More Nuke Power Follies

Aoxomoxoa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well Tommy.....my issue in this thread is NOT nuclear safety...it is about TC and the tactics of a hack that cannot find it in his DNA to see even any flaws in his rather rambling, rambunctious rants....he'll mis-state, mis-characterize, lie and just plain ignore what he can't refute and then accuse his adversary of those very things....
Its worked rather well for him with some posters, but not all of us.....you'll tire of his "holier than thou, never give an inch, I'm always right" bullshit sooner rather than later....
 
Bananas which are rich in [SUP]39[/SUP]K, also contain [SUP]40[/SUP]K, this is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of potassium with a half life of 1.25 billion years. Another example from nature are Brazil nuts, not nuts but seeds by the way, which are also naturally radioactive containing significant amounts of radium. If you went into a nuclear facility with a pocket of Brazil nuts it would set off the radiation detectors, should we ban these dangerous foodstuffs?


http://chemistry.about.com/b/2011/07/10/bananas-are-radioactive.htm

http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/consumer products/brazilnuts.htm
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Well Tommy.....my issue in this thread is NOT nuclear safety...it is about TC and the tactics of a hack that cannot find it in his DNA to see even any flaws in his rather rambling, rambunctious rants....he'll mis-state, mis-characterize, lie and just plain ignore what he can't refute and then accuse his adversary of those very things....
Its worked rather well for him with some posters, but not all of us.....you'll tire of his "holier than thou, never give an inch, I'm always right" bullshit sooner rather than later....
Click to expand...

I agree, TCL is a good chap but he can't see the wood from the trees at times.
 
bravo said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.
Click to expand...

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.....:fu:.....:lol:

Ahhhh....beer and buffalo wings...food from the Gods....
Click to expand...

Only a fool spending too much time on a barstool would essentially repeat the SOS and then claim it's correct despite evidence to the contrary....Bravo aptly fits that category. No matter how much they try, Jarlaxe and Bravo, they cannot "interpret" the chronology of the posts to suit their agenda....but then again logic and honesty was never their strong point.

Bottom line: The information regarding the creeping tritium contamination to Vermonts rivers and water table is a matter of fact and history...and it does NOT bode well for the nuke power industry "it's under control, all is well" storyline.

Jarlaxe insipid stubborness about regarding airbags merely displays his ignorance regarding the history of the CPA involvment in getting a federal mandate for airbag installation.

End of story, folks. Now let's watch our resident rummy Bravo brag from the barstool about stuffing his drunken flabby ass with buffalo wings in celebration of his delusion of "victory". Laugh, my Bravo clown, laugh!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Bananas which are rich in [SUP]39[/SUP]K, also contain [SUP]40[/SUP]K, this is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of potassium with a half life of 1.25 billion years. Another example from nature are Brazil nuts, not nuts but seeds by the way, which are also naturally radioactive containing significant amounts of radium. If you went into a nuclear facility with a pocket of Brazil nuts it would set off the radiation detectors, should we ban these dangerous foodstuffs?


http://chemistry.about.com/b/2011/07/10/bananas-are-radioactive.htm

http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/consumer products/brazilnuts.htm
Click to expand...

So now what Tommy....you spam with everything BUT the FACTS of contaminations, cancer spikes, deaths, cost overruns, etc.? Tommy, you're doing EXACTLY like I said....you keep trying to BS over the FACTS. You can't remove or diminish the reality of what's going on in Vermont. Like all nuke power plant wonks, as long as it's not Fukishima or Chernobyl, all is well with you clowns, and it's just a matter of time before you get it right. Like I said before, if you want to drink the water at those contaminated levels in Vermont or eat fish in Tokyo off the Fukishima shore lines, go ahead. Just don't ask the rest of us to do the same...and don't expect us to drink the propaganda kool-aid as you do.

As for Bravo,...Jeezus, Tommy...check yourself.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So now what Tommy....you spam with everything BUT the FACTS of contaminations, cancer spikes, deaths, cost overruns, etc.? Tommy, you're doing EXACTLY like I said....you keep trying to BS over the FACTS. You can't remove or diminish the reality of what's going on in Vermont. Like all nuke power plant wonks, as long as it's not Fukishima or Chernobyl, all is well with you clowns, and it's just a matter of time before you get it right. Like I said before, if you want to drink the water at those contaminated levels in Vermont or eat fish in Tokyo off the Fukishima shore lines, go ahead. Just don't ask the rest of us to do the same...and don't expect us to drink the propaganda kool-aid as you do.

As for Bravo,...Jeezus, Tommy...check yourself.
Click to expand...

So what do the people of Vermont use to drink and wash with? Are you suggesting that they all use bottled water instead of tap water?

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/safe-clean-reliable/tritium-facts/
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

What you "believe" is irrelevent, Thomas.....YOUR problem is that the second anyone presents FACTS regarding the dangerous flaws and incidents regarding nuclear power plants, YOU immediately try to minimize and dismiss the importance of these facts, by posting a lot of related "non-threatening" information, or some idiotic comparisons to either natural events or other industrial pollution problems. But no matter what you do Thomas, YOU cannot change the FACTS regarding the creeping contamination in Vermont that's was NOT suppose to reach the levels it's at now, according to all the safety steps taken by the nuke power plant people. This is just another incident in the long list of problems with the nuke power industry that it's proponents want to gloss over....the attitude being that so long as there's not a Fukishima or a Chernobyl, everything's hunky-dory.

But the historical facts tell another tale. So again, if YOU want to live with that stuff, then go take a swig of that tritium laced water you have no problem with, or fish off the shores of Fukishima, as you told me the contaminated flushing into the sea was no big deal.....just don't ask the rest of us to jump off that cliff with you.

Bravo's entire existence depends upon NOT dealing with all the facts....in this instance, you're sharing that same willful ignorance, and that's just pathetic.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So what do the people of Vermont use to drink and wash with? Are you suggesting that they all use bottled water instead of tap water?

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/safe-clean-reliable/tritium-facts/
Click to expand...

Are you purposely being dense, Tommy? Didn't I already post information regarding exactly what is happening in Vermont? Didn't that information curtail your repeat of this "all is well" bullshit? C'mon Tommy...if you're going to be a nuke power toadie, at least be creative. This is why the phrase "chronology of the posts" is like sunlight to a vampire for people like your new found crony Bravo...because all one has to do is backtrack to see what was stated and why it makes ploys like the one you're trying here ridiculous.
 
Yea, Aoxo.....haven't you been reading all the newspaper articles and seeing the TV coverage on every channel about this oh so important issue of life threatening contamination of tritium in Vermont....I'm so glad our Liberal Democrat media is alerting the entire country of these dangers from our uncaring nuclear industry...
Olbermann and Mathews coverage is pretty extensive and Rachelle Maddow coverage of this catastrophic exposure to radiation is nothing short of fantastic.........

You just can turn on your TV or radio without being warned of these dangers to humanity.....and the world.



[/sarcasm]
 
As of this date, 13 out of a total of 31 groundwater monitoring wells are testing positive for tritium. Seven monitoring wells had tritium results that were lower as compared to last month, while six had higher results as compared to last month. Generally, the trends in tritium concentration are downward.

From the Sept. 22, 2011 update

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



Previously, the AP reported that regulators and industry have weakened safety standards for decades to keep the nation's commercial nuclear reactors operating within the rules. While NRC officials and plant operators argue that safety margins can be eased without peril, critics say these accommodations are inching the reactors closer to an accident.


Any exposure to radioactivity, no matter how slight, boosts cancer risk, according to the National Academy of Sciences. Federal regulators set a limit for how much tritium is allowed in drinking water. So far, federal and industry officials say, the tritium leaks pose no health threat.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...ound-many-nuke-sites-including-Vermont-Yankee
 
bravo said:
Yea, Aoxo.....haven't you been reading all the newspaper articles and seeing the TV coverage on every channel about this oh so important issue of life threatening contamination of tritium in Vermont....I'm so glad our Liberal Democrat media is alerting the entire country of these dangers from our uncaring nuclear industry...
Olbermann and Mathews coverage is pretty extensive and Rachelle Maddow coverage of this catastrophic exposure to radiation is nothing short of fantastic.........

You just can turn on your TV or radio without being warned of these dangers to humanity.....and the world.



[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...


The barstool bumpkin strikes again! Only this time he's mistaken his stupidity for sarcasm.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What you "believe" is irrelevent, Thomas.....YOUR problem is that the second anyone presents FACTS regarding the dangerous flaws and incidents regarding nuclear power plants, YOU immediately try to minimize and dismiss the importance of these facts, by posting a lot of related "non-threatening" information, or some idiotic comparisons to either natural events or other industrial pollution problems. But no matter what you do Thomas, YOU cannot change the FACTS regarding the creeping contamination in Vermont that's was NOT suppose to reach the levels it's at now, according to all the safety steps taken by the nuke power plant people. This is just another incident in the long list of problems with the nuke power industry that it's proponents want to gloss over....the attitude being that so long as there's not a Fukishima or a Chernobyl, everything's hunky-dory.

But the historical facts tell another tale. So again, if YOU want to live with that stuff, then go take a swig of that tritium laced water you have no problem with, or fish off the shores of Fukishima, as you told me the contaminated flushing into the sea was no big deal.....just don't ask the rest of us to jump off that cliff with you.

Bravo's entire existence depends upon NOT dealing with all the facts....in this instance, you're sharing that same willful ignorance, and that's just pathetic.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered my question, if the situation is as serious as you contend what do the people of Vermont use to wash, drink and bathe with? It seems to me that you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, as you are diametrically opposed to the use of nuclear energy and will use any minor problem to pursue your anti-nuclear agenda.

I have my own reservations about nuclear energy but realise that there is no form of energy production that is totally risk free. You want to hold a far higher standard of risk analysis to nuclear power than you would to coal, gas or wind power. I ask you to be objective but you just come back with emotion laden invective, if there were significant levels of tritium detected in drinking water then you would have a point but there isn't.

Coal, especially in China and India, is responsible for many deaths worldwide. Hundred of thousands of people die annually from mining accidents and respiratory illnesses yet you refuse to even address those facts.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
You still haven't answered my question, if the situation is as serious as you contend what do the people of Vermont use to wash, drink and bathe with?

Your "question" demonstrates your dishonesty...because I pointed toward the ongoing contamination that was endangering the river and the ground water supply. IF that level reached the actual part of the table used for consumption, then we're talking a whole new level of problems that jolly well would entail your suggestion. The whole point of this thread is that the situation is NOT as airtight safe as the nuke industry would like us to believe, and that there is a viable threat to the populace. This is why I call this the "follies", because the games you nuke power toadies play is indeed folly.

It seems to me that you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, as you are diametrically opposed to the use of nuclear energy and will use any minor problem to pursue your anti-nuclear agenda.

Repeating your "beliefs" are but a piss in the wind, Tommy. YOU keep doing EXACTLY as I said....trying to minimize every endangerment to the public and environment that the nuke power plants cause like a PR rep spinning damage control....but ALL the FACTS will always be your undoing.
I have my own reservations about nuclear energy but realise that there is no form of energy production that is totally risk free. You want to hold a far higher standard of risk analysis to nuclear power than you would to coal, gas or wind power. I ask you to be objective but you just come back with emotion laden invective, if there were significant levels of tritium detected in drinking water then you would have a point but there isn't.
Click to expand...

Newsflash for ya, Tommy......coal, gas or wind don't have the capability of causing genetic damage to living tissue or DECADES of contamination on the scale that a nuke plant can with just ONE accident or a few years of low level leakages. Your lame attempts at a "gotcha" question won't divert from the core issues of the information I put forth....I'm just not falling for that lame ploy that idiots like Bravo so readily use. And if you're going to insist on "answering questions", I've noticed that you CONSISTENTLY REFUSE to comment or answer my challenge/question as to whether you are willing to subject yourself and your family to the contamination levels of Vermont water or the Fukishima sea that you tell me is no big deal. Put up or shut up, Tommy....because your "come back" of condescending attitude is no substitute.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Newsflash for ya, Tommy......coal, gas or wind don't have the capability of causing genetic damage to living tissue or DECADES of contamination on the scale that a nuke plant can with just ONE accident or a few years of low level leakages. Your lame attempts at a "gotcha" question won't divert from the core issues of the information I put forth....I'm just not falling for that lame ploy that idiots like Bravo so readily use. And if you're going to insist on "answering questions", I've noticed that you CONSISTENTLY REFUSE to comment or answer my challenge/question as to whether you are willing to subject yourself and your family to the contamination levels of Vermont water or the Fukishima sea that you tell me is no big deal. Put up or shut up, Tommy....because your "come back" of condescending attitude is no substitute.
Click to expand...

Coal releases significant amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere but you chose to ignore that inconvenient fact. If you refuse to take my word for it, then maybe you will believe Scientific American instead? Coal miners are also exposed to not only uranium and thorium but radon gas as well.

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
Click to expand...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Newsflash for ya, Tommy......coal, gas or wind don't have the capability of causing genetic damage to living tissue or DECADES of contamination on the scale that a nuke plant can with just ONE accident or a few years of low level leakages. Your lame attempts at a "gotcha" question won't divert from the core issues of the information I put forth....I'm just not falling for that lame ploy that idiots like Bravo so readily use. And if you're going to insist on "answering questions", I've noticed that you CONSISTENTLY REFUSE to comment or answer my challenge/question as to whether you are willing to subject yourself and your family to the contamination levels of Vermont water or the Fukishima sea that you tell me is no big deal. Put up or shut up, Tommy....because your "come back" of condescending attitude is no substitute.
Click to expand...

Coal releases significant amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere but you chose to ignore that inconvenient fact. If you refuse to take my word for it, then maybe you will believe Scientific American instead? Coal miners are also exposed to not only uranium and thorium but radon gas as well.


Coal miners are die from black lung and such related diseases...NOT radiation poisoning on any level like you are inferring. C'mon Tommy, nuke power wonks have been trying to push that BS for years, and it's not making it. The problems of coal mining have been WELL documented...they are NOT the same as the cancer spikes and contaminations found at nuke plants throughout the world.


"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
Click to expand...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Click to expand...

Jeezus, you nuke power toadies do love to repeat your lies......let's put this nonsense to rest once and for all


Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410


[I]But how do we get from the relatively small excess risk detailed in the story to coal ash being 100 ties deadlier than radioactive waste? — which would kill you in a matter of minutes if you stood next to it unshielded. How could it possibly be that the material responsible for the Chernobyl cataclysm, and which killed workers there, is actually less dangerous than the coal fly ash that unprotected workers are now scooping up with heavy machinery in Tennessee? (I haven’t seen any of them keel over and die yet from acute exposure to radioactivity.)

Well, it can’t be. It is a patently absurd assertion. I pressed Oransky about this, and he responded not by changing the headline and issuing a correction but by changing the wording of the story (which was needed) and tacking on an editor’s note at the end. Here’s how the note concludes: “As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.”

I hesitate to say this, because I respect Scientific American and Oransky, but those are what one of my editors years ago liked to call “weasel words.”

It doesn’t take a grammarian to parse what’s going on here. Oransky is admitting that despite what the headline says, fly ash most definitely is not more radioactive than nuclear waste. Instead, I think he is saying that if you stood next to a pile of fly ash you’d probably get a bigger radiation dose than if you stood next to radioactive waste that is adequately shielded.[/I]
 
Taichiliberal said:
Why are you running away from the FACT that you couldn't get past me regarding this trititum contamination in Vermont issue, as the chronology of the posts shows? If you want to start a post on coal processing pollution and the YEARS of activism to mandate better filtration systems, be my guest. In the meantime, grow a pair and deal with the subject at hand.....or bluff and bluster like you usually do. Because like Tommy, you talk a good game, but wouldn't DARE live directly in the environment that you would have others do.
Click to expand...


Give it a fuckin' rest already, pinhead....I think this dog and pony show have run its course and then some.....you've been pwned so many times in this thread its a mercy killing to have you finally give it up.....

There must be some other topic you fancy yourself knowledgeable in.........you sure fucked up this one.....quantity rather then quality ain't gonna cut it.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
Jeezus, you nuke power toadies do love to repeat your lies......let's put this nonsense to rest once and for all


Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410


[I]But how do we get from the relatively small excess risk detailed in the story to coal ash being 100 ties deadlier than radioactive waste? — which would kill you in a matter of minutes if you stood next to it unshielded. How could it possibly be that the material responsible for the Chernobyl cataclysm, and which killed workers there, is actually less dangerous than the coal fly ash that unprotected workers are now scooping up with heavy machinery in Tennessee? (I haven’t seen any of them keel over and die yet from acute exposure to radioactivity.)

Well, it can’t be. It is a patently absurd assertion. I pressed Oransky about this, and he responded not by changing the headline and issuing a correction but by changing the wording of the story (which was needed) and tacking on an editor’s note at the end. Here’s how the note concludes: “As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.”

I hesitate to say this, because I respect Scientific American and Oransky, but those are what one of my editors years ago liked to call “weasel words.”

It doesn’t take a grammarian to parse what’s going on here. Oransky is admitting that despite what the headline says, fly ash most definitely is not more radioactive than nuclear waste. Instead, I think he is saying that if you stood next to a pile of fly ash you’d probably get a bigger radiation dose than if you stood next to radioactive waste that is adequately shielded.[/I]
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but just about all your posts on this subject are condescending so to accuse me of the same is bit rich, to say the least. Oh and by the way, posting a reply in orange is not a good idea as it is very hard to read. I see that you have chosen to ignore the huge numbers of deaths due to mining accidents and respiratory complaints caused by coal burning in China and India.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-coal-and-clean-air-coexist-china

http://brentfoster.photoshelter.com...-Coal-Fires-in-Jharia-India/G0000HTSguiqtaf0/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top