More Nuke Power Follies

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're merely just being stubborn to the point of insipidness, as the information I link state conclusively where the contamination is and how it's spreading. Like a good little nuke power toadie, you continually try to skew the narrative, because I've stated at least TWICE now that NO ONE stated that the contamination was in the drinking water...but rather in the ground water and getting closer to the actual river. And if you didn't know it genius, Vermont does have a thriving use of it's acquifers for it's bottled water industry. This is why people are concerned, because the contamination is on the move, and the containment wells/pumping is not deliving 100% as promised.

Reality checkmates your stubborn dodges and stalls, Aox. Now, why don't you just repeat yourself ad nauseum, or lie to yourself that your question hasn't been clarified and answered. Carry on.

There would seem to be a much greater danger to water supplies in Vermont. As to the point about repeating yourself, I think that the chronology of the posts says otherwise.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9pkr...ee-threaten-drinking-water-public-health.html

You don't think, Aox....that's your problem. You're just being obstinate and stubborn to the point of insipidness. My point is how YOU kept repeating a disproven point in various ways. And when faced with the facts found in the chronology of the post that proves you wrong, you try to change the subject rather than just admit your error. Pointing out a more recent environmental threat born of NATURAL DISASTER does not take away the FACTS of radioactive contamination by a man made element (i.e., nuke power plant) previously. Typical nuke power toadie...an intellectual coward and dishonest debater to the end. Now, why don't you do the toadie shuffle and either lie about what has previously transpired, try to dodge/change the issue, deny the facts and their conclusions, or just bray the SOS like an ass. At this point, I'm done with you and could care less.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Bottom line: YOU stated an airbag deployment would "decapitate" your Mom. In order for that to happen, she would have to be at a height where she could just barely see over the steering wheel by tilting her head up. But since I caught you on that bit of BS, you alter the information to suit your previous tale....and YOUR SCENARIO IS STILL JUST A COLLECTION OF SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE. Bottom line: two near dwarfs that should NOT be behind the wheel of a car that has NOT been custom fitted to their height are NOT a slam dunk case against airbags in the general population.....you're REALLY stretching to try not to be wrong...and you fail. All you've done is demonstrate the same insipidly stubborn attitude that is used by nuke power wonks to try and dismiss or belittle fact based evidence as to the dangers of nuke power plants to the general population....whether you accept it, acknowledge it or not.

Airbags were optional starting in 1973 (driver only on the 1973 Olds Toronado)...availability expanded to the fullsized Olds (driver), Buick (driver), and Cadillac (driver & front passenger) lines through 1977, sold as "ACRS" (Air Cushion Restraint System). Very few remain...they were expensive and unpopular. (A lifelong car nut, I have seen one, ever.) They returned as options in the 1984 Ford Tempo.

The rest of your post is so jaw-droppingly stupid to almost defy response...I feel like I'm trying to get something through to my dog. Once more: Due to her sitting extremely close to the steering wheel (with the column pulled down, the bag thus aimed lower) and the airbag's excessive inflation force, the driver-side airbag in my Caprice would decapitate my mother. WIth the column all the way down, the wheel is below the level of the top of the dash. But, again, you knew this and are (again, still) merely trying to distract. The only "custom fitting" she would need to drive the Caprice would be disabling the airbag.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bottom line: YOU stated an airbag deployment would "decapitate" your Mom. In order for that to happen, she would have to be at a height where she could just barely see over the steering wheel by tilting her head up. But since I caught you on that bit of BS, you alter the information to suit your previous tale....and YOUR SCENARIO IS STILL JUST A COLLECTION OF SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE. Bottom line: two near dwarfs that should NOT be behind the wheel of a car that has NOT been custom fitted to their height are NOT a slam dunk case against airbags in the general population.....you're REALLY stretching to try not to be wrong...and you fail. All you've done is demonstrate the same insipidly stubborn attitude that is used by nuke power wonks to try and dismiss or belittle fact based evidence as to the dangers of nuke power plants to the general population....whether you accept it, acknowledge it or not.

Airbags were optional starting in 1973 (driver only on the 1973 Olds Toronado)...availability expanded to the fullsized Olds (driver), Buick (driver), and Cadillac (driver & front passenger) lines through 1977, sold as "ACRS" (Air Cushion Restraint System). Very few remain...they were expensive and unpopular. (A lifelong car nut, I have seen one, ever.) They returned as options in the 1984 Ford Tempo.

Correction:

In 1984, car manufaturers were mandated by the US gov't to implement air bags in cars produced after April 1, 1989.

The rest of your post is so jaw-droppingly stupid to almost defy response...I feel like I'm trying to get something through to my dog. I've just corrected glaring error of yours, so snide remarks from a self professed "car nut" who doesn't know wtf he's talking about doesn't impress me. Once more: Due to her sitting extremely close to the steering wheel (with the column pulled down, the bag thus aimed lower) and the airbag's excessive inflation force, the driver-side airbag in my Caprice would decapitate my mother. WIth the column all the way down, the wheel is below the level of the top of the dash. But, again, you knew this and are (again, still) merely trying to distract. The only "custom fitting" she would need to drive the Caprice would be disabling the airbag.

Once more for the cheap seats, if your mom is allegedly that freaking short, she could barely see above the steering dashboard even with the seat jacked up (which it wouldn't be if the steering wheel has to be tilted as you say), so she shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place (if she could see the road at all). Airbags, like all cars, are not generally manufactured to fit the diminutive proportions of your mom and her friend.
You're story keeps altering in order to fit your original assertion, and subsequently becomes more implausable....but you knew this and are just being stubborn to the point of insipidness.

Bottom line: your attempt to dodge the issue regarding tritium contamination in Vermont with some quasi-parallel drivel about airbags fails...but do keep beating that dead horse if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You don't think, Aox....that's your problem. You're just being obstinate and stubborn to the point of insipidness. My point is how YOU kept repeating a disproven point in various ways. And when faced with the facts found in the chronology of the post that proves you wrong, you try to change the subject rather than just admit your error. Pointing out a more recent environmental threat born of NATURAL DISASTER does not take away the FACTS of radioactive contamination by a man made element (i.e., nuke power plant) previously. Typical nuke power toadie...an intellectual coward and dishonest debater to the end. Now, why don't you do the toadie shuffle and either lie about what has previously transpired, try to dodge/change the issue, deny the facts and their conclusions, or just bray the SOS like an ass. At this point, I'm done with you and could care less.

You were talking about a potential rather than an actual risk which you then sensationalised out of all proportion to the real danger. I just pointed this out, you are the one who started with the "chronology of the posts" crap. Has anybody ever told you about cliches and hackneyed phrases?

 

[Jarlaxle]

(idiotic pablum and lies removed)

Fact: GM had air bags optional from 1973 to 1977, sold as the "Air Cushion Restraint System". (Ford built some cars with them in 1971, but never marketed them.)
Fact: They bombed and were dropped due to extreme unpopularity.
Fact: The next car built with available airbags was the 1984 Tempo. They were phased in from the late 80's to the mid-90's. (Ironically, one of the last cars WITHOUT a standard airbag was also the Tempo.)
Fact: You "corrected" no "glaring error". Your post was, again, jaw-droppingly stupid, per usual.

Once more, from the top: Due to her sitting extremely close to the steering wheel (with the column pulled down, the bag thus aimed lower) and the airbag's excessive inflation force, the driver-side airbag in my Caprice would decapitate my mother. With the column all the way down, the wheel is below the level of the top of the dash. But, again, you knew this and are (yet again) merely trying to distract. The only "custom fitting" she would need to drive the Caprice would be disabling the airbag. She can see over the dashboard just fine, as long as the seat is all the way up. (She'd need a booster, as she has with several cars, if the Caprice lacked a power seat.)

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
(idiotic pablum and lies removed)

Fact: GM had air bags optional from 1973 to 1977, sold as the "Air Cushion Restraint System". (Ford built some cars with them in 1971, but never marketed them.)
Fact: They bombed and were dropped due to extreme unpopularity.
Fact: The next car built with available airbags was the 1984 Tempo. They were phased in from the late 80's to the mid-90's. (Ironically, one of the last cars WITHOUT a standard airbag was also the Tempo.)
Fact: You "corrected" no "glaring error". Your post was, again, jaw-droppingly stupid, per usual.

Once more, from the top: Due to her sitting extremely close to the steering wheel (with the column pulled down, the bag thus aimed lower) and the airbag's excessive inflation force, the driver-side airbag in my Caprice would decapitate my mother. With the column all the way down, the wheel is below the level of the top of the dash. But, again, you knew this and are (yet again) merely trying to distract. The only "custom fitting" she would need to drive the Caprice would be disabling the airbag. She can see over the dashboard just fine, as long as the seat is all the way up. (She'd need a booster, as she has with several cars, if the Caprice lacked a power seat.)

Okay folks, as the chronology of the posts shows, this idiot jarlaxe is incapable of having an honest and rational conversation....anytime someone takes the time and effort to delete a person's previous response and substitute a derrogatory claim against them is a clear sign of an inability to honestly, rationally, factually and rationally refute what was stated. Jarlaxe cannot disprove what I posted regarding the nuke power plants, nor can he remove my proving his ignorance on the airbag history that he subsequently dodged to. So jarlaxe is just regurgitating the SOS I previously disproved. In short, Jarlaxe is full of it, and is not worth further follow-up as he'll just loop the SOS in various forms. This is A-typical for nuke power toadies, and I'm glad they post their nonsense for the reader to see their folly.

 

[Taichiliberal]

What's great about this thread is how it exposes the sheer dishonesty and willful ignorance of the nuke power die hards, who are all over the place in trying to either minimize or deny the FACTS regarding nuke power plant contamination, mishaps, and disasters. Once I get them to a level of sheer repetition of their denial or trying to change the topic of discussion, I just ignore them, because it's like trying to debate with a parrot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Okay folks, as the chronology of the posts shows, this idiot jarlaxe is incapable of having an honest and rational conversation....anytime someone takes the time and effort to delete a person's previous response and substitute a derrogatory claim against them is a clear sign of an inability to honestly, rationally, factually and rationally refute what was stated. Jarlaxe cannot disprove what I posted regarding the nuke power plants, nor can he remove my proving his ignorance on the airbag history that he subsequently dodged to. So jarlaxe is just regurgitating the SOS I previously disproved. In short, Jarlaxe is full of it, and is not worth further follow-up as he'll just loop the SOS in various forms. This is A-typical for nuke power toadies, and I'm glad they post their nonsense for the reader to see their folly.

Actually, most of your "response" didn't show up, since you embedded it in my post when you quoted it.

You have proven nothing. You have refuted not one single FACT that I have posted. You are truly pathetic.

Yet again...
Fact: GM had air bags optional from 1973 to 1977, sold as the "Air Cushion Restraint System". (Ford built some cars with them in 1971, but never marketed them.)
Fact: They bombed and were dropped due to extreme unpopularity.
Fact: The next car built with available airbags was the 1984 Tempo. They were phased in from the late 80's to the mid-90's. (Ironically, one of the last cars WITHOUT a standard airbag was also the Tempo.)
Fact: You "corrected" no "glaring error". Your post was, again, jaw-droppingly stupid, per usual.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You don't think, Aox....that's your problem. You're just being obstinate and stubborn to the point of insipidness. My point is how YOU kept repeating a disproven point in various ways. And when faced with the facts found in the chronology of the post that proves you wrong, you try to change the subject rather than just admit your error. Pointing out a more recent environmental threat born of NATURAL DISASTER does not take away the FACTS of radioactive contamination by a man made element (i.e., nuke power plant) previously. Typical nuke power toadie...an intellectual coward and dishonest debater to the end. Now, why don't you do the toadie shuffle and either lie about what has previously transpired, try to dodge/change the issue, deny the facts and their conclusions, or just bray the SOS like an ass. At this point, I'm done with you and could care less.

The trouble with you is that you adopt the same stance to virtually everything, it is always emotion led polemic regardless of the topic. I have known you a long time going back to the AOL days, indeed, it was me that invited you over to this board in the first place.

 

[DamnYankee]

.... it was me that invited you over to this board in the first place.

In that case, you are an asshole. Seriously.

 

[cancel2 2022]

In that case, you are an asshole. Seriously.

I see the good in many people, even you. By the way, I no longer believe that Alias was/is your alter-ego.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay folks, as the chronology of the posts shows, this idiot jarlaxe is incapable of having an honest and rational conversation....anytime someone takes the time and effort to delete a person's previous response and substitute a derrogatory claim against them is a clear sign of an inability to honestly, rationally, factually and rationally refute what was stated. Jarlaxe cannot disprove what I posted regarding the nuke power plants, nor can he remove my proving his ignorance on the airbag history that he subsequently dodged to. So jarlaxe is just regurgitating the SOS I previously disproved. In short, Jarlaxe is full of it, and is not worth further follow-up as he'll just loop the SOS in various forms. This is A-typical for nuke power toadies, and I'm glad they post their nonsense for the reader to see their folly.

Actually, most of your "response" didn't show up, since you embedded it in my post when you quoted it.

You have proven nothing. You have refuted not one single FACT that I have posted. You are truly pathetic.

Yet again...
Fact: GM had air bags optional from 1973 to 1977, sold as the "Air Cushion Restraint System". (Ford built some cars with them in 1971, but never marketed them.)
Fact: They bombed and were dropped due to extreme unpopularity.
Fact: The next car built with available airbags was the 1984 Tempo. They were phased in from the late 80's to the mid-90's. (Ironically, one of the last cars WITHOUT a standard airbag was also the Tempo.)
Fact: You "corrected" no "glaring error". Your post was, again, jaw-droppingly stupid, per usual.

From Post #83

Correction:

In 1984, car manufaturers were mandated by the US gov't to implement air bags in cars produced after April 1, 1989.
So all of the moot points this Jarlaxe jackass keeps braying doesn't change the FACT that his initial statements are WRONG, as 'FAILURES" ARE NOT MANDATED FOR SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Score one for Nader's Raiders and America.

And none of this changes the FACTS regarding the creeping contamination in Vermont that was NOT suppose to happen. Now let's just watch Jarlaxe keep repeating his myopic blatherings like the insipidly stubborn child that he is.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You don't think, Aox....that's your problem. You're just being obstinate and stubborn to the point of insipidness. My point is how YOU kept repeating a disproven point in various ways. And when faced with the facts found in the chronology of the post that proves you wrong, you try to change the subject rather than just admit your error. Pointing out a more recent environmental threat born of NATURAL DISASTER does not take away the FACTS of radioactive contamination by a man made element (i.e., nuke power plant) previously. Typical nuke power toadie...an intellectual coward and dishonest debater to the end. Now, why don't you do the toadie shuffle and either lie about what has previously transpired, try to dodge/change the issue, deny the facts and their conclusions, or just bray the SOS like an ass. At this point, I'm done with you and could care less.

The trouble with you is that you adopt the same stance to virtually everything, it is always emotion led polemic regardless of the topic. I have known you a long time going back to the AOL days, indeed, it was me that invited you over to this board in the first place.

Bottom line: you were proven wrong and you don't have the stones to cop to it. End of story. Only a sad individudal would "invite" someone onto a board when they do not like that person's stance or debate style (if we're to take what you say at face value as true). Whatever, you're done on this thread....so have the last word if it makes you feel better. Adios.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Bottom line: you were proven wrong and you don't have the stones to cop to it. End of story. Only a sad individudal would "invite" someone onto a board when they do not like that person's stance or debate style (if we're to take what you say at face value as true). Whatever, you're done on this thread....so have the last word if it makes you feel better. Adios.

Just because I invited you here doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything you say, I feel that you are irrational when it comes to nuclear energy. Fukushima was caused by an event that only happens once in a millennium, indeed the last tsunami of that size on the Sendai coast was in 869 AD. I would agree with you in saying that, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, they shouldn't have been located on that coastline but to use that as a way to say that all nuclear reactors should be banned is just simplistic nonsense.

What I find disturbing is that you try to equate that earth shattering event with the tritium release from a reactor in Vermont, the two are in no way comparable and it is disingenuous to say otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12740649

 

[The Dude]

Organic energy would bring hundreds of thousands of jobs unlike the dog shit solar bankruptcies Obama funded.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Organic energy would bring hundreds of thousands of jobs unlike the dog shit solar bankruptcies Obama funded.

So you don't that fixing solar panels to roofs has the potential to create a huge number of jobs?

 

[The Dude]

I think the create more dem talking heads than installers, proven organic energy jobs would drive unemployment Down 100 times more but is not on the dem dweeb handbook.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I think the create more dem talking heads than installers, proven organic energy jobs would drive unemployment Down 100 times more but is not on the dem dweeb handbook.

Sorry to inform you Dude, but just because you have a mindfart doesn't mean it's automatically a fact in the real world. Bottom line: one failed or faltering company does not automatically equate that the entire industry or mandate is incorrect. If you think the GOP has a better idea, then please present it. If not, give us the Libertarian pitch

 

[Taichiliberal]

Just because I invited you here doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything you say, I feel that you are irrational when it comes to nuclear energy. I don't believe it was you who invited me to this thread...and if it was you're an odd duck, given your general disdain and low opinion of my posts. But hey, if it keeps you off the streets, go for it. Fukushima was caused by an event that only happens once in a millennium, indeed the last tsunami of that size on the Sendai coast was in 869 AD. I would agree with you in saying that, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, they shouldn't have been located on that coastline but to use that as a way to say that all nuclear reactors should be banned is just simplistic nonsense.

What I find disturbing is that you try to equate that earth shattering event with the tritium release from a reactor in Vermont, the two are in no way comparable and it is disingenuous to say otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12740649

Oh my God, is that really you Thomas? My God man, haven't you gotten your head out of the nuke power industries ass yet? Because you're STILL lying and distorting what others post when the facts point out the problems and dangers of nuke power plants. Bottom line: neither you or any of the other nuke toadies could disprove the information regarding Vermont....so like good little toadies you try to portray the information as trivial. Fine. Go ahead and make drinking that water at those contamination levels part of your daily routine...along with bathing and washing your clothes.

The "comparison" to Fukishima is only in the context that nuke toadies consistently try to tell everyone that things are okay when they are not. Bottom line: I told you before that if Fukishima pumping all that contaminated waste water into the ocean is such a blow over (everything is not dire as of now), then why don't you take the wife and kids over there for a fish dinner? You never did respond....not surprising. So now you're pulling similar BS here, trying to BS away the FACTS to a "don't worry" mode. Again, I told you before Tommy, if its so safe, YOU go drink the water....just don't ask the rest of us to jump off that cliff with you. Carry on.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Oh my God, is that really you Thomas? My God man, haven't you gotten your head out of the nuke power industries ass yet? Because you're STILL lying and distorting what others post when the facts point out the problems and dangers of nuke power plants. Bottom line: neither you or any of the other nuke toadies could disprove the information regarding Vermont....so like good little toadies you try to portray the information as trivial. Fine. Go ahead and make drinking that water at those contamination levels part of your daily routine...along with bathing and washing your clothes.

The "comparison" to Fukishima is only in the context that nuke toadies consistently try to tell everyone that things are okay when they are not. Bottom line: I told you before that if Fukishima pumping all that contaminated waste water into the ocean is such a blow over (everything is not dire as of now), then why don't you take the wife and kids over there for a fish dinner? You never did respond....not surprising. So now you're pulling similar BS here, trying to BS away the FACTS to a "don't worry" mode. Again, I told you before Tommy, if its so safe, YOU go drink the water....just don't ask the rest of us to jump off that cliff with you. Carry on.

Surely there are hundred of thousands of people in Vermont drinking and washing in that water every day, By the way, I wondered how long it would take for you to realise who I am.