Additional 23 workers exposed to high radiation

[FBaggins]

The health ministry says that another 23 workers at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant may have been exposed internally to over 100 millisieverts of radiation. The ministry on Tuesday told plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company to immediately release the workers from duty.

The ministry said keeping the employees at the plant may push their exposure over the temporary-set limit of 250 millisieverts. The government relaxed the limit for plant workers from 100 millisieverts after the nuclear accident in March as an emergency measure.

The ministry also instructed TEPCO to have the 23 workers undergo medical exams.

TEPCO previously announced that 2 employees were exposed to over 600 millisieverts. On Monday, the firm said that 6 more workers were thought to have been exposed to up to about 500 millisieverts. TEPCO is screening about 3,700 workers at the plant for exposure. The tests for about 600 have not been completed. The ministry is urging the firm to finish the tests by June 20th and submit the results.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/14_22.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. Very sad. I just watched an excellent documentary about the bio-robots of Chernobyl last ight.

About 500,000 people actively worked on cleaning up the radioactive debris. Some spent as little as 45 seconds during their entire active duty, but still received an enormous dose of deadly radiation from radioactive graphite on the roof of Chernobyl, which was the most heavily radioactive area outside of the melted core, itself.

45 seconds. That's two small shovel-fulls and then running away to safety. Still, at least two soldiers died simply from this brief period of exposure.

The documentary is HERE, viewable on YouTube in its entirety.

PB

[FBaggins]

2. And some estimates are higher (600k to as many as a million)

Then there's the population at large that was exposed as well.

IIRC, there were roughly 10,000 people with estimated doses above the 100 mSv line for Chernobyl. A MUCH larger number if you look at just the thyroid dose (in kids the average dose among the evacuees was 1Gy)

But getting back to the liquidators. I've seen at least one estimate that said that their average dose was well over that line (at least for those who worked there in the first few months).


For all the mistakes the Japanese have made in the last few months, they've done a great job of keeping their workers (comparatively) safe in a very trying environment.

[CJvR]

4. Very different situations.

The Japanese, despite the H2 fireworks, essentially have reactors inside leaky containment units.
The Soviets had a big part of a reactor without containment scattered all over the landscape.

The biggest fuck-up at Chernobyl, other than blowing the reactor in the first place, was the delayed warning - combined with a certain Iodine deficiency in the population at the time. A disastrous combination under the circumstances.

[FBaggins]

5. Of course it is. But not to some of the usual suspects here.

They're both reactors... and now they're both INES 7s... so they're the same. In fact... Fukushima is "Chernobyl on steroids".

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

6. Chernobyl had a containment building.

It wasn't a good one, but they did have a containment building around the reactor.

[CJvR]

7. No they didn't.

The reactor was contained only be the fact that it was located inside a building, that is not a containment structure it's just a building.

[kristopher]

10. Someone here posted a schematic of the plant from prepropaganda times

And the structure it is in was clearly labeled as containment structure. That is why it had a (IIRC) 23 ton lid on it for access.

"Buildings" don't have 23 ton lids do they?

[FBaggins]

12. You fell for that?

Not much of a surprise I suppose.

The reactor was designed to be refueled without shutting down. It's threfore impossible to incorporate anything like an actual containment.

That 23-ton lid was capable of handling 26 PSI.

A fraudulent label doesn't change that.

[kristopher]

14. You have no basis for stating the label was fraudulent.

ETA: The ethical question that should be examined is that given there was a containment system in place, why is it so important to the nuclear industry to make people think there wasn't?

[FBaggins]

17. And you have none to say that it's at all genuine.

Though we could start by questioning how many Soviet originals from the 80s were actually labeled in english. :rofl:


The difference is that regardless of how it's labeled, that isn't a containment.

Fukushima had one... Chernobyl didn't. And it made all the difference in the world.

[CJvR]

19. Actually...

...the whole lid of the reactor weighed about 1200 tons IIRC and it was blasted through the roof by the explosion. But that was a part of the reactor itself and not a part of any additional containment structure, it was the first and last line of defence. In a western style reactor those parts are encased by the main reactor tank and then the containment structure is wrapped around the tank.

[kristopher]

20. It was clearly a structure exterior to the reactor, not part of the reactor.

It looked very much like the part of the Fukushima reactors where the corium is currently "contained".

I believed that there was no containment before seeing the schematic that was posted by Fleidermous, but since, the claim that Chernobyl didn't have "containment" appears to me to be nuclear industry whitewashing.

[CJvR]

23. It was...

...a 3000 MW reactor IIRC - did you think you could have power generation on that scale without heavy components? The reactor was solidly built because it had to be to operate properly. But that does not equal containment.

[FBaggins]

25. What was between the lid and the core if it's "exterior" to the reactor?

Fairies?

[Nederland]

28. Someone also posted a picture of the containment structure windows

I suspect the fact that the structure was labeled "containment structure" is a case of poor translation. Regardless, what word you choose to use to describe the building is irrelevant. If you want to use that same word to describe a structure that has windows and a structure that is an air-tight and made of reinforced concrete you are perfectly welcome to. Just don't expect anyone to believe that just because you are using the same word to describe them that means they are the same when it comes to their ability to contain radiation. They aren't.

[FBaggins]

8. Can you speculate about the ethical perspective of nuclear (o)ponents who would engage in...

...redefining "containmnet" in a way that is completely different than is used globally?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

11. Sure, I'm happy to.

If there were such a case, but as far as I know it doesn't exist. What I believe has happened is that the nuclear proponents have redefined the term, not the opponents.

Chernobyl HAD a containment system; clearly labeled as such in contemporaneous literature. What it didn't have was a containment system that was designed to the principles that guide the current designs.

I'd speculate that the nuclear industry found that saying it was a "different design" was far less reassuring to people than simply making the false claim that Chernobyl had NO containment, and started saying that it even though it wasn't accurate. I'd guess it was initially rationalized by a belief that the difference in principles of design was sufficient to support their inaccuracy if called on it.

The ethical question that should be examined is that given there was a containment system in place, why is it so important to the nuclear industry to make people think there wasn't?

[FBaggins]

15. You seem desperate to spin.

Getting dizzy yet?


"The Chernobyl reactor, like all Soviet reactors of this type, and contrary to some earlier press reports, did not have a containment building over the reactor. (Some of the large pressurized-water-type reactors in the Soviet Union do have containment.) According to the Russian report: “A light cylindrical housing (casing) enclosed the space of the graphite block structure.” It serves to keep air away from the hot graphite. There is a shielding deck of thick concrete blocks to protect personnel against radiation, but portions are held down only by gravity. If several of the approximately 1,700 pressurized tubes in the reactor burst suddenly due to overheating, there is ample force and pressure available to rupture the thin cylindrical vessel and to lift sections of this deck, opening a direct communication between the reactor compartment and the large reactor hall over the top of the reactor. The latter is an ordinary factory type structure, not designed to hold pressure. The overpressure in the hall when the reactor deck failed for whatever reason immediately blew off most of the roof and large parts of the side walls."

[kristopher]

16. That is post event spin and doesn't prove your claim.

Lacking such proof the clearly labeled schematic rules.

The ethical question that should be examined is that given there was a containment system in place, why is it so important to the nuclear industry to make people think there wasn't?

[FBaggins]

18. You're the one playing dishonest word games

Whether they hypnotized everyone into using a new definition or not, the point remains unchanged. There was a significant design difference between Chernobyl and western reactors. You can't magic that away by saying "well they actually used the same word for different things!"

Whatever the word is... the actual thing was very different.

Whether you want to pretend that the word meant something different at one point isn't really all that important. It DOES mean something NOW and it ISN'T how you elected to use the word. That is an ethical issue.

[kristopher]

21. I'm not the one redefining terms, the nuclear industry seems to have done that

And there doesn't appear to be any reason for it except to manipulate public opinion.

Compare:

A: The Chernobyl reactor containment system wasn't as good as what we use.

B: The Chernobyl reactor didn't have a containment system, our reactors do.

[FBaggins]

27. Can you back it up with something other than what you wish?

A wikipedia graphic with an english label isn't particularly persuasive.

except to manipulate public opinion.

Not manipulate... educate. An education which you never accepted, but which Fukushima has proven correct.

The design differences are legitimate and significant.

[SpoonFed]

32. Yeah

That sounds about right. You forgot the nauseating postscript of proponents getting called on it. Chalk it up there with melt-through and the new breach v2011.

[TheWraith]

9. No, it didn't. Your facts are wrong.

Chernobyl did not have a containment structure.

[kristopher]

13. Here is how you can prove that.

Get a schematic of the Chernobyl plant drawn and dated BEFORE the meltdown and let's see what that structure is labeled. Fleidermous (sp?) went to the trouble of doing that and in the schematic he posted it was clearly labeled "containment".

I have no trouble believing the nuclear industry has redefined terms in a self serving fashion in order to downplay the event at Chernobyl.

[CJvR]

22. Do your own digging.

You are the one making the silly claim so it is up to you to prove it.

ps: If it is any consolation I seriously doubt any containment ever built could have withstood the Chernobyl blast, it was simply to powerful, but it would have made it far easier to deal with the following meltdown if the reactor had been built with a proper containment structure.

[FBaggins]

26. re: No containment could withstand the Chernobyl blast.

That's almost certainly true, but the Chernobyl core architecture that was partially responsible for the incident wouldn't fit inside a real containment structure anyway.

[NickB79]

24. Do you recall the pictures posted in that thread?

You know, the ones where the "containment building" has WINDOWS in it?

[kristopher]

29. Ok let's wrap this Chernobyl Containment up with the facts from both sides.

Here is the schematic diagram Fledermaus posted that I referred to.


Fledermaus also posted a quote from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 1986 issue where it was clearly stated that Chernobyl DID have a containment building. Here is his post:

Before the accident many Western analysts had assumed that the Chernobyl reactors had no containment buildings As attention was focused on the plant, however, it became apparent that the design does include a containment system somewhat like that used for boiling-water reactors(one of two types of light-water reactors). The system was designed around the assumption that the most serious accident will be a rupture of one of the large pipes in the colling circuit; as the diagram shows, these are located in concrete-walled compartments. If a pipe ruptured, the released radioactive steam would be directed from thees compartments to pool of water located on above the other in the basement. The steam would condense as it bubbled through the water.

This sort of containment reflects a design philosophy common to light-water reactors as well- focused on a rupture of large pipes , and assumes that the emergency reactor cooling system would be successfully activated in the event of such a rupture, preventing sever fuel damage.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug-Sep 1986

-What Happened at Reactor Four, by Gordon Thompson

http://books.google.com/books?id=ngYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=chernobyl+reactor+schematic&source=bl&ots=W41F3qgb0N&sig=2ixVHNSiHEPG6Vy0RjZPUZ8liNY&hl=en&ei=gNz3TfK9G-qv0AGZzqCcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=chernobyl%20reactor%20schematic&f=false


Our ever over-eager FBaggins responded with this claim:

That error was corrected in the same magazine just a couple months later. Think anyone wonders how you ended up still believing the mistake? You're desperately googling around trying to find some evidence that your earlier statements were not in error.

Far simpler to just accept that you were wrong. Sorry.

In spite of repeated requests to provide a proper cite, Baggins never did.
He was forced to add a bit of information however, that allowed me to track down and check his claims.

You can see the entire exchange here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x273992

The claim made by FBaggins was "that error was corrected". In fact, it was not. The statement in the previous issue of BAS was not specifically challenged at all, and the wording appears to be carefully chosen to avoid a specific discussion with dissident opinion that might center around the idea of Chernobyl and its safety systems, including its containment.

What Baggins points to is an article where Blethe, speaking for a "special American panel" that examined the accident, felt it was important to share the "preliminary" findings of their report before the Russians provided their report to the IAEA.
His third bullet point deals with the issue of containment. He doesn't say that the Chernobyl reactor has "no containment" but rather that it had "no containment building over the reactor". That is the closest thing to a direct statement on the subject that the article contains, although there are several other areas where the reader is left to infer that Chernobyl reactor #4 had no containment.

In the earlier Aug-Sep 86 issue of BAS that Fledermaus referenced (it was a special issue on Chernobyl) there was several discussions of the matter, including an article titled "The US Media Slant" by William Dorman and Daniel Hirsch, where the media was taken to task for uncritically exaggerating immediate fatalities at the behest of the Reagan administration spokesmen in a Cold War PR campaign to discredit Soviet technology and expertise.

The same article however, reports that The US nuclear industry appeared to be distancing itself from the Soviet accident to avoid having tighter regulations imposed. It goes on to tell us that

...The New York Times, belatedly but to its credit, pointed out some three weeks after the accident: “Nuclear proponents and industry officials have tried to minimize Chernobyl’s relevance to American power plant operations by contending that American units have better features.” The article quoted a mailing to reporters from the Atomic Industrial Forum as flatly stating that Chernobyl had no containment structure, and cited industry sponsored advertisements claiming that many Soviet reactors – including those at Chernobyl – lack the steel and reinforced concrete containment structures common to US reactors.

Similar views were advanced by spokespersons for the Electric Power Research Institute – Chernobyl “was not encased in a reinforced-concrete containment building, as is required of reactors in the United States” and therefore “there was nothing to to stop” radioactivity escaping from the plant – and the Edison Electric Institute: “We have not and will not have a Chernobyl-type plant accident here”

<snip>

The impression conveyed by the news media during the early stages of the accident was that Americans had little to fear from a Chernobyl-like disaster. Virtually absent in news columns as well as editorials was the perspective that the real lesson to be learned from Chernobyl was the fallibility of complex technology, not Soviet backwardness.

In particular, editorial writers seemed quick to accept the industry’s contentions about the total lack of containment at Chernobyl. As early as April 30, the Los Angeles Times told readers: “Minimum safety standards … clearly have not been met in the Soviet Union, where most nuclear reactors – apparently including the ill-fated plant at Chernobyl – do not have containment structures of the sort that are almost universal outside Russia.” A May 2 editorial in the San Jose Mercury News echoed these views with the conclusion that “the USSR simply has not built safe reactors” According to the Mercury the Soviets “have been exposed as reckless with the atom”.

The article goes on several more paragraph detailing examples where the containment issue and the overall state of Soviet nuclear technology were used to misrepresent the level of safety practiced by the Soviets. It finally concludes with the assertion that “while uncertainty remains about the nature of containment at Chernobyl, it is clear that flat claims of “no containment” were overreaching.”


The next article “A nuclear power advocate reflects on Chernobyl” states;

...A central question is the relevance of the experience at Chernobyl to the Western world’s lightwater reactors – in particular, whether the massive, and quite leak-tight, containment structures around such Western reactors would have mitigated the consequences of a Chernobyl-like accident. Although important arguments have been made that the Western containments are more substantial than the Chernobyl containment, I am inclined to await detailed comparison before answering this question.”

I stand by my earlier assessment that the idea and term "containment" was redefined by the nuclear industry to aid an effort to scapegoat the Russian nuclear program and technology in order to protect their profits. I can add that this also served political objectives related to Cold War tensions. It is clear that observers of the nuclear industry of the time saw it that way also.

The nuclear industry use of propaganda techniques never ends...

[FBaggins]

30. Are you serious? THAT is the diagram you've been spinning?

I was giving you far too much credit. I assumed you were being truthful and there was some pre-1986 diagram from Russia that actually labeled it a "containment" and I had just missed it.

Instead your source is a high school project by three students from NJ that came in third place in the 19 and under category in 1996?

Have even you ever stepped in a steaming pile that deep? :rofl:

In spite of repeated requests to provide a proper cite, Baggins never did.

Bull. I gave a clear citation mere minutes later. It just isn't possible to link to it because of the source.

I even transcribed it for him later
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=274117&mesg_id=274117

As for your nonsense spin about some difference between "containment" and "containment building":

1) You claimed it had a containment building. So even if the words meant something different (they don't), it would still directly contradict you.
2) You might try looking the term up. "Containment building" also refers to the primary containment.

[kristopher]

31. The references and quotes from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists make it clear you're full of it.

It simply isn't arguable, Baggins, that Chernobyl had containment and that th US nuclear industry deliberately used that canard to scapegoat the Russian program. It can be inferred from their indisputable actions that their motive was to avoid increased regulation and thereby protect their profits.


As to the diagram, that is one of I believe 3 that Fledermaus posted. Just for you I'll try to track down the one I remember as being more a more technical and contemporaneous document.

As for you claim that you couldn't link to it, that too is bullcrap since I was able to link to the previous issue of the same journal. You were just employing one of your standard distasteful strategies to obstruct real discussion.

[FBaggins]

34. Even your highschool image doesn't say what you claimed it did

Note that the core is not in that containment line. If you read the rest of their site you'll see that they quote an older piece saying that the russians decided to put the piping under the reactor into containment but that they couldn't put there core there. In fact, that's what the soviet sources were really saying in some of that spin from the earlier (debunked) article. As Fledermaus himself proved, the LID couldn't hold anything close to western pressures, but yet they said that their containment could handle higher pressures than some western reactors. They were talking about the "containment" that was under the reactor for the piping. Don't get me wrong, they were right to think that there was the most likely cause of danger so it was a good idea to enclose the spaces, but it's clear that they only contained that area because that's all they COULD contain. As has been pointed out multiple times. If the top of the reactor has to be opened while operating it isn't possible to have the core in containment. Even Fledermaus' OP says this if you read it correctly.


You're right. It isn't arguable. Yet you keep trying.

As for you claim that you couldn't link to it, that too is bullcrap since I was able to link to the previous issue

Maybe your spam practice makes you better at linking. I haven't figured out how to consistently link to google books results correctly. But I gave the source publication, the author the month it was published and the page number. That is a complete citation no matter how you choose to spin it. I then even went to the trouble of transcribing it.

As to the diagram, that is one of I believe 3 that Fledermaus posted.

None of which were contemporary design documents. Good luck finding one. Some of his other linked graphics actually said "no upper containment" and "industrial building" but he just blustered on.

[kristopher]

38. There are too many people quoted in post 29 that go against you Baggins.

And that brings us back to the question I asked at the end of my response to you on ethics:

Baggins (post 8):
Can you speculate about the ethical perspective of nuclear (o)ponents who would engage in redefining "containmnet" in a way that is completely different than is used globally?



kristopher (post 11:
Reply #8 Sure, I'm happy to. If there were such a case, but as far as I know it doesn't exist. What I believe has happened is that the nuclear proponents have redefined the term, not the opponents.

Chernobyl HAD a containment system; clearly labeled as such in contemporaneous literature. What it didn't have was a containment system that was designed to the principles that guide the current designs.

I'd speculate that the nuclear industry found that saying it was a "different design" was far less reassuring to people than simply making the false claim that Chernobyl had NO containment, and started saying that it even though it wasn't accurate. I'd guess it was initially rationalized by a belief that the difference in principles of design was sufficient to support their inaccuracy if called on it.

The ethical question that should be examined is that given there was a containment system in place, why is it so important to the nuclear industry to make people think there wasn't?


You're playing the same nuclear industry propaganda game documented in post 29. Post 29 also documents how the original motive was to avoid regulation; I'm guessing you are just responding with the standard nuclear industry catechism that has emerged over the decades.

[FBaggins]

40. "Chernobyl HAD a containment system; clearly labeled as such in contemporaneous literature."

You stick by that BS after seeing what you mistook for "contemporaneous literature"? You even think there IS any such literature in English?

You have a stunning ability to create your own reality. Can you do it without chemical/liquid assistance? :)

To the extent anyone demonstrated that there was ANY "containment" (by any definition)... that containment did NOT include the core. Did not include the part that's actually the reactor itself.

That means nothing to you at all?

You're playing the same nuclear industry propaganda game

Not at all. It's you that's playing games. As with Fledermaus you want to pretend that anyhing called a "reactor" is pretty much the same thing because it's easier to sell irrational fears to a gullible public if they remain ignorant. Easier to say that such things "just happen" to reactors.

Chernobyl happened during essentially normal operations. Fukushima happened after a record earthquake and tsunami and involved multiple reactors... and it STILL didn't result in anything CLOSE the what happened at Chernobyl.

There is a difference in reactor design and it made all the difference in the results. Gunderson likes to pretend that Japan just got lucky with wind direction... but the reality is that if Fukushima was designed like Chernobyl, it would have been many MANY times worse. At Fukushima we read about a few dozens of people who topped 100 mSv and a small handful who went over 250. At Chernobyl that number was in the tens of thousands by this point.

There comes a time when you have to stop pretending that they're really two peas in the same pod.

[kristopher]

42. You're arguing the unarguable Baggins.

A small fraction of the contemporaneous literature is quoted in post 29. Trying to ignore all of that with a focus on the origins of the diagram that accurately shows what is described in the literature cited is just like you though. Perhaps you should take a break, I think the stress is getting to you.

[FBaggins]

45. Close

I'm arguing with what the catholics call "invincible ignorance".

The good news is (as I understand it) you don't have to go to he11 for it. :)

A small fraction of the contemporaneous literature is quoted in post 29.

And it pretty much supports what I said. You just don't understand what you're reading. You might try going to the actual article.

The closes it comes is the one you quoted in bold that the bottom saying that he wasn't ready to judge.

Trying to ignore all of that with a focus on the origins of the diagram that accurately shows what is described in the literature

There you go defending that HS web project, eh? I guess if that's all you've got to go on you'll hang on for dear life. Pretty ridiculous really.

And as I pointed out. Even THAT diagram doesn't put the core inside that "containment". No small error on your part.

[FBaggins]

35. Here's the best I could find. I don't think FM ever used it.

"/image_view_fullscreen"

[SpoonFed]

36. English documents mean next to nothing...

provide something with descriptions/names/labels in Ukranian/Russia so someone credible can translate.

Bonus points if you can prove the image/document comes from a reliable, verifiable source.

I'm assuming you're working with tertiary sources here like with Fukushima and your lack of Japanese.

[FBaggins]

37. You'll have to tell that to kris - sorry.

He's the one who thinks he's seen an original diagram that was labeled with "containment" around the core.

I tried pointing out to him that the 80s soviets didn't make many english diagrams... but didn't get anywhere. Maybe you're have more luck?

I'm assuming you're working with tertiary sources here like with Fukushima and your lack of Japanese.

You speak both Japanese and Russian? I'm impressed.

It explains your difficulties with English. :)

[SpoonFed]

39. You're the one posting an irrelevent image...

You're trying to pretend that that the concrete wall near the pressure markers in dark black is not containment. This document is in English (not a primary source) and has labels pointing at what is not the concrete containment structure. Find a reliable source and I will have one of any handful of native speakers determine a suitable translation of labels.

Scratch that. Apparently that has already been done by FM and this is just one of those cases where you continue down the path of repeating a falsehood.

PS. I speak 5+ languages (granted some better than others), but I don't speak, read or write Japanese. Clearly you do not either (and I'm suitably unimpressed with you.)
PPS. You're not gaining any credibility with the petty insults directed my way or Kristopher's. Bananas is probably right, we should just all ignore-can your butt.

[FBaggins]

41. You get only what you deserve.

If 80% of your posts to me weren't "petty insults" you would get none of the same in return.

You long ago ceased putting any actual content in your posts.


As for the image. It was, as I said, the best I could find. I haven't seen any better here (certainly not by FM... so I'm not sure where yo're getting that). If you find one feel free to post it... but no, the core is not in containment in ANY valid diagram of Chernobyl because it wasn't in containment in REALITY.

As I've said multiple times. The core was designed to be opened WHILE RUNNING. You can't put that in containment. It isn't possible.

[SpoonFed]

43. Uh huh...

the core is not in containment in ANY valid diagram of Chernobyl because it wasn't in containment in REALITY.

Standard tactic. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Until the perception becomes "fact". It's not containment in the way the current nuke industry wants to portray it, to distance itself from Chornobyl. That's the premise kristopher put forward and I think it's very accurate.

Re: insults. Try being the better man, you keep telling us all how you are. Unfortunately, a lot of your energy is spent attempting to derail threads, so I can't really believe you're remotely interested in stopping the petty insults anytime soon.

[kristopher]

44. That is a vast leap from the statement "Chernobyl had no containment"

That inappropriate leap goes straight to the heart of the ethical issue and my post 11.

[FBaggins]

46. Really?

The core not being in containment is a "cast leap" from saying that the difference in the Chernobyl reactor (among other significant differences) was that it lacked containment?

Sounds more like hair splitting on your part than a "vast leap" on mine. But hey... if that's all you've got to go on and you're incapable of admitting error what choice do you have?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJvR]

3. Intresting.

A few stupid errors and a bit of annoying political advertising but other than that a very intresting film.