I know you like the pretty pictures, but you should read the link, or get someone to read it to you. Disinformation and misinformation flow from you like water over Niagara Falls. Why do you think there is a huge concrete sarcophagus over the area at Chernobyl? What are they trying to protect you from?
Pictures ?
LOL !!
You didn't even know what "Corium" was before you entered into this debate. You showed up with your generic corporate hate and your made up scenario's and I "corrected " you.
Next time post data and do it with integrity, that way I won't have to school you anymore.
Post
number 10 of this thread. First mention of corium, by guess who, yours truly. Back to your crayons.
"I don't recall debating anyone so misinformed. Fukushima was built with and inadequate seawall in a place that had stone tsunami markers identifying previous tsunami levels. These were ignored by the engineering geniuses with the hugely safe design parameters and cost effectiveness mitigating factors. Translated. Screw the people. If it happens we'll claim it was an unforeseeable act of nature and laugh all the way to the bank. Remember the stone tsunami markers. There are no excuses here. Right now the molten coriums from the three reactors are in unknown locations somewhere beneath their original locations. Most likely will cook their way into the underground flowing water that will cool them and send their deadly mother lode into the Pacific, slowly and deadly. Hubris and arrogance combine with greed to engineer a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Yeh, them nukes gotta be wonderful stuff.
You lying publicly about Fukishimas corium being exposed is not the same thing as being "informed".
But I supppose the best your'e capable of is posting a previous comment embolded.. LOL !!
One of three things happened:
1) Some blog told you about this paper, with the "28%" "in North America" "attributable to Fukushima" interpretation. You accepted this interpretation without question, but knew I would be skeptical about a blog so just posted the paper. Without reading it.
2) You did read the paper, or at least the abstract, and deliberately lied about it.
3) You did read the paper, or at least the abstract, and your reading comprehension is appallingly bad.
Tell me which one it is.
(this paper does not say what you think it says)
1- you defend the charge that you ignore facts that do not suit your opinions by admitting that you ignored the paper.
An you were also wrong because it was an interview with the doctors involved in the study explaining their findings and discussing the paper that just got published in a journal of pediatrics.
Also false, had you even made it as far in your honest rebuttal to facts by even reading the one paragraph abstract, would have known that this is not a valid charge.
You didn't even read it, by your own admission.
Tell me, what is it that you think this paper is saying and tell me what I said that was wrong about it??
Oh and tell me, how many times greater than background levels was the exposure while you are at it?
Of course, as usual, you will come back with more nonsense to cover for your deliberate ignorance.
Number 3 is the winner: appallingly bad reading comprehension.
Knowing Mcfly, I would have guessed number 1. After a quick google search for "28% Fukushima" and seeing that the third (and original date-wise) hit is for Alex Jones, I would say without doubt that number 1 is correct. He gets all of his "news" from AJ. This of course does not mean that bad reading comprehension or flat out lying is not in play as well, wouldn't be the first time for either.
Number 3 is the winner: appallingly bad reading comprehension.
Ok, tell me what the paper says; use quotes... link is back a couple pages.
Oh, we know you went back and checked after I called you out on it. Then you discovered your mistake and have been desperately trying to justify it.
I still think bad reading comprehension is at fault. For evidence, Mcfly took a paragraph in which someone accused him of not reading the article and interpretted that as the poster admitting that they themself didn't read the article. That's pretty bad.
Knowing Mcfly, I would have guessed number 1. After a quick google search for "28% Fukushima" and seeing that the third (and original date-wise) hit is for Alex Jones, I would say without doubt that number 1 is correct. He gets all of his "news" from AJ. This of course does not mean that bad reading comprehension or flat out lying is not in play as well, wouldn't be the first time for either.
Oh another person on the attack me, I said I heard it in an interview with a doctor that was involved in writing the peer - reviewed paper.
Now the discussion is about who I am as opposed to the information on the table.
Just pathetic.
I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking your deceptive presentation of that research. You picked out the 28% outlier and declared that trend to be both "across North America" and "attributed to Fukushima." In reality, it was only one state and the author specifically did not attribute it to Fukushima. He suggested they need more research.
Oh another person on the attack me, I said I heard it in an interview with a doctor that was involved in writing the peer - reviewed paper.
Now the discussion is about who I am as opposed to the information on the table.
Just pathetic.
...to claim its "no big deal" is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.
In the big explosion radioactive debris was found 20km away, and the smoke, dust, and flames sent all sorts of particles into the atmosphere where it's now circling the earth.
...the background radiation of the northern hemisphere is now double the southern hemisphere.
I-131 rates that have increased over 200 times since Fukushima.
You picked out the 28% outlier and declared that trend to be both "across North America" and "attributed to Fukushima."
no, because I explained that when I said this surge was in the us that I meant in the us as opposed to in Japan where the problem would be worse.
there's already been a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima.
And where was that interview being conducted? Perhaps on the Alex Jones InfoWars show?
If you'd stop with the paranoid alarmist style of blowing things WAY out of proportion, maybe this wouldn't keep happening. You always do this. Below is what I am talking about...
It's seriously like you are running around waving your arms and screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE", and then you try to act like you're the only one being rational when somebody tells you "no we're not".
And then as for this exchange with Deuce...
Where you claim...
Sorry, but I gotta call bull**** on that one pal. You CLEARLY said:
Why can't you ever just go back and actually read what you wrote, before trying to twists things into "no, I didn't say THAT"?
It's right ****ing there man. Then you have the nerve to claim he doesn't have any facts and is side-stepping? :lamo
Relevance?
Does going on InfoWars refute his peer - reviewed and published paper?
Too bad you haven't really paid attention to my points.
Even in a worst case scenario, I mean absolute worst case, this is not a life ending situation. Unless you live in that region of Japan.
If you live on the west coast, it's more a matter of accepting that if you are the unlucky one to ingest some hot particles, it might be 5-20 years later, but there will be health consequences.
I know what i said, but look at the context. I was responding to the stupidity that the radiation and radioactive debris is not a concern and will not harm anyone. So, in that context I was saying that the paper was relevant to the us, and by implication, not in Japan where the situation is undoubtedly far worse. What is still really pathetic in this is that you also can't deal with the peer - reviewed paper that was linked, and instead focus on ME.
You are right I misspoke, and I will choose my words more carefully next time, since I know how even one word out of place is enough to completely divert from the topic at hand. If you guys cared even slightly about honest discussion instead of playing these stupid lame word games trying to one up the other side, we could have some productive discussion that might lead to actually fixing some of these problems.
Think about it; 3 major nuclear accidents within less than 100 years...
it's not life ending, but seriously, how many more of these accidents can occur before the ecosystem just dies?
Since some dummies seem to think that radiation is nutritious and delicious. .. The thought is probably that no bad can happen.
It establishes a pattern. During the 5 years we've been talking on here, you seem to exclusively get your news from that alarmist crackpot. He lies about things and twists stuff around until it fits his narrative so he can get more website/radio traffic. He constantly spews bs and lies Mcfly.
If he is the type that subscribes to Alex Jones' nonsense, then yes I will question the validity of his paper. The big problem is, you guys that like one conspiracy seem to like them all. That is a problem for somebody like me that likes FACTS... Not wild speculation and twisted numbers to make paranoid people take notice, tune-in, donate, etc.
I was waiting for you to actually make one.
Where are the mass body counts from that region of Japan then? Can you even find ten? Five? ONE?
Okay fair enough, but if that is the point you were trying to make when you were seemingly freaking out about "a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima", then I honestly think you should work on how you initially present things a little better. Those two statements you made are miles apart.
I was pointing out the stupidity in constantly using Alex ****ing Jones as your source of info on pretty much everything all over this forum. It's always the same. You take that fringe side that JUST KNOWS SOMETHING IS WRONG and inject it into everything. Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's always "darn it, I know something is wrong and that the governments are lying and that everyone is out to get me. It gets old.
You're right. Let's get back on track here and have a productive discussion on debatepolitics that will fix "problems" (that largely don't exist) in the freaking nuclear power industry. I am sure that their agents are tuning in and will take notes. So you start. How should we best fix this since you are definitely more informed than I am about what these "problems" are?
That's actually pretty good when you think about it. How many other gigantic worldwide industries can even come close to claiming such a low failure/accident rate?
Uhm... "before the ecosystem just dies? Lots.
It's about perspective. You often turn things into one extreme or the other, when the correct answer is more in the middle. I don't think anybody here honestly thinks that radiation in all forms is "nutritious and delicious", but the situation at Fukushima is not some boogeyman either. We all experience more radiation from simple daily tasks than we will ever see from what was a relatively major disaster. That is just a fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?