More Nuke Power Follies
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Again, fifth time:
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.
The government mandates folly all the time. You have refuted NOTHING.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Surely you realize that the article is pointing out the FACT that the very precautions taken so as the contamination would not reach the areas it is now encrouching on are NOT working? THAT is the point, Thomas. You dearly need to get your head out of the nuke industry's ass with this distortion and dodge routine....because if YOU are willing to accept being contaminated, or someone YOU love go through that, that's YOUR business....just don't ask the rest of us to unconditionally join you. You can't deny the facts, Tommy...you can BS around them, try to drown them with related information, but you can't erase, deny or diminish their reality. But you'll continue as usual, not surprising. Let me know how that Fukishima fish dinner goes with that tritium level Vermont water in my link. You can have your last condemnation/personality jab and repeat of the SOS you earlier presented, Thomas....I'm done dancing with you here and will see you around the boards.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
See folks, if you go back and follow the chronology of the posts, you'll see that Jarlaxe made a statement that I proved DEAD WRONG using historical FACTS. But like all insipidly stubborn idealogues with an axe to grind with the federal gov't., Jarlaxe doesn't have the guts or maturity just to admit his error in post #83. So instead, he repeats a moot point and then tries (again) to pass off his opinion as fact in order to avoid his faliure...and he fails again.
Like I said folks, Jarlaxe has presented nothing to change the FACTS regarding the creeping contamination in Vermont that was NOT suppose to happen. So he dodged to air bags...and failed. Jarlaxe will just repeat himself ad nauseum, building on the same old disproven nonsense with childish pot shots at me. Unless he's gots something of worth to add to discussion of Vermont, I'll just leave him to fester in his own silliness.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Your "chronology of the posts" is a way of telling everyone that you haven't the abillity to back up what you say.
Just my opinion.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I see it more as him pointing at something and repeating; see-see-see.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Why do liberals shit their panties over the issue of nuclear power?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And all one has to do is actually READ what I wrote in conjunction with this phrase to note that our Liberty lunkhead's opinion is worth but a piss in the wind. The phrase "chronology of the posts" irritates clowns like Liberty because when people click onto the arrows that back track the discussion, they see exactly what was said (especially if I name specific posts)....which always proves clowns like Liberty to be wrong and/or liars. They can deny it until doomsday, but the chronology of the posts will always contain the truth that will be their undoing.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Again, I have never tried to say that there isn't an issue here but I object to you trying to magnify it into some kind of mini nuclear holocaust. Coal fired power stations account for over 10,000 mining deaths as well as hundred of thousands of respiratory deaths worldwide per year. That's a fact which you seem reluctant to embrace.
China is currently building 28 nuclear reactors which will replace many of their coal fired power stations, surely you would be happy that this will result in many fewer deaths from the aforementioned causes. I would also point out that if if wasn't for the Cold War and the need to provide Plutonium-239 and Uranium-235 for military purposes there would now be many thorium powered reactors, which suffer none of the problems of uranium reactors. Indeed, not only are they be vastly more efficient but they would also solve the nuclear waste problem at a stroke. It has been estimated that 1.5 tonnes of thorium would provide all the world's energy requirements for a year.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
Last edited:
Just for fun I thought I'd look at the chronology of the posts about seat belts....
Post 37 (Aoxo) mentions air bags and seat belts in passing
Post 42 (TC) responds about Nader's support for airbags and the auto industry resisted the mandate to install them
Post 51 (Jarlaxle) states that airbags were marketed 15+years before the mandate, they failed and were dropped
Post 54 (TC) claims Jar is wrong and airbags were not fully marketed by every car dealership or auto company.... (NOTE THE JAR NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM IN THE FIRST PLACE) then rants that Jar didn't present proof
Post 59 (Jar) States "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."
Post 73 (TC)...wants proof again
Post 82 (Jar) Jar states "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). "
Post 83 (TC)..TC says "In 1984, car manufaturers were mandated by the US gov't to implement air bags in cars produced after April 1, 1989."(NOTE AGAIN-JARLAXLE NEVER MADE ANY CLAIMS ABOUT WHEN AIRBAGS WERE MANDATED)
Post 85 (Jar)
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.
Post 92 (TC)
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.
Then claims Jar is proven wrong.....
Very interesting to say the least....as the chronology of the posts show....TC corrects Jar on claims that are never actually made in the first place and then says Jar has been proven wrong....
He does this with regularity in every debate where he gets his ass kicked...
So the chronology of the posts do prove something....I didn't even bother to correct TC mis-spelling of manufacturers...
Post 37 (Aoxo) mentions air bags and seat belts in passing
Post 42 (TC) responds about Nader's support for airbags and the auto industry resisted the mandate to install them
Post 51 (Jarlaxle) states that airbags were marketed 15+years before the mandate, they failed and were dropped
Post 54 (TC) claims Jar is wrong and airbags were not fully marketed by every car dealership or auto company.... (NOTE THE JAR NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM IN THE FIRST PLACE) then rants that Jar didn't present proof
Post 59 (Jar) States "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."
Post 73 (TC)...wants proof again
Post 82 (Jar) Jar states "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). "
Post 83 (TC)..TC says "In 1984, car manufaturers were mandated by the US gov't to implement air bags in cars produced after April 1, 1989."(NOTE AGAIN-JARLAXLE NEVER MADE ANY CLAIMS ABOUT WHEN AIRBAGS WERE MANDATED)
Post 85 (Jar)
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.
Post 92 (TC)
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.
Then claims Jar is proven wrong.....
Very interesting to say the least....as the chronology of the posts show....TC corrects Jar on claims that are never actually made in the first place and then says Jar has been proven wrong....
He does this with regularity in every debate where he gets his ass kicked...
So the chronology of the posts do prove something....I didn't even bother to correct TC mis-spelling of manufacturers...
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You cannot dispute the chronology of the posts, I recall that Henry VIII had a servant called the "groom of the stool" and his job was to shift through the royal personage's bowel movements, not much has changed down the centuries.
You probably meant "sift" and not "shift" through, right toady....
Thats interesting though you mis-state the Grooms function and duty....
The appellation "Groom of the Stool"; derived from the item of furniture now known as a Commode or portable lavatory (Old English & Norse Stol or Stoll meaning a chair), was in the earliest times a male servant in the household of an English monarch who was in charge of providing at all times adequate and seemly facilities for the monarch's natural bodily function of excretion or defecation, and indeed assisted in the facilitating of his bodily functions and in his cleansing or washing thereafter.
"The Groom of the Stool had the most menial tasks; his standing, though, was the highest ...
Only in a place like Britain would this be possible......you must take great pride in the perverted history of your motherland.....is it still common there ?
I heard its now referred to as a 'tongue lashing" in England now, so perhaps the methods have changed....
Thats interesting though you mis-state the Grooms function and duty....
The appellation "Groom of the Stool"; derived from the item of furniture now known as a Commode or portable lavatory (Old English & Norse Stol or Stoll meaning a chair), was in the earliest times a male servant in the household of an English monarch who was in charge of providing at all times adequate and seemly facilities for the monarch's natural bodily function of excretion or defecation, and indeed assisted in the facilitating of his bodily functions and in his cleansing or washing thereafter.
"The Groom of the Stool had the most menial tasks; his standing, though, was the highest ...
Only in a place like Britain would this be possible......you must take great pride in the perverted history of your motherland.....is it still common there ?
I heard its now referred to as a 'tongue lashing" in England now, so perhaps the methods have changed....
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes, I meant sift not shift. Trust you to immediately think I was referring to you, on this occasion I was talking about TCL. I can see how you would be confused though, going through the motions is very much your style at times.
Yes ....you can see how I immediately thought you were referring to me.....and I didn't appreciate it.....
I stand corrected if I made a mistake on that account....I apologize for any misunderstanding....
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
This barfly Bravo is a piss poor excuse for a propagandist folks....but then again, beer and buffalo wings are fueling his obsession to prove me wrong. I'll just pull out the main support of his tirade:
Post #42 My response to Aox regarding airbags is just as casual as his, as my focus was on Vermont and tritium contamination. Further discussion with him focused on Vermont.
Post #51 Jarlaxe jumps in by stating that airbags were "marketed" and failed. It's a general statement on the whole auto industry...no specifics.
Post #54 I point out that Jarlaxe was wrong in his general statement, and pointed out the specifics (FACTS) as to why he's wrong. (there is a difference between a few "test markets" by one company and general industry marketing).
Post #59 jarlaxe starts to back track, NOW pointing out "test marketing" with general references to A FEW auto manufacturers. Mind you, jarlaxe NEVER PRODUCES DOCUMENTED FACTS TO BACK UP HIS STATEMENTS....but I did. And since failures are not generally mandated, Jarlaxe's statement does not stand up to facts.
So right away, this barstool buffoon of a Bravo tries to pass off his revised and skewed version of events as fact, when all one has to do is actually READ the posts to see his folly. The rest of Bravo's rant is more of the same....his opinion trying desperately to replace the true chronology of events. I'm not interested in seeing either Bravo or Jarlaxe admit error...those assholes can deny the chronology of the posts and their true content until doomsday, and it will do them no good.
Back to the barstool, Bravo.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Tommy, you're giving props to the barstool bumpkin...you know how fucked up that makes YOU look,Thomas? Grow the hell up, Tommy....information on the flaws of the nuke industry and it's ramifications are a matter of fact and history, whether you accept it or not. That you're back slapping neocon/teabagger drunken fools like Bravo because I prove something you don't like does not speak well of you.
Tapdance your fool ass off, pinhead....the chronology of the posts proves me right and the post "that airbags were, at that time, "marketed" and failed", is right as rain....
and you nonsense that "It's a general statement on the whole auto industry", shows you for a tapdancin' buffoon...There is no claim about "the whole auto industry"......
And incidentally...anytime a new, unproven innovation is marketed, it is marketed in a limited fashion and is by its nature "a test marketing".....
You can fool some of the people some of time, but you can't ever fool me...and the proof in in the "chronology" of the posts.....
.....:lol:Ahhhh....beer and buffalo wings...food from the Gods....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I disagree with Bravo more times than I agree, but on the issue of nuclear safety I believe that you are just not objective and prefer emotion to cold hard facts.