G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Chronology of the posts fuckin' RULES!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch!
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Appropo to the opening post:
Indian Point's gotten a free pass on safety regulations over last decade, feds delay evacuation plan
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...y_regs_feds_ok_delays_on_emergency_plans.html
And sadly;
Expert fears full nuclear meltdown at Fukushima
Briefing: Evidence is mounting that nuclear fuel has melted through a reactor vessel
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/77065...-full-nuclear-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-2
Indian Point's gotten a free pass on safety regulations over last decade, feds delay evacuation plan
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...y_regs_feds_ok_delays_on_emergency_plans.html
And sadly;
Expert fears full nuclear meltdown at Fukushima
Briefing: Evidence is mounting that nuclear fuel has melted through a reactor vessel
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/77065...-full-nuclear-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-2
cancel2 2022
Canceled
For Bravo and his ilk, there is no such thing as radiation poisoning that results in deaths via cancers and the like years later....nor have the various nuke accidents and subsequent related illness/deaths throughout the years of any significance to them, as they are in denial of such despite documented evidence. So I asked Bravo if either he or his family/friends/relatives were exposed to some of the radiation that has been released in various plant accidents throughout the US and the world, and then within years they were part of the cancer spikes or deaths that occured to the population in the vicinity of the areas, would he find solace in the "official" ruling that his illness/impending death was not significant? To date, no answer from our intellectually impotent Bravo...or any of his compadres for that matter. Which is one of the reasons why I finally put him on IA, because what's the point in just indulging his bravado of convoluted logic, lies and denial? "Bravo", indeed.
The fact of the matter is that burning coal releases far more radioactive elements into the atmosphere than any nuclear reactors, that you don't know this is hardly surprising as there is very little objective analysis and huge amounts of unscientific hysteria surrounding this issue. Nobody has ever said that nuclear power is risk free but then again virtually no human activity is without some kind of danger. In the end, it boils down to a balance of probabilities and a sane dispassionate risk analysis which is hardly likely in the emotion driven atmosphere currently at hand.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Last edited:
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
But the chronology of the posts proves TCL is right, despite any facts.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Even George Monbiot has come to that realisation, rather late in day but better late than never.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?31708-George-Monbiot-back-nuclear-power
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Tom is obviously a neocon fool, as the chronology of the posts shows.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I'm usually considered to be a far lefty, so that makes a change.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Don't attempt to refute the chronology of the posts with facts.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Let me clue you in Thomas.....the pollution of ALL levels from coal processing as it's done today has be known for a LONG time.....that the so called "liberal media" doesn't cover it as well as the "alternative press" is nothing new to people who pay attention.What YOU are doing here Thomas, is being a good little nuke power wonk and trying to play down the documented problems with nuke power by essentially pointing to something that people have been complaining about for decades. I can't speak for England, but here in America the battle to regulate emissions and waste from coal plants is a never ending battle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8406085
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08358/937012-113.stm
The estimates and basic guessing done in the article you present are accepted by you without question, yet the evidence and documentation I have presented regarding nuclear power plants is immediately down played or ignored by you....pretty pathetic on your part, Thomas.
Sorry Tommy, but two wrongs don't make a right.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=nuke...ine_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEYQ5wIwCg
You may be okay with playing the probabilities, Thomas...but the people at Fukushima may differ with you....and the people near Indian Point, NY sure as hell will also. Again Thomas, when the shit hits the fan, your aloof attitude is little comfort to the victims.....and I seriously doubt you would be so appeasing to the nuke power mantras if it were YOU and yours among the victims.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
"..... “Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation ... Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small.” .
Like you Thomas, Monbiot doesn't know WTF he's talking about here, and jumps the gun in that respect, as I've documented on this thread. But in case you STILL don't get it:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ne...pdate-iaea-confirms-need-for-more-/blog/34039
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I don't see you providing any realistic alternatives, emotion and invective do not advance the debate for a realistic energy policy. Even George Monbiot has come to the realisation that renewables are incapable of providing a consistent energy baseload, maybe we should capture all the hot air generated by the naysayers.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?31708-George-Monbiot-back-nuclear-power
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And once again, Thomas, you do the toadie shuffle...when presented with evidence that deconstructs or disproves your assertions and accusations, you just avoid acknowledging such and then try to change the subject.
Viable Alternatives and operating procedures have been offered for DECADES....but as you say, YOU don't see it....more aptly YOU don't want to see it. And I've already addressed your sudden banner carrying of Monbiot, who is NOT the be all-end all word on this subject.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...nwhile-back-at-the-ranch!&p=793587#post793587
Again, You may be okay with playing the probabilities, Thomas...but the people at Fukushima may differ with you....and the people near Indian Point, NY sure as hell will also. Again Thomas, when the shit hits the fan, your aloof attitude is little comfort to the victims.....and I seriously doubt you would be so appeasing to the nuke power mantras if it were YOU and yours among the victims.[/
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You would be the first one to denounce the West's dependence on imported oil from unstable parts of the world and the need to reduce CO2 emissions, yet I haven't seen anything from you that provides any realistic alternatives.
And when all is said and done, and the chronology of the posts has been examined and reexamined.........the chickens without heads having stopped dancing around like fools, and those yelling "the sky is falling" have finally STFU for awhile......
as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation from energy producing nuclear generation...... Atomic energy has been subjected to the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been still almost nothing.....
and that is the bottom line.....
as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation from energy producing nuclear generation...... Atomic energy has been subjected to the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been still almost nothing.....
and that is the bottom line.....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I am just watching ABC news about milk, I knew it was just a matter of time before the hysteria would be ramped up by the US media.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're doing a repeat of toadie shuffle Thomas....you can't logically or factually disprove my previous responses and the supporting evidence, so you try to switch the conversation and place the entire burden of solving the problem on me. As I pointed out before, viable alter and operating procedures have been offered for DECADES....but as you say, YOU don't see it....more aptly YOU don't want to see it.
The issue here is the aftermath of Fukushima, the reality that surrounds current nuclear plants. Wonks like you, Thomas, just keep parroting the party line and shifting the topic of discussion with the frequency of a cheap ham radio. Yep, it's all an ideological game to you until it's your butt being told to evacuate or that all is well as a plant totally screws up. Well, here's another pro-nuke bubble burst for you to ignore/deny, Thomas...this crap has been going on for a LONG time:
http://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html
....During the 1950s and 1960s the, Atomic Energy Commission maintained there was a "safe threshold" of radiation below which no health effects could be detected. This so-called safe threshold provided the justification for exposing American servicemen to atomic bomb tests, for permitting workers in nuclear plants to receive a yearly dose of radiation, and for operating nuclear power plants which released radioactivity to the environment and exposed the general population even during normal operation. But in the 1960s evidence began to come in from around the world--from the atomic bomb survivors,[16] from some people in Britain who had received medical radiation[17]--with estimates of the numbers of cancers occurring per unit of radiation. Gofman and Tamplin assembled these figures and concluded that there was no evidence for the AEC's so-called safe threshold of radiation. In fact, they estimated that the cancer risk of radiation was roughly twenty times as bad as the most pessimistic estimate previously made.
When Gofman was invited to be a featured speaker at the Institute for Electrical, Electronic Engineers meeting (IEEE) in October 1969, he and Tamplin decided to present a paper on the true effects of radiation "So we gave this paper,[18] and said two things. One, there would be twenty times as many cancers per unit of radiation as anyone had predicted before, and two, we could find no evidence of a safe amount of radiation--you should assume it's proportional to dose all the way up and down the dose scale." The paper did not attract much public attention, only a small article in the "San Francisco Chronicle" and nothing in the national press.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Stop and think, Thomas....since the average urban human being is already living with "background" radiation from broadcasts (TV's, radios, computer screens), power stations, natural ground and solar initated exposures, etc., etc., What in the world makes you think that ADDITIONAL exposure from an artificial source of radiation (and of a type that is NOT high of the list of the forementioned, but dangerous none-the-less) can be healthy in the long run?
The attitude from folks like you is that unless you have a scenario right out of a sci-fi horror film where people's skins are melting off and folk dropping dead left and right, things are okay. What's disturbing is the level of denial when you have a new or unusual increase in certain diseases and cancers suddenly showing up in areas around nuke plants and nuke "minor" accidents.
Hey, if you want to live with that threat or with those consequences, that's your business Thomas....the rest of us may not want to take that risk.
Last edited:
Absolutely, ....no need to put yourself at needless risk, TC.....
Throw out that TV
Throw out the radio
Get rid of that PC
Disconnect the electric power to you ghetto pad
Stay out of the sun
and wrap yourself in tinfoil lined with some lead....
and you'll be as snug as a pinhead at a Democratic Convention....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think you need to go on a basic physics course, hopefully then you will be able to differentiate between electromagnetic, ⍺ and β radiation.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Information is beautiful and needed.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/