• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

The Giant Noodle said:
This is horrible. I mean REALLY horrible. The Ocean will be poisoned

Click to expand...


Now for the serious response :

This makes me absolutely sick, what the hell are these people thinking, dumping radioactive water into the oceans.

You should go out and get some sushi or whatever fish you can get now because within a year or so I don't think you'll be able to get fish that isn't contaminated, of course we'll be told that it's safe and by the time the health effects become apparent a sufficient amount of time will have passed so that these can be attributed to something OTHER THEN the radiation.

So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
 
BmanMcfly said:
Now for the serious response :

This makes me absolutely sick, what the hell are these people thinking, dumping radioactive water into the oceans.

You should go out and get some sushi or whatever fish you can get now because within a year or so I don't think you'll be able to get fish that isn't contaminated, of course we'll be told that it's safe and by the time the health effects become apparent a sufficient amount of time will have passed so that these can be attributed to something OTHER THEN the radiation.

So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
Click to expand...

Yup! And I LOVE sushi :(
 
BmanMcfly said:
So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
Click to expand...

You've GOT to be kidding. Oh wait... you were 3 when it happened. Sorry I forgot.
 
505 said:
You've GOT to be kidding. Oh wait... you were 3 when it happened. Sorry I forgot.
Click to expand...

Alright, put your money where your mouth is and prove that Chernobyl was the greater disaster as you're implying.

The way I'm looking at this in comparison to the details of Chernobyl (since you were wrong again at guessing my age, you are at least correct in the sense that I was too young to know) is that on that scale of 1-7 Three Mile Island was a 3 and Chernobyl is a 7... well, Fukushima should be either a 9 or a 10 out of 10 where 1-7 are at the same scale.

This will be an interesting argument.
 
BmanMcfly said:
you are at least correct in the sense that I was too young to know
Click to expand...

Yup, so instead of educating yourself with this fantastic resource you are using to type, let's just speculate instead.

We'll start off easy.

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, which spread over much of Western Russia and Europe."

"The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles, crippling the Soviet economy."

"These events exposed the graphite moderator of the reactor to air, causing it to ignite.[2] The resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive smoke fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area, including Pripyat."

"350,400 people were evacuated and resettled"

"reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase, leading to explosions in its core. This dispersed large quantities of radioactive fuel and core materials into the atmosphere[8]:73 and ignited the combustible graphite moderator. The burning graphite moderator increased the emission of radioactive particles, carried by the smoke, as the reactor had not been encased by any kind of hard containment vessel."

"A second, more powerful explosion occurred about two or three seconds after the first; evidence indicates that the second explosion resulted from a nuclear excursion."

"The operators were given respirators and potassium iodide tablets and told to continue working."

"The fallout was detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula."

"A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation."

"Official figures in southern Bavaria in Germany indicated that some wild plant species contained substantial levels of cesium"

"The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located next to the Pripyat River, which feeds into the Dnipro River reservoir system, one of the largest surface water systems in Europe. The radioactive contamination of aquatic systems therefore became a major problem in the immediate aftermath of the accident"

" The contamination of fish caused short-term concern in parts of the UK and Germany and in the long term (years rather than months) in the affected areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia as well as in parts of Scandinavia."

"significant transfers of radionuclides to groundwater have occurred from waste disposal sites in the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone around Chernobyl"

"Of the 440,350 wild boar killed in the 2010 hunting season in Germany, over 1,000 were found to be contaminated with levels of radiation above the permitted limit of 600 bequerels, presumably due to residual radioactivity from Chernobyl."

"The after-effects of Chernobyl were expected to be seen for a further 100 years"


See how easy that is to learn something?

mcfly said:
since you were wrong again at guessing my age
Click to expand...

I didn't guess. I went off of one of your posts. Why are you lying?... (if you're not lying in this thread, you were in the one where you posted your age).
 
505 said:
Yup, so instead of educating yourself with this fantastic resource you are using to type, let's just speculate instead.

We'll start off easy.

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, which spread over much of Western Russia and Europe."

"The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles, crippling the Soviet economy."

"These events exposed the graphite moderator of the reactor to air, causing it to ignite.[2] The resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive smoke fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area, including Pripyat."

"350,400 people were evacuated and resettled"

"reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase, leading to explosions in its core. This dispersed large quantities of radioactive fuel and core materials into the atmosphere[8]:73 and ignited the combustible graphite moderator. The burning graphite moderator increased the emission of radioactive particles, carried by the smoke, as the reactor had not been encased by any kind of hard containment vessel."

"A second, more powerful explosion occurred about two or three seconds after the first; evidence indicates that the second explosion resulted from a nuclear excursion."

"The operators were given respirators and potassium iodide tablets and told to continue working."

"The fallout was detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula."

"A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation."

"Official figures in southern Bavaria in Germany indicated that some wild plant species contained substantial levels of cesium"

"The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located next to the Pripyat River, which feeds into the Dnipro River reservoir system, one of the largest surface water systems in Europe. The radioactive contamination of aquatic systems therefore became a major problem in the immediate aftermath of the accident"

" The contamination of fish caused short-term concern in parts of the UK and Germany and in the long term (years rather than months) in the affected areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia as well as in parts of Scandinavia."

"significant transfers of radionuclides to groundwater have occurred from waste disposal sites in the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone around Chernobyl"

"Of the 440,350 wild boar killed in the 2010 hunting season in Germany, over 1,000 were found to be contaminated with levels of radiation above the permitted limit of 600 bequerels, presumably due to residual radioactivity from Chernobyl."

"The after-effects of Chernobyl were expected to be seen for a further 100 years"

See how easy that is to learn something?
Click to expand...

Ya, and I was already aware of all that... I was hoping that you weren't going to stop half-way and actually make the comparison by what measure that Chernobyl is still a bigger disaster then Fukushima as you've implied?
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, and I was already aware of all that... I was hoping that you weren't going to stop half-way and actually make the comparison by what measure that Chernobyl is still a bigger disaster then Fukushima as you've implied?
Click to expand...

You were the one that made the assertion bud. How about YOU tell us how dumping radioactive water into the ocean makes Fukushima a bigger disaster than Chernobyl.
 
505 said:
You were the one that made the assertion bud. How about YOU tell us how dumping radioactive water into the ocean makes Fukushima a bigger disaster than Chernobyl.
Click to expand...

Actually, I asked the question if anyone else was still convinced that Chernobyl was a greater disaster... but sure.

Chernobyl had an explosion and fire burning in it's reactor for 10 days before it was able to be capped off and sealed... there was a huge level of radioactive debris projected out in all directions, and the cloud of radioactive debris that made it into the jetstream and was measurable for around 3 years before dissipating to the point of being indistinguishable from back ground radiation.

and in comparison :

1 - Number of reactors : Reactor 1 had a partial meltdown and suffered an explosion, Reactor 2 and 4 had partial meltdowns and reactor 3 had a full meltdown with a massive explosion, this projected the MOX fuel thousands of feet into the air and projected for miles around.

2 - Duration : 10 days vs 3+ weeks and counting (the cloud of radiation having already encircled the globe and still more is added)

3 - Material : Chernobyls singular uranium reactor compared to 3 uranium reactors and a plutonium mix reactor

4 - Most of the radioactive fallout landed in the oceans already

5 - Japan's has a greater population density

AND THEN after several weeks the reservoirs have been filled with water so radioactive that it's about 7.5 million times the radiation that would be legally allowed to be dumped in the ocean...

I'm sure I could find more points... but since you ignored the first link I put up.

I don't suppose you'd have another explanation how the EPA suddenly after all these decades of radiation testing, etc... that all of a sudden they give themselves a facepalm and realize 'oh you can be exposed to several thousand times more radiation then we previously estimated and it's still safe'? I mean, the timing alone on that announcement is suspect, do you perhaps have a better explanation other then cover-up?
 
BmanMcfly said:
So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster??
Click to expand...

Chernobyl was the biggest disaster.

How many people has Fukushima killed so far? How many is it likely to kill? While the ocean isn't an ideal dump for rad waste, the ocean has one hell of an ability to dilute poisons.

But they should be making every effort to trap and filter as much effluent as possible from those reactors, just on general principles.
 
yes. you can. because those safety regulations are deliberately kept way low of the actual level of damage in order to mandate compliance at extreme safety levels.


the water that in that ocean? enjoy.


or, from the IAEA:

...On 7 April, low levels of deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in 5 and 4 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 3.8 to 20 becquerel per square metre, for cesium-137 from 9.7 to 25 becquerel per square metre.

Gamma dose rates continue to decrease. For Fukushima, on 7 April a dose rate of 2.3 µSv/h, for the Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.16 µSv/h was reported. Dose rates reported for the Eastern part of the Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km to Fukushima-Daiichi, range from 0.2 to 28 µSv/h.

As part of a new measurement program carried out by MEXT in cooperation with universities, gamma dose rates have also been measured in 26 cities in 13 prefectures for the period 5 to 7 April. In 19 cities, all measurements are below 0.1µSv/h. In a further five cities, some measurements are up to 0.21µSv/h. In the city of Tsukuba in the prefecture of Ibaraki, dose rates are in the range 0.17 to 0.2 0 µSv/h. In Fukushima City, the range is 0.42 to 0.5 µSv/h. typical normal background levels are in the range 0.05 to 0.1 µSv/h.

As of 6 April, iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detectable in drinking water in a few prefectures at levels far below those that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 7 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) remains in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture...
 
Last edited:
Mayor Snorkum said:
Chernobyl was the biggest disaster.

How many people has Fukushima killed so far?
Click to expand...

I think it was reported that 1 person died in one of the explosions...

How many is it likely to kill? While the ocean isn't an ideal dump for rad waste, the ocean has one hell of an ability to dilute poisons.
Click to expand...

Well, there's the cloud of I-131 and C-137 and a whole laundry list of other toxins that are spreading around the world... that's one level of exposure. Also, much of the fallout lands in the ocean, so in about 6 months it will have the chance to spread through the oceans and will be necessary to test ALL fish for radioactivity (mind you on the gulf of Mexico precedent with 'corexit' http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf it will just be declared safe anyway)

Furthermore, since the overall additional exposure for anyone outside of Japan will be relatively small, it will still be potentially decades before the increase in cancers are noted,

Now, I suppose it should also be asked of what numbers are you using for the casualty list from Chernobyl?? There's 4000, 250000 or 958000... so, I think we should find a way to determine which numbers to use in comparison. Though, in terms of deaths, having the oceans being the largest fallout area because the most toxic elements are too heavy to stay in the jetstream, I think the immediate death toll will remain lower.

However, as the radiation bioaccumulates in the fish in the ocean, if there's not a massive fish die-off (Fish have faster cellular reproduction / shorter lives so it will have a greater effect on fish) then we will find outselves in a situation where we will be eating contaminated fish, and THAT could lead to more casualties IF the EPA does not continue raising the safe level guidelines for radiation...

And that was done to compensate so that California didn't have excessive I-131 in their waters... detected after a rainfall at 180 times legal limits for drinking water, now under new regulations that is safe.

So I guess I should finish that so much is still up in the air, but there's no way that one can simply make the assertion that what happened 25 years ago is a clear cut more devastating event.

But they should be making every effort to trap and filter as much effluent as possible from those reactors, just on general principles.
Click to expand...

Ya... I agree with you here...
 
Some Progress:

"The exact cause of the radiation was not immediately clear, though Tepco has said that highly contaminated water has been leaking from a pit near the No. 2 reactor. The utility had suspected that the leak was coming from a crack, but several attempts to seal the crack failed to stop the flow.

On Tuesday the company said the leak might instead be coming from a faulty joint where the pit meets a duct, allowing radioactive water to seep into a layer of gravel underneath. The utility injected "liquid glass" into the gravel, and on Wednesday officials were reporting that the leak had been contained."

Japan nuclear crisis: Nuclear plant operator reports some success on plugging leak - latimes.com


//
 
BmanMcfly said:
I think it was reported that 1 person died in one of the explosions...
Click to expand...

One.

And so this is worse than Chernobyl?

Well, there's the cloud of I-131 and C-137 and a whole laundry list of other toxins that are spreading around the world... that's one level of exposure.
Click to expand...

You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?

Also, much of the fallout lands in the ocean, so in about 6 months it will have the chance to spread through the oceans and will be necessary to test ALL fish for radioactivity (mind you on the gulf of Mexico precedent with 'corexit' http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf it will just be declared safe anyway)
Click to expand...

You MUST be aware that TWO US nuclear powered submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sank and took their reactors with them, right? And that the Russians have lost several boats as well?

Is anyone testing the fish using the Glow-In-The-Dark test kit because half a dozen broken reactors litter the bottoms of the seas?

No.


Furthermore, since the overall additional exposure for anyone outside of Japan will be relatively small, it will still be potentially decades before the increase in cancers are noted,
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "the" indicates your irrational belief that cancers will be caused, when in fact it is extremely unlikely that any statistical increase in cancer incidence outside of Japan will be noted as a result.

This cannot be said about Chernobyl, in part because the socialists running the Soviet Union LIED about the problems and prevented neighboring countries from taking precautions.

Now, I suppose it should also be asked of what numbers are you using for the casualty list from Chernobyl?? There's 4000, 250000 or 958000...
Click to expand...

Not any.

It wasn't necessary. You provided the number (1). That's all that was necessary to know that the Fukushima incident is less catastophic than Chernobyl.

so, I think we should find a way to determine which numbers to use in comparison.
Click to expand...

Really? You think somehow Fukushima, with it's single direct casualty, will compare unfavorably with Chernobyl, with it's hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of deaths? You choose the metric, the outcome is plain to the rest of us.
 
Does Japan have bad karma?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
One.

And so this is worse than Chernobyl?
Click to expand...

well, to be fair, it was actually two workers that died. and a third fell off of reactor #1 later, though i'm not sure if he died or not.

You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?
Click to expand...

yup.

that link i gave? it gives the hour-by-hour radiation readings outside the plant. strange how he never seems interested in looking at, you know, the actual physical data.



1. Chernobyl had no containment dome. Impossible to fully describe how critical that was.
2. Chernobyl didn't have the triplicate safety redundancies that Fukushima did
3. Chernobyl did not have a nearby source of water (like the ocean) to dump water in from
4. Chernobyls' reactor buildings were flammable; and flame they did; throwing radioactive ash up and out much more consistently and powerfully than anything that has come out of Fukushima
5. The Japanese are probably among the best at this business. They run the largest nuclear plant in the world, and they run it well. The Fukushima plants withstood an earthquake a full order of magnitude higher than it was designed for, a tsunami larger than it was designed for, and a full day loss of power. It wasn't until the third power system ran out as workers fought their way back through the wreckage that things went south.

Look, I won't lie; I'm a pessimist and I think the final solution to this is going to involve concrete or some similar bonding substance. But that doesn't justify hysteria.
 
cpwill said:
strange how he never seems interested in looking at, you know, the actual physical data.
Click to expand...

What?... mcfly not looking at the actual physical data? I am shocked.
 
The implication of the thread titrle is that Fukushima 5 and 6 are leaking radio active water. Water that has collected in the bottom tunnels of 5 and 6 have apparently resulted from over-spill for cooling the Spent Fuel Rods.

"Engineers have been struggling to stop leaks since the plant was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami on 11 March.

They are currently discharging less contaminated water into the sea so more radioactive water can be stored.

Since the earthquake knocked out cooling systems, workers have been pumping water into reactors to cool fuel rods, but must now deal with waste water pooling in and below damaged reactor buildings."

BBC News - Japan earthquake: Radioactive leak 'plugged' at reactor

The water in the lower tunnels of 5 and 6 are slightly readiactive, and are being drained to make room to store more highly radiactive water. The tunnels lead to water storage pools for 5 and 6, to be stored for porcessing


Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log


//
 
Last edited:
505 said:
What?... mcfly not looking at the actual physical data? I am shocked.
Click to expand...

Yours first because of the antagonism...
1 - You never addressed my question, you simply called it an assertion and ignored it. So you have yet to make a single ACTUAL point here yet grandstand like you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't since you haven't even been able to answer a simple question.

2 - I only had time to address a single post this morning, so, don't take that as not looking at physical data, for me to ADDRESS the physical data I have to look at that and other sources to see how well it is corroborated.

3 - You're only shocked cause you speak out of this arrogant ignorance where you ignore facts that you choose and pretend like that causes you a win...

anyway, back to the thread.

cpwill said:
yes. you can. because those safety regulations are deliberately kept way low of the actual level of damage in order to mandate compliance at extreme safety levels.
Click to expand...

It is ALSO based on EXTERIOR EXPOSURE. It's one thing to have radiation hitting your skin... things like an x-ray, exposure while in a plane, etc etc... it's another thing when you ingest that radiation either through the dust or in drinking water, because then you are being radiated from the inside for the duration it takes your body to process.

Yes, the radioactive iodine is MOSTLY a concern in Japan proper, that cloud of iodine, cesium, and other toxic debris will be circling the earth for years in the jetstream. JUST LIKE Chernobyl.


the water that in that ocean? enjoy.
Click to expand...

So, this shows that what is being dumped is above the legal limit... and while the tests show the radiation emitted in the water by half a liter of water, what's being dumped is closer to 115000 liters so far... which will be contaminating the fish that swim through that water, which will disperse throughout the oceans.

What is NOT what's being considered is how much dosing these fish that swim through will be getting... and then it also does NOT account for bioaccumulation where fish eat other radiated fish + their own dose, etc... and sure the I-131 has only an 8 day half-life, the cesium has 20 or 30 year half-life...

So, the specifics are beyond my understanding of the subject, not being any sort of expert,

or, from the IAEA:

...On 7 April, low levels of deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in 5 and 4 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 3.8 to 20 becquerel per square metre, for cesium-137 from 9.7 to 25 becquerel per square metre.

Gamma dose rates continue to decrease. For Fukushima, on 7 April a dose rate of 2.3 µSv/h, for the Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.16 µSv/h was reported. Dose rates reported for the Eastern part of the Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km to Fukushima-Daiichi, range from 0.2 to 28 µSv/h.

As part of a new measurement program carried out by MEXT in cooperation with universities, gamma dose rates have also been measured in 26 cities in 13 prefectures for the period 5 to 7 April. In 19 cities, all measurements are below 0.1µSv/h. In a further five cities, some measurements are up to 0.21µSv/h. In the city of Tsukuba in the prefecture of Ibaraki, dose rates are in the range 0.17 to 0.2 0 µSv/h. In Fukushima City, the range is 0.42 to 0.5 µSv/h. typical normal background levels are in the range 0.05 to 0.1 µSv/h.

As of 6 April, iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detectable in drinking water in a few prefectures at levels far below those that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 7 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) remains in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture...
Click to expand...

NHK WORLD English
YouTube - Greenpeace says Japan radiation levels 'significant'
Japan map of Japan Radiation Maximum by Prefecture by Do,Ken,To,Fu - TargetMap

All I can say is I'm not sure what the reality of the situation is, but the IAEA DOES have a motivation to low-ball the actual risks, where these other people are directly reporting levels that are above and beyond what is being reported by them.

Oh, and well... UCB Rain Water Sampling Results | The Nuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley
Which found the rainwater (for a time) to have 18000 TIMES the limit for drinking water (which also dispersed into drinking water in such a way that the tap water never actually exceeded those limits)

The point is that this is readings from rainwater in CALIFORNIA, after it's crossed the oceans.



Mayor Snorkum said:
One.

And so this is worse than Chernobyl?
Click to expand...

This is such a black and white way of looking at things...

You mean the cloud that can only be detected with incredibly sensitive detectors and which pose no sensible threat to anyone?
Click to expand...

Actually, it's incredibly sensitive detectors required to detect, but that's not necessarily meaning that the radiation detected is harmless.

You MUST be aware that TWO US nuclear powered submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion, sank and took their reactors with them, right? And that the Russians have lost several boats as well?
Click to expand...

Ya... but a reactor sinking is not necessarily the same situation... it could be, but I don't know the details.

Is anyone testing the fish using the Glow-In-The-Dark test kit because half a dozen broken reactors litter the bottoms of the seas?

No.
Click to expand...

This is also an overly simplistic way of looking at this...

Your use of the word "the" indicates your irrational belief that cancers will be caused, when in fact it is extremely unlikely that any statistical increase in cancer incidence outside of Japan will be noted as a result.

This cannot be said about Chernobyl, in part because the socialists running the Soviet Union LIED about the problems and prevented neighboring countries from taking precautions.
Click to expand...

Oh ya... I forgot how people evolved in the late 80's beyond the capacity of lying for their own self-interest.

Not any.

It wasn't necessary. You provided the number (1). That's all that was necessary to know that the Fukushima incident is less catastophic than Chernobyl.
Click to expand...

At least you concede to be arguing from a position of ignorance... no point in asking the other questions like How many people died directly in the explosion at chernobyl versus how many people have died from the resulting radiation?

Really? You think somehow Fukushima, with it's single direct casualty, will compare unfavorably with Chernobyl, with it's hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of deaths? You choose the metric, the outcome is plain to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Ya.. well, Chernobyl also happened over 25 years ago... so there's been that time to measure the human impact of that disaster. The reactor workers at this point are probably already dead-men walking, bless their courage, and even they are not dying yet.

But we could also consider the technological improvements in areas like cancer research which will offer better chances of survival for those that will develop cancer over the coming decades.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yours first because of the antagonism...
1 - You never addressed my question, you simply called it an assertion and ignored it. So you have yet to make a single ACTUAL point here yet grandstand like you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't since you haven't even been able to answer a simple question.

2 - I only had time to address a single post this morning, so, don't take that as not looking at physical data, for me to ADDRESS the physical data I have to look at that and other sources to see how well it is corroborated.

3 - You're only shocked cause you speak out of this arrogant ignorance where you ignore facts that you choose and pretend like that causes you a win...
Click to expand...

1. I addressed your question. You asked "So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster?" I disagreed, and then posted all of the reasons why Chernobyl was the bigger disaster.

2. I wasn't just talking about this one time. You make it a habit to not look at the actual data, and instead resort to getting your info from that alarmist puke Jones and his radio show. You then parrot whatever his new flavor of the week is, thinking that nobody can see that is what you're doing.

3. No, saying I was shocked was obviously being very sarcastic. Not surprised to see you twist that one around too though... next to ignoring physical data it is your favorite thing to do.
 
505 said:
1. I addressed your question. You asked "So, is anyone else less then convinced that Chernobyl was a bigger disaster?" I disagreed, and then posted all of the reasons why Chernobyl was the bigger disaster.
Click to expand...

Actually, you posted a wiki page about Chernobyl WITH NOTHING to explain the comparison, then you announced my question was a statement... So fail 1.

2. I wasn't just talking about this one time. You make it a habit to not look at the actual data, and instead resort to getting your info from that alarmist puke Jones and his radio show. You then parrot whatever his new flavor of the week is, thinking that nobody can see that is what you're doing.
Click to expand...

Oh, all those times that I've never sourced Jones (unless it was specifically on a subject related)... can you back up that statement beyond that?? Jones does not own the BBC, or the University of Berkeley, or well... or any of the sources I've put up here... so another fail.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Actually, you posted a wiki page about Chernobyl WITH NOTHING to explain the comparison, then you announced my question was a statement... So fail 1.
Click to expand...

Mcfly, I posted all of that AS the comparison. NONE of that happened with Fukushima. Comprende?



Oh, all those times that I've never sourced Jones (unless it was specifically on a subject related)... can you back up that statement beyond that?
Click to expand...

Yup. Jones' new flavor of the week is crying about how this is the biggest disaster EVER and we're all DOOOOOMED. Then you come in here saying the same. Not surprising at all.
 
505 said:
Mcfly, I posted all of that AS the comparison. NONE of that happened with Fukushima. Comprende?
Click to expand...

Yes, let's just ignore 3/4 of the news reports on the subject of the past month and I'd have to agree with you.

Yup. Jones' new flavor of the week is crying about how this is the biggest disaster EVER and we're all DOOOOOMED. Then you come in here saying the same. Not surprising at all.
Click to expand...

Umm... not sure how to break this to you, but this issue has been plastered throughout news headlines for the whole month that this has been going on.... oh and also, it's only cause you are only capable of black/white thinking that it comes across as "we're all doomed" that I'm talking about... and having looked through what other doctors and physicists, news headlines, MSM experts, etc have been saying to filter out the fact from the fiction... and well, the reality is that we are not all doomed, that this IS a big deal that will impact at least the northern hemisphere for years, and Japan proper for decades if not centuries or longer in areas.

All this nonsense about radiation being safe and in some cases the claims of 'good for you' is at the least very foolish messages to send out...
 
McFly! Your Computer is emitting radiation! Run, Man, RUN!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom