Meanwhile, back at the ranch!

tom prendergast said:
I have found him to be a polemicist like John Pilger, so I take what he says with a big pinch of salt.

Can I tell you once again that iodine 131 is a man made isotope which does not occur in nature hence it cannot accumulate as you infer. Having a half life of 8 days means that within a month or less it is no longer radioactive. That's a fact which no amount of emotional and unscientific rhetoric can deny.
Click to expand...
Funny as all hell....you pwn Clarabell in the Iodine 131 issue and he comes back ignoring the whole thing....talking like an asshole....condescending in the extreme ....

And best of all, he thinks hes actually fooling the rest of us reading his crap....God, its so precious:).... :palm:...he'll find another Cand P for us soon and make more irrelevant claims...as sure as day follows night...
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Thomas, Thomas, Thomas....you keep trying to somehow minimalize the tragedy that is unfolding in Fukushima, it's implications for the nuke plant industry, and the FACTS that show how precarious these plants are...and you look the damned fool for doing so, Thomas, because you comparing MAN MADE problems to ones that occur naturally...then you try to condescend to someone about what's going on in their own backyard. You're a day late and a dollar short on this Thomas,...observe and learn:

Newsflash for you, Thomas.... http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/radiological/radon/

http://www.olympiancares.com/radon_page_1.htm

http://www.wadsworth.org/radon/
Click to expand...

If you mean by minimising, trying to introduce a sense of proportion and science to a debate which is guided mostly by hysterical overblown rhetoric, then I am guilty as charged. Radon may be natural but the use of granite in houses is not and its presence in houses is a potential major health hazard, so why aren't you campaigning for a boycott?
 
tom prendergast said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well Thomas, all the presumptions from the nuke power industry folk haven't exactly stood up to close examination, as the chronology of the posts on this thread have shown.

Oh, and I noticed how you IGNORED the information provided by Greg Palast. Not surprising.
Click to expand...

I have found him to be a polemicist like John Pilger, so I take what he says with a big pinch of salt.

And since YOU cannot logically and/or factually fault what Palast reports, Thomas, your opinion is no more than a piss in the wind. Get back to me when you're willing and able to logically and factually prove what Palast reported is wrong.

Can I tell you once again that iodine 131 is a man made isotope which does not occur in nature hence it cannot accumulate as you infer. Having a half life of 8 days means that within a month or less it is no longer radioactive. That's a fact which no amount of emotional and unscientific rhetoric can deny.
Click to expand...

Once again, Thomas, your "fact" leaves out some pertinent little details that when brought to light makes your overall assertion disingenuous at best:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110405x1.html

To theorize that the artificially induced radioactive iodine 131 will just become inert and have NO lasting effect on the food chain in the immediate ocean area just doesn't cut it. Wonks like you Thomas, love to deny that nuke plants emit low levels of this and other radiation that can have a cumulative effect on the food chain. And for the record,

Radiation Exposure from Iodine 131
Clinical Evaluation

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/iodine/clinical_evaluation.html
 
tom prendergast said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Thomas, Thomas, Thomas....you keep trying to somehow minimalize the tragedy that is unfolding in Fukushima, it's implications for the nuke plant industry, and the FACTS that show how precarious these plants are...and you look the damned fool for doing so, Thomas, because you comparing MAN MADE problems to ones that occur naturally...then you try to condescend to someone about what's going on in their own backyard. You're a day late and a dollar short on this Thomas,...observe and learn:

Newsflash for you, Thomas.... http://www.health.state.ny.us/enviro...logical/radon/

http://www.olympiancares.com/radon_page_1.htm

http://www.wadsworth.org/radon/
Click to expand...

If you mean by minimising, trying to introduce a sense of proportion and science to a debate which is guided mostly by hysterical overblown rhetoric, then I am guilty as charged. Radon may be natural but the use of granite in houses is not and its presence in houses is a potential major health hazard, so why aren't you campaigning for a boycott?
Click to expand...

Sorry Thomas, but the chronology of the post shows that you are guilty of regurgitating the nuke power industry mantras while ignoring/dodging any and all information that contradicts them. And when you can't pass off your repetitiveness, distortions and dodges as valid explanations, you adopt a condescending attitude....which is pathetic given your demonstrated inability to deal with what doesn't fit into your belief system.

Case in point: you again try some ass backwards way to minimalize/detract from the information surrounding Fukushima and the rest of the nuke industry world wide by blathering on about radon in New York. I exposed your ignorance on the subject with a few websites that show the history of detection, decontamination and the like. But like the good little company wonk, Thomas, you ignore the facts and try to assert that there has been no public involvment in dealing with the issue, and that people are just willy-nilly building houses on and/or with radon emitting material.

And as the chronology of the post shows, that makes you a liar, Thomas.
 
Yurt said:
wtf is the chronology of posts? are you on acid touchy?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're acting this dense or you really are this dense, Yurtle old thing....but hope springs eternal, and I'll dumb down the explanation for you: Chronology refers to the order by which an event occurs according to a designated time line. By saying "chronology of the posts" I refer to when said posts occured, thereby encouraging the reader to see for themselves when a particular poster made a statement, who responded to it, and what was stated. This way, the reader can assess for themselves who is being honest in the latest posted assertion by reviewing what lead up to the current post.

This is why you and your like minded compadres hate that phrase, Yurtle....because based on the facts found in the chronological order of the posts on a thread, you usually cannot find an honest quote or fact that supports your latest assertion/accusation.

If you STILL don't understand, Yurtle, get an adult you trust to explain it to you.....or you can do the usual Yurtle dodge....or you can try to honestly discuss the subject at hand in a rational and logical fashion. Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top