More Nuke Power Follies

bravo said:
Thanks for the heads up......

Sadly TC gets pwned with regularity and isn't even aware of it....its actually getting boring ...

I just love the way he addresses the entire board rather than the poster that bitch slaps him....its comical....

And how about that "bankrupt barstool bumpkin that is Bravo" line.....damn, its almost poetic.....

After a cold brew and some really hot buffalo wings with my wife, its fun to come home and piss on his head and tell him its raining....
Click to expand...

He is amusing to read, when there's nothing else to do.
 
Taichiliberal said:
That's because willfully ignorant wonks like Aox only read what suits them....and ignore all else, like this:


http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/tritium.aspx


Investigation into Tritium Contamination at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

..... To date, nine out of a total of 31 groundwater monitoring wells are testing positive for tritium. Generally, the trends are downward. For example, the highest wells were near 1,000,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) for tritium a year ago. These were wells near the AOG tunnel and AOG building. At the end of 2010, the highest levels were near 500,000 pCi/L from wells about halfway between plant buildings and the river. Now the highest tritium levels are about 125,000 pCi/L from wells near the river.

So again, if Aox is so comfortable with drinking contaminated water, let him. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

It has already been pointed out that those wells are for monitoring and not for extracting water for human use. Show me where there are anything remotely near those levels in the actual water supply system.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
That's because willfully ignorant wonks like Aox only read what suits them....and ignore all else, like this:


http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/tritium.aspx


Investigation into Tritium Contamination at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

..... To date, nine out of a total of 31 groundwater monitoring wells are testing positive for tritium. Generally, the trends are downward. For example, the highest wells were near 1,000,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) for tritium a year ago. These were wells near the AOG tunnel and AOG building. At the end of 2010, the highest levels were near 500,000 pCi/L from wells about halfway between plant buildings and the river. Now the highest tritium levels are about 125,000 pCi/L from wells near the river.

So again, if Aox is so comfortable with drinking contaminated water, let him. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

If I were you I would be far more concerned about Iran finally bringing Bushehr on stream. Especially considering that they refuse to join the 1996 Convention on Nuclear Safety, a treaty designed to improve safeguards after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The IAEA has stated that Iran would be the only country operating a nuclear power plant not to belong to the convention.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/irans-first-nuclear-power-plant-connected-grid-094100432.html
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You better look out Bravo.
The last time I noticed anyone reapeating another person's name, in such a short time, was a girl that was infatuated with some young boy.
Click to expand...

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?34387-More-Nuke-Power-Follies&p=863036#post863036

As you can see folks, we have yet another intellectually bankrupt and dishonest clown like our Bravo (who still doesn't realize that US freedom was NEVER in jeopardy on 9/11) just avoiding true discussion on the contamination of Vermont's water table in favor of personal attacks. Bet you dollars to donuts both of these dummies would wail like stuck pigs if this situation was in their backyard! Watch'em dance, folks.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It has already been pointed out that those wells are for monitoring and not for extracting water for human use. Show me where there are anything remotely near those levels in the actual water supply system.
Click to expand...

No one said the wells were for pumping water for consumption, you intellectually dishonest coward Aox. Go back and READ the links, as the contamination is nearer to the Vermont river system....something that was SUPPOSED TO BE PREVENTED. Also, the "wells" are catching contaminated water, but are NOT preventing ALL of it from going through the eco-system.

May 14, 2010 - Soil Tests Confirm Contamination
Soil testing in the area around the leak has measured concentrations of radioisotopes consistent with a leak of nuclear reactor water. Steadily decreasing tritium concentrations in samples taken from the ground water monitoring wells drilled since January show the movement of tritium contamination in the ground water generally west to east into the Connecticut River.


I mean really, are you such nuke power wonk that you're going to try and picayune/excerpt everything to try and promote an image that isn't true? Are you REALLY that stupid as to try and lie about what I write when the chronology of the posts proves you wrong at every turn? Grow up, man!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
That's because willfully ignorant wonks like Aox only read what suits them....and ignore all else, like this:


http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/tritium.aspx


Investigation into Tritium Contamination at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

..... To date, nine out of a total of 31 groundwater monitoring wells are testing positive for tritium. Generally, the trends are downward. For example, the highest wells were near 1,000,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) for tritium a year ago. These were wells near the AOG tunnel and AOG building. At the end of 2010, the highest levels were near 500,000 pCi/L from wells about halfway between plant buildings and the river. Now the highest tritium levels are about 125,000 pCi/L from wells near the river.

So again, if Aox is so comfortable with drinking contaminated water, let him. I'll pass.
Click to expand...


If I were you I would be far more concerned about Iran finally bringing Bushehr on stream. Especially considering that they refuse to join the 1996 Convention on Nuclear Safety, a treaty designed to improve safeguards after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The IAEA has stated that Iran would be the only country operating a nuclear power plant not to belong to the convention.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/irans-first-nuclear-power-plant-connected-grid-094100432.html
Click to expand...

If I were YOU I would grow the fuck up and just admit the validity of my posts and subsequent statements on them, rather than blow smoke and try to change the subject.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No one said the wells were for pumping water for consumption, you intellectually dishonest coward Aox. Go back and READ the links, as the contamination is nearer to the Vermont river system....something that was SUPPOSED TO BE PREVENTED. Also, the "wells" are catching contaminated water, but are NOT preventing ALL of it from going through the eco-system.

May 14, 2010 - Soil Tests Confirm Contamination
Soil testing in the area around the leak has measured concentrations of radioisotopes consistent with a leak of nuclear reactor water. Steadily decreasing tritium concentrations in samples taken from the ground water monitoring wells drilled since January show the movement of tritium contamination in the ground water generally west to east into the Connecticut River.


I mean really, are you such nuke power wonk that you're going to try and picayune/excerpt everything to try and promote an image that isn't true? Are you REALLY that stupid as to try and lie about what I write when the chronology of the posts proves you wrong at every turn? Grow up, man!
Click to expand...

I am merely asking you to provide some evidence that tritiated water has actually found its way into water supplies. I feel that you are one that needs to grow up, as it seems you just start throwing your toys out of the pram if anybody dares to disagree with your interpretation of events. I have never doubted that there was a leakage, probably from a broken pipe, but you are trying to paint a scenario of a heavily irradiated landscape and water supply which is not borne out by the facts.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am merely asking you to provide some evidence that tritiated water has actually found its way into water supplies. I feel that you are one that needs to grow up, as it seems you just start throwing your toys out of the pram if anybody dares to disagree with your interpretation of events. I have never doubted that there was a leakage, probably from a broken pipe, but you are trying to paint a scenario of a heavily irradiated landscape and water supply which is not borne out by the facts.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this useful post.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No one said the wells were for pumping water for consumption, you intellectually dishonest coward Aox. Go back and READ the links, as the contamination is nearer to the Vermont river system....something that was SUPPOSED TO BE PREVENTED. Also, the "wells" are catching contaminated water, but are NOT preventing ALL of it from going through the eco-system.

May 14, 2010 - Soil Tests Confirm Contamination
Soil testing in the area around the leak has measured concentrations of radioisotopes consistent with a leak of nuclear reactor water. Steadily decreasing tritium concentrations in samples taken from the ground water monitoring wells drilled since January show the movement of tritium contamination in the ground water generally west to east into the Connecticut River.


I mean really, are you such nuke power wonk that you're going to try and picayune/excerpt everything to try and promote an image that isn't true? Are you REALLY that stupid as to try and lie about what I write when the chronology of the posts proves you wrong at every turn? Grow up, man!
Click to expand...



I am merely asking you to provide some evidence that tritiated water has actually found its way into water supplies. I feel that you are one that needs to grow up, as it seems you just start throwing your toys out of the pram if anybody dares to disagree with your interpretation of events. I have never doubted that there was a leakage, probably from a broken pipe, but you are trying to paint a scenario of a heavily irradiated landscape and water supply which is not borne out by the facts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jarlaxle said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, actually..... you are telling a bunch of lies and creating absurd scenarios, jarlaxle. Airbags were NOT fully "marketed" by every car dealership or auto companies for "15" years. Many DID NOT OFFER THE OPTION as they did NOT want to take on the added cost of installation. You have NO FACTS to back up your claim that airbags initally "utterly failed", but the CPA had provided enough fact based documentation to prove their case to the federal gov't for mandatory installation of airbags. The rest of your tale regarding "lethal" power of airbags is a collection of half truths, omissions and outright false statements in order to make your anti-gov't regulation rant seem plausible. As for the tale regarding your mom not being able to drive your car.....if indeed she is so short that she would be "decapitated" by a deploying airbag, then she is too short to see over the steering wheel and should not be driving at all. In reality, airbags save lives and prevent injuries.....a fact I can attest to personally, as two years ago some drunken fool barreled out the wrong way of an off road entrance...smashing into the rear of my car and forcing me to turn into a support pylon of a a train platform rather than spin into the on-coming lane. The impact slammed me forward. If NOT for my shoulder harness AND my airbag, I would have had a serious head injury against the steering wheel. Deal with it.

Now, unless you've got some fact based points to discuss regarding the tritium pollution in Vermont, I'll just ignore any further dodgy fantasy you may want to construct
Click to expand...
.


GM test-marketed airbags in the early 70's...they were optional in many cars, including the Olds Toronado & the Cadillac de Ville. They bombed.

Repeating yourself without providing any documentation doesn't magically make your claims come true, Jar.

My mother can see over the wheel easily (you know that, of course, and are merely trying to distract)...just raise the seat up (I prefer it all the way down) & tilt the column down, not a problem. Well, not a problem, except that to reach the pedals, she is only about 4" from the wheel. At that distance, an exploding airbag will be LETHAL. My wife's best friend is 6" shorter than my mother, she has no problem driving...except for the airbags. She has a 2001 Camaro Z28 SS...she uses a pedal extender on the clutch, and the driver's airbag is disabled.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taichiliberal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top