hit either. If all reactors are stopped, water circulation in those pools is made using energy from reserve diesel generators - according to post-Fukushima protocol they must be able to do so for 72 hours at least - a time for the personnel to arrange for the external energy supply. Plus 48 hours on the battery. - Dry storage of irradiated nuclear fuel is under another similar containment. Fuel there is stored in certified transport containers. Each one of them can be drowned, exposed to open fire for up to 2 hours, withstand impact and so on. What IS possible - is the destruction of "open switchgear", in case of which it won't be possible to take out electricity and the reactors will be brought to the hard stop. It's problematic, but that's it. But the main point is that even if the containment of the reactor is breached, Chernobyl-type disaster with an explosion and wide range contamination is completely out of question in the case of VVER-1000 reactors. Even in the worst case it may be closer to Fukushima - largely a contained thing with 50-100 km exclusion zone.
    1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1