Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 93 of 93

Thread: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    And where was that interview being conducted? Perhaps on the Alex Jones InfoWars show?
    Relevance?

    Does going on InfoWars refute his peer - reviewed and published paper?


    If you'd stop with the paranoid alarmist style of blowing things WAY out of proportion, maybe this wouldn't keep happening. You always do this. Below is what I am talking about...










    It's seriously like you are running around waving your arms and screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE", and then you try to act like you're the only one being rational when somebody tells you "no we're not".
    Too bad you haven't really paid attention to my points.

    Even in a worst case scenario, I mean absolute worst case, this is not a life ending situation. Unless you live in that region of Japan.

    If you live on the west coast, it's more a matter of accepting that if you are the unlucky one to ingest some hot particles, it might be 5-20 years later, but there will be health consequences.

    And then as for this exchange with Deuce...



    Where you claim...



    Sorry, but I gotta call bull**** on that one pal. You CLEARLY said:



    Why can't you ever just go back and actually read what you wrote, before trying to twists things into "no, I didn't say THAT"?

    It's right ****ing there man. Then you have the nerve to claim he doesn't have any facts and is side-stepping?
    I know what i said, but look at the context. I was responding to the stupidity that the radiation and radioactive debris is not a concern and will not harm anyone.

    So, in that context I was saying that the paper was relevant to the us, and by implication, not in Japan where the situation is undoubtedly far worse.

    What is still really pathetic in this is that you also can't deal with the peer - reviewed paper that was linked, and instead focus on ME.

    You are right I misspoke, and I will choose my words more carefully next time, since I know how even one word out of place is enough to completely divert from the topic at hand.

    If you guys cared even slightly about honest discussion instead of playing these stupid lame word games trying to one up the other side, we could have some productive discussion that might lead to actually fixing some of these problems.

    Think about it; 3 major nuclear accidents within less than 100 years... it's not life ending, but seriously, how many more of these accidents can occur before the ecosystem just dies?

    Since some dummies seem to think that radiation is nutritious and delicious. .. The thought is probably that no bad can happen.

  2. #92
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Relevance?
    It establishes a pattern. During the 5 years we've been talking on here, you seem to exclusively get your news from that alarmist crackpot. He lies about things and twists stuff around until it fits his narrative so he can get more website/radio traffic. He constantly spews bs and lies Mcfly.

    Does going on InfoWars refute his peer - reviewed and published paper?
    If he is the type that subscribes to Alex Jones' nonsense, then yes I will question the validity of his paper. The big problem is, you guys that like one conspiracy seem to like them all. That is a problem for somebody like me that likes FACTS... Not wild speculation and twisted numbers to make paranoid people take notice, tune-in, donate, etc.

    Too bad you haven't really paid attention to my points.
    I was waiting for you to actually make one.

    Even in a worst case scenario, I mean absolute worst case, this is not a life ending situation. Unless you live in that region of Japan.
    Where are the mass body counts from that region of Japan then? Can you even find ten? Five? ONE?

    If you live on the west coast, it's more a matter of accepting that if you are the unlucky one to ingest some hot particles, it might be 5-20 years later, but there will be health consequences.
    Okay fair enough, but if that is the point you were trying to make when you were seemingly freaking out about "a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima", then I honestly think you should work on how you initially present things a little better. Those two statements you made are miles apart.

    I know what i said, but look at the context. I was responding to the stupidity that the radiation and radioactive debris is not a concern and will not harm anyone. So, in that context I was saying that the paper was relevant to the us, and by implication, not in Japan where the situation is undoubtedly far worse. What is still really pathetic in this is that you also can't deal with the peer - reviewed paper that was linked, and instead focus on ME.
    I was pointing out the stupidity in constantly using Alex ****ing Jones as your source of info on pretty much everything all over this forum. It's always the same. You take that fringe side that JUST KNOWS SOMETHING IS WRONG and inject it into everything. Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's always "darn it, I know something is wrong and that the governments are lying and that everyone is out to get me. It gets old.

    You are right I misspoke, and I will choose my words more carefully next time, since I know how even one word out of place is enough to completely divert from the topic at hand. If you guys cared even slightly about honest discussion instead of playing these stupid lame word games trying to one up the other side, we could have some productive discussion that might lead to actually fixing some of these problems.
    You're right. Let's get back on track here and have a productive discussion on debatepolitics that will fix "problems" (that largely don't exist) in the freaking nuclear power industry. I am sure that their agents are tuning in and will take notes. So you start. How should we best fix this since you are definitely more informed than I am about what these "problems" are?

    Think about it; 3 major nuclear accidents within less than 100 years...
    That's actually pretty good when you think about it. How many other gigantic worldwide industries can even come close to claiming such a low failure/accident rate?

    it's not life ending, but seriously, how many more of these accidents can occur before the ecosystem just dies?
    Uhm... "before the ecosystem just dies? Lots.

    Since some dummies seem to think that radiation is nutritious and delicious. .. The thought is probably that no bad can happen.
    It's about perspective. You often turn things into one extreme or the other, when the correct answer is more in the middle. I don't think anybody here honestly thinks that radiation in all forms is "nutritious and delicious", but the situation at Fukushima is not some boogeyman either. We all experience more radiation from simple daily tasks than we will ever see from what was a relatively major disaster. That is just a fact.
    Disclaimer: If you are offended by the above post, and you aren't a SJW or truther, grow a pair.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    It establishes a pattern. During the 5 years we've been talking on here, you seem to exclusively get your news from that alarmist crackpot. He lies about things and twists stuff around until it fits his narrative so he can get more website/radio traffic. He constantly spews bs and lies Mcfly.
    That's not true, I get news from all sources I have the time to absorb.

    Again, how is this RELEVANT to this peer - reviewed paper that showed an increase in thyroid issues in newborns in the wake of exposure to radioactive iodine from Fukushima? ?


    If he is the type that subscribes to Alex Jones' nonsense, then yes I will question the validity of his paper. The big problem is, you guys that like one conspiracy seem to like them all. That is a problem for somebody like me that likes FACTS... Not wild speculation and twisted numbers to make paranoid people take notice, tune-in, donate, etc.
    Oh, so this doctor is wrong by association... it's this type of nonsense argument that has you in the ignore list (that I overlooked in the hopes that you actually had a point to make)



    I was waiting for you to actually make one.
    This is asinine.


    Where are the mass body counts from that region of Japan then? Can you even find ten? Five? ONE?
    Of course, when you consider only those that got a heroic dose of radiation and died of poisoning, the numbers are between 0 and 5.

    However, I found this ( http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf) that, while not being a conclusive count does add a few extra deaths, again, on the us side of things.

    The deaths do follow the trend within the same time period after the Chernobyl disaster.

    Okay fair enough, but if that is the point you were trying to make when you were seemingly freaking out about "a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima", then I honestly think you should work on how you initially present things a little better. Those two statements you made are miles apart.
    Only because of the arrogant declaration that nobody will be hurt by the radiation.

    It's delusional thinking... and naturally, reality sounds like freaking out next to delusion.


    I was pointing out the stupidity in constantly using Alex ****ing Jones as your source of info on pretty much everything all over this forum. It's always the same. You take that fringe side that JUST KNOWS SOMETHING IS WRONG and inject it into everything. Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's always "darn it, I know something is wrong and that the governments are lying and that everyone is out to get me. It gets old.
    This is wrong on more levels than is worth pointing out, and more importantly, it's not even relevant.


    You're right. Let's get back on track here and have a productive discussion on debatepolitics that will fix "problems" (that largely don't exist) in the freaking nuclear power industry. I am sure that their agents are tuning in and will take notes. So you start. How should we best fix this since you are definitely more informed than I am about what these "problems" are?
    Oh there's no problems at Fukushima. Well I'm glad your uninformed and delusional statement has a real impact on reality.

    From the start this should have been an international cleanup effort bringing in all the top experts around the world....


    That's actually pretty good when you think about it. How many other gigantic worldwide industries can even come close to claiming such a low failure/accident rate?

    Uhm... "before the ecosystem just dies? Lots.



    It's about perspective. You often turn things into one extreme or the other, when the correct answer is more in the middle. I don't think anybody here honestly thinks that radiation in all forms is "nutritious and delicious", but the situation at Fukushima is not some boogeyman either. We all experience more radiation from simple daily tasks than we will ever see from what was a relatively major disaster. That is just a fact.
    This is a gross oversimplification, it puts exposure to radiation on the same level as ingestion of radioactive particles, then it also treats gamma radiation (what you pick up with a Geiger counter) in the same way as alpha and beta emissions. They are not the same.

    You are obviously not aware that the analysis from Chernobyl puts the number between 35 and 985000 premature deaths due to that radiation... but if a person gets a low dose that gives them cancer 5 years later, then it's treated as unrelated. Makes it easy to show the safety of these systems.

    Yes, nuclear is highly efficient, clean and safe.... until it goes wrong, then it goes horribly wrong.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •