The truth of global warming II

[BmanMcfly]

Tokyo hasn't seen radiation increase even beyond background levels, and here you were talking about the western US coastal areas...

Tokyo isn't exactly in the direct path of the trade winds into the jet stream... but they are still seeing about 3 times increase in radiation.

The western coastal regions was based on RECORDED DATA IN TAP WATER!!!

So, your denial here is baseless and at worst is delusional.

You seem to have backpedaled a lot.

Look at the trade winds and the jetstream and you'll see why tokyo wasn't hit as hard as it could have been.

 

[Deuce]

Tokyo isn't exactly in the direct path of the trade winds into the jet stream... but they are still seeing about 3 times increase in radiation.

The western coastal regions was based on RECORDED DATA IN TAP WATER!!!

So, your denial here is baseless and at worst is delusional.



Look at the trade winds and the jetstream and you'll see why tokyo wasn't hit as hard as it could have been.

If you test the sidewalk you'll find traces of radiation too.

Or your sofa.

 

[BmanMcfly]

If you test the sidewalk you'll find traces of radiation too.

Or your sofa.

Yes, and now if you're in Tokyo, you take those levels and multiply them by 3.

Now in the drinking water in california, you take those levels and you multiply it by 180. Oh wait... that's not right, it was 180 times the SAFE level which is already above and beyond back ground levels.

You're comparing background radiation and radioactive contamination as the same thing, They are not. Especially when you're dealing with radioactive contamination that is ingested or inhaled... THEN, it's like getting a low-powered x-ray from within your body continuously until your body processes that radiation.

ALSO, those radiation detectors ONLY show results for actual radiation hitting the sensor, for radioactive iodine, and if any radiation contaminated particle lands on the sensor... it does not detect the cesium, the plutonium, the xenon and all other toxic off-gasses,

I'm getting the sense one of you is on the verge of pulling an Anne Coulter, who declared "oh at least the japanese won't have to worry about getting cancer because of the radiation"

The part that's irking me a bit is how sensitive the both of you have been in dealing with increases in CO2 levels, but don't consider increases in radiation to have the same potential??

 

[Deuce]

Yes, and now if you're in Tokyo, you take those levels and multiply them by 3.

Now in the drinking water in california, you take those levels and you multiply it by 180. Oh wait... that's not right, it was 180 times the SAFE level which is already above and beyond back ground levels.

You're comparing background radiation and radioactive contamination as the same thing, They are not. Especially when you're dealing with radioactive contamination that is ingested or inhaled... THEN, it's like getting a low-powered x-ray from within your body continuously until your body processes that radiation.

ALSO, those radiation detectors ONLY show results for actual radiation hitting the sensor, for radioactive iodine, and if any radiation contaminated particle lands on the sensor... it does not detect the cesium, the plutonium, the xenon and all other toxic off-gasses,

I'm getting the sense one of you is on the verge of pulling an Anne Coulter, who declared "oh at least the japanese won't have to worry about getting cancer because of the radiation"

The part that's irking me a bit is how sensitive the both of you have been in dealing with increases in CO2 levels, but don't consider increases in radiation to have the same potential??

Link evidence of this 180 times radiation in California. Then link those levels to the situation in Japan and not, say, a local coal power plant. (which spits uranium into the atmosphere, by the way)

Nobody thinks the situation in Japan is trivial. It is not, however, in the same universe as Chernobyl.

Nobody said that increased radiation doesn't cause problems either. You're spitting out a lot of numbers about radiation levels but haven't backed any of them up.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, and now if you're in Tokyo, you take those levels and multiply them by 3.

Now in the drinking water in california, you take those levels and you multiply it by 180. Oh wait... that's not right, it was 180 times the SAFE level which is already above and beyond back ground levels.

You're comparing background radiation and radioactive contamination as the same thing, They are not. Especially when you're dealing with radioactive contamination that is ingested or inhaled... THEN, it's like getting a low-powered x-ray from within your body continuously until your body processes that radiation.

ALSO, those radiation detectors ONLY show results for actual radiation hitting the sensor, for radioactive iodine, and if any radiation contaminated particle lands on the sensor... it does not detect the cesium, the plutonium, the xenon and all other toxic off-gasses,

I'm getting the sense one of you is on the verge of pulling an Anne Coulter, who declared "oh at least the japanese won't have to worry about getting cancer because of the radiation"

The part that's irking me a bit is how sensitive the both of you have been in dealing with increases in CO2 levels, but don't consider increases in radiation to have the same potential??

Elevated yet still very low levels of radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis have now been detected in the air or water in more than a dozen US states and three territories, federal and local authorities say.

Some of the filter results show levels slightly higher than those found by EPA monitors last week and a Department of Energy monitor the week before,” the EPA said in its statement Monday. “These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are still far below levels of public health concern.”

link


So, you're wrong about two issues: Global warming, and dangerous radiation levels from Japan. Would you like to try for three out of three? Maybe you could start a diversion about how the moon landing was a hoax, or perhaps how Bush orchestrated the attack of 9/11. Those arguments would be sure losers also.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Link evidence of this 180 times radiation in California. Then link those levels to the situation in Japan and not, say, a local coal power plant. (which spits uranium into the atmosphere, by the way)

I thought you didn't actually read posts...
NY Times contributor confirms California rainwater 181 times above drinking water standards for radioactive iodine-131 « Energy News
http://www.baycitizen.org/japan-disaster/story/government-under-fire-radiation-milk/1/
- Raw data : UCB Rain Water Sampling Results | The Nuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley

Nobody thinks the situation in Japan is trivial. It is not, however, in the same universe as Chernobyl.

Ya, I know... Chernobyl was just 1 reactor meltdown... NOT 1 full meltdown and at least 2 other partial meltdowns, multiple explosions, etc.

The only way in which it's not as bad was because the brunt of the radioactive fallout will be landing in the oceans... as opposed to over populated areas.

Nobody said that increased radiation doesn't cause problems either. You're spitting out a lot of numbers about radiation levels but haven't backed any of them up.

No, I backed all of them up, but you continue to argue ad ignoratum.

link

Ok, your turn for owning...

This article is a strawman for multiple reasons :
1 - This is from over a week ago
2 - This isn't referring to the same readings
3 - This was readings taken BEFORE the rainfall.

So, you're wrong about two issues: Global warming, and dangerous radiation levels from Japan. Would you like to try for three out of three? Maybe you could start a diversion about how the moon landing was a hoax, or perhaps how Bush orchestrated the attack of 9/11. Those arguments would be sure losers also.

You mean I'm correct about several issues :
First : You guys don't care about the earth, you care about controlling life through CO2.
Second : I was correct about high radiation levels in Japan outside the fukushima evacuation zone
Third : I was correct about a drastically high level of I-131 in rainwater (which rains over the tap water)
Fourth : I didn't have to rely on any strawman arguments so I also own you in logical superiority.

OWNED!

Both of you. Was your 3 way as good for you as it was for me?

 

[Dittohead not!]

I thought you didn't actually read posts...
NY Times contributor confirms California rainwater 181 times above drinking water standards for radioactive iodine-131 « Energy News
Government Under Fire as Radiation Is Found in Milk, Rain - The Bay Citizen
- Raw data : UCB Rain Water Sampling Results | The Nuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley



Ya, I know... Chernobyl was just 1 reactor meltdown... NOT 1 full meltdown and at least 2 other partial meltdowns, multiple explosions, etc.

The only way in which it's not as bad was because the brunt of the radioactive fallout will be landing in the oceans... as opposed to over populated areas.


No, I backed all of them up, but you continue to argue ad ignoratum.


Ok, your turn for owning...

This article is a strawman for multiple reasons :
1 - This is from over a week ago
2 - This isn't referring to the same readings
3 - This was readings taken BEFORE the rainfall.



You mean I'm correct about several issues :
First : You guys don't care about the earth, you care about controlling life through CO2.
Second : I was correct about high radiation levels in Japan outside the fukushima evacuation zone
Third : I was correct about a drastically high level of I-131 in rainwater (which rains over the tap water)
Fourth : I didn't have to rely on any strawman arguments so I also own you in logical superiority.

OWNED!

Both of you. Was your 3 way as good for you as it was for me?

From your first link:

TODAY'S MOST VIEWED

Fukushima Forecast: Radioactive particles concentrated over Northwest U.S. on April 6 (VIDEO) (2347)
Latest forecast has all of California under radiation threat April 6, 7 — Shows levels as high as in Japan (VIDEO) (1277)
EPA finds DRINKING water with radioactive iodine-131 in Idaho and Washington — Samples collected last week (1020)
Trouble at Fukushima reactors No. 5 and 6 — Cracks are allowing in radioactive water that could destroy emergency generator and other vital equipment (VIDEO) (935)
Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco 18,100% above federal drinking water standard (871)

and you talk of "alarmists" who think sea levels will rise in another half century?

If there were this much radiation being detected in the State of California, the local news would be about nothing else. This state is pretty attuned to the environment, after all.

But back to the original issue:

First : You guys don't care about the earth, you care about controlling life through CO2.

Shh... Don't tell anyone! We're about to take over the Earth, the three of us. First, we faked the moon landing, then we covered up the government's orchestration of the attacks of 9/11, and now we're perpetrating the Great Conspiracy that global warming is real! You've found us out, but it's too late! We're about to take over and enslave mankind! Bwa hahahahah!

 

[BmanMcfly]

From your first link:

and you talk of "alarmists" who think sea levels will rise in another half century?

Ok... let's analyze this :

A - Co2 which potentially MIGHT cause some warming into the next century which has the potential to maybe cause some negative effects, or
B - A MASSIVE radiation leak that's being dumped into the pacific ocean which is the primary source of fishing in the northern hemisphere, that's spread world wide to levels that are far beyond legal limits on what is allowed in drinking water... and that's THOUSANDS of miles from the ground zero... A portion of japan is going to remain uninhabitable for BILLIONS of years, and we can't even fully measure the extent of the damage that WILL be caused by this because the crisis is not over.

Your argument here is like saying "Oh, nevermind that the house is burning down because the foundation might start cracking in the next 50 years." Well, I'm sorry but if the house is burning let's at least admit the REAL problem CURRENTLY rather then speculating about potential damage sometime in the future.

If there were this much radiation being detected in the State of California, the local news would be about nothing else. This state is pretty attuned to the environment, after all.

That's what you might call a cover-up... not in the sense that it's being hidden but in the sense that the problems are not being adequately publicized... and really, the nuclear lobby groups have a vested interest in doing the best to downplay any concerns because they want MORE nuclear plants, NOT restrictions on their potential market as energy producers.

But back to the original issue:


Shh... Don't tell anyone! We're about to take over the Earth, the three of us. First, we faked the moon landing, then we covered up the government's orchestration of the attacks of 9/11, and now we're perpetrating the Great Conspiracy that global warming is real! You've found us out, but it's too late! We're about to take over and enslave mankind! Bwa hahahahah!

Oh, so your main concern is making jokes... this is such a pathetic strawman anyway it's barely worth even addressing.

Instead of being a sore loser in this argument how about you suck it up accept you were wrong and maybe quit this delusional mindset you got going on?? Too much to ask probably...

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ok... let's analyze this :

A - Co2 which potentially MIGHT cause some warming into the next century which has the potential to maybe cause some negative effects, or
B - A MASSIVE radiation leak that's being dumped into the pacific ocean which is the primary source of fishing in the northern hemisphere, that's spread world wide to levels that are far beyond legal limits on what is allowed in drinking water... and that's THOUSANDS of miles from the ground zero... A portion of japan is going to remain uninhabitable for BILLIONS of years, and we can't even fully measure the extent of the damage that WILL be caused by this because the crisis is not over.

Your argument here is like saying "Oh, nevermind that the house is burning down because the foundation might start cracking in the next 50 years." Well, I'm sorry but if the house is burning let's at least admit the REAL problem CURRENTLY rather then speculating about potential damage sometime in the future.



That's what you might call a cover-up... not in the sense that it's being hidden but in the sense that the problems are not being adequately publicized... and really, the nuclear lobby groups have a vested interest in doing the best to downplay any concerns because they want MORE nuclear plants, NOT restrictions on their potential market as energy producers.



Oh, so your main concern is making jokes... this is such a pathetic strawman anyway it's barely worth even addressing.

Instead of being a sore loser in this argument how about you suck it up accept you were wrong and maybe quit this delusional mindset you got going on?? Too much to ask probably...

Since there is nothing new to be said about global warming, I might as well make jokes about it. Nothing that can be said, printed, yelled, or shown is going to change the minds of the Great Conspiracy theorists anyway.

And engaging in alarmism about the nuclear disaster in Japan simply is a distraction from the non debate about global warming. What is the connection anyway?

 

[lpast]

Since there is nothing new to be said about global warming, I might as well make jokes about it. Nothing that can be said, printed, yelled, or shown is going to change the minds of the Great Conspiracy theorists anyway.

And engaging in alarmism about the nuclear disaster in Japan simply is a distraction from the non debate about global warming. What is the connection anyway?

I dont believe it because theres simply no proof and the scientific community has been caught with their pants down lieing about it too often and they are split themselves on whether there is or there isnt...and im not willing to spend another trillion chasing our tails. Now if you ask me what I really think.

I think its a created disaster so scientists can get lots more grant money because thats what most of them live on and the environazis want us all to believe where going to burst into flames soon to advance thier agenda

 

[BmanMcfly]

Since there is nothing new to be said about global warming, I might as well make jokes about it. Nothing that can be said, printed, yelled, or shown is going to change the minds of the Great Conspiracy theorists anyway.

And engaging in alarmism about the nuclear disaster in Japan simply is a distraction from the non debate about global warming. What is the connection anyway?

The connection was made to point out how you guys really don't care about the earth. You guys care about having your 'team' gain control over carbon through lies, manipulations and distortions to get your points across.

It shows how in the face of TRUE environmental catastrophe you will maintain that the concern is on CO2 levels, rather then the catastrophe.

I also accidentally showed how you guys don't actually read counter-arguments in any significant way and are just parroting the nonsense that was spoonfed to you by scientists who are effectively the employees of special interest groups (at least at the international level, there are still scientists out there doing good work after all).

Finally, I also accidentally showed how you guys just, to coin the phrase, talk out your arse.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The connection was made to point out how you guys really don't care about the earth. You guys care about having your 'team' gain control over carbon through lies, manipulations and distortions to get your points across.

It shows how in the face of TRUE environmental catastrophe you will maintain that the concern is on CO2 levels, rather then the catastrophe.

I also accidentally showed how you guys don't actually read counter-arguments in any significant way and are just parroting the nonsense that was spoonfed to you by scientists who are effectively the employees of special interest groups (at least at the international level, there are still scientists out there doing good work after all).

Finally, I also accidentally showed how you guys just, to coin the phrase, talk out your arse.

I see. So "we guys" either have to buy into the alarmism being spread by the blog you cited about the nuclear accident, or we "don't care about the Earth" and are just "spouting nonsense spoonfed to us by scientists who are a part of the Great Conspiracy.

Did you look beyond the alarmist blog you quoted about how much radiation was reaching the US?

Oh, never mind, I already know the answer to that one. Further, it is an unrelated issue, a red herring, a diversion.

It's not a matter of caring for the Earth. It's a matter of looking at logic and fact. The fact is that the scientific community is on board with AGW, that they have made a solid case, and there is no debate there. All of the debate is among the politicians, and all of it centers around issue #3, can we do anything about it, and #4, will it really be a disaster. Issues 1 and 2 are already settled. There is really nothing new to say about that.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ok, this is so thick with the smelly stuff this will be tough...

I see. So "we guys" either have to buy into the alarmism being spread by the blog you cited about the nuclear accident,

First, there's a difference between legitimate concern and "OMG the world is going to end because the earth will warm up by a fraction of a degree in the next millenium." and what originated as the question "Are you going to toss nuclear energy under the bus like you tossed Al Gore, the IPCC and all other veritable scam artists that got caught? Or are you going to try and justify this nuclear disaster because nuclear energy is viewed as squeaky clean??" It seems that the consensus is the latter...

either have to buy into the alarmism being spread by the blog you cited about the nuclear accident,

No, it's not an 'either or' this is an issue of being realistic about what's really going on and the scale that this disaster will have on the world.

spread by the blog you cited

You mean that first of the 3 links that was a collation of multiple reported stories?? Where you didn't even bother to read the original article that was published in a newspaper? Where you didn't even bother to look at the source where I noted that the 3rd link was the raw data??

I should also point out that you didn't dispute anything, you just put those reports in a list as if that was some sort of self-debunking statement.

or we "don't care about the Earth"

Here's the deal : All the times that I've tried to bring up different issues of real verifiable pollution and got the response of why that's less of a concern then CO2 for whatever reason... and then this continues into a CLEAR disaster by any stretch, and you are trying to downplay the effects of this.

What's worse is that you're not even attacking this honestly, you are relying heavily on strawman arguments.

So, ya, I think you've made it abundantly clear through your positions that you do not really care about the earth... not in the way you try to imply.

and are just "spouting nonsense spoonfed to us by scientists who are a part of the Great Conspiracy.

Glad you didn't finish the quote because that wasn't what I said... not that I expect honesty any longer.

What I said was more along the lines that you just regurgitate what you are spoon fed by "scientists" who are effectively paid to provide the answers that are desired by the person signing the check. I never said anything regarding conspiracy. There are elements of conspiracy as well, but that's not how it works, and that's another topic you won't look at the facts before arguing as well, you'd rather make funny strawman as though your blatant illogic somehow amounts into a cogent argument.

Did you look beyond the alarmist blog you quoted about how much radiation was reaching the US?

Too bad you didn't read that far, I went so far as to provide the raw data collected by the university of Berkeley

Oh, never mind, I already know the answer to that one. Further, it is an unrelated issue, a red herring, a diversion.

It's not a matter of caring for the Earth. It's a matter of looking at logic and fact.

Something you demonstrably do arbitrarily.

The fact is that the scientific community is on board with AGW, that they have made a solid case, and there is no debate there.

No, they've made a shoddy case with overblown projections, requiring overblown levels of CO2 to even create the desired effect and then from there sprouts all this alarmist fearmongering... and then politicians push for laws at the behest of their private interests (who also fund the "science" and includes the media interests) in order to gain control over carbon because that will profit them.

All of the debate is among the politicians, and all of it centers around issue #3, can we do anything about it, and #4, will it really be a disaster. Issues 1 and 2 are already settled. There is really nothing new to say about that.

IF this was actually an honestly settled discussion we wouldn't be in what amounts to a 280 page discussion of the topic. So, another distortion.

 

[ricksfolly]

Since there is nothing new to be said about global warming, I might as well make jokes about it. Nothing that can be said, printed, yelled, or shown is going to change the minds of the Great Conspiracy theorists anyway.

GW is not about conspiracy, or any other kind or intrigue, It's about the media, politics, movies, mass gullibility, job security, a world wide fascination in science, no matter what kind it is, and since most scientific theories cannot be demonstrated or explained in ways the average person can relate with, they should be rightfully branded for what they really are... SCIENCE FICTION.

ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

GW is not about conspiracy, or any other kind or intrigue, It's about the media, politics, movies, mass gullibility, job security, a world wide fascination in science, no matter what kind it is, and since most scientific theories cannot be demonstrated or explained in ways the average person can relate with, they should be rightfully branded for what they really are... SCIENCE FICTION.

ricksfolly

Wait. Let me get this straight. What you're basically saying is that if something is too complicated on some arbitrary scale, it must be false?

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I'm going to have to ask you to never speak on a scientific subject again.

 

[ricksfolly]

Wait. Let me get this straight. What you're basically saying is that if something is too complicated on some arbitrary scale, it must be false?>>

You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrongly represented...

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.>>

Oops, must have hit a raw nerve, penetrated your wall of conditioned reflex...

I'm going to have to ask you to never speak on a scientific subject again.>>

LOL... Self executed censorship, you've got to be kidding... If you can't stand the heat don't read my responses...

BTW, rallying all your like friends to collectively blackball me wouldn't be cricket.

ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

Wait. Let me get this straight. What you're basically saying is that if something is too complicated on some arbitrary scale, it must be false?>>

You're entitled to your own opinion, even if it's wrongly represented...

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.>>

Oops, must have hit a raw nerve, penetrated your wall of conditioned reflex...

I'm going to have to ask you to never speak on a scientific subject again.>>

LOL... Self executed censorship, you've got to be kidding... If you can't stand the heat don't read my responses...

BTW, rallying all your like friends to collectively blackball me wouldn't be cricket.

ricksfolly

Oh, please, do elaborate on how something being complicated makes it inherently false.

What is the threshold for the "common person" being able to understand it? Which common person? What education level? What IQ? Which arbitrary standard do you have that makes something turn into "science fiction" just because you personally don't happen to understand it?

Oh wait. You didn't say understand. You said "relate with." What does that even mean? If it doesn't fit "common sense," it's automatically false? Please, explain this view of yours.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

The connection was made to point out how you guys really don't care about the earth. You guys care about having your 'team' gain control over carbon through lies, manipulations and distortions to get your points across.

It shows how in the face of TRUE environmental catastrophe you will maintain that the concern is on CO2 levels, rather then the catastrophe.

I also accidentally showed how you guys don't actually read counter-arguments in any significant way and are just parroting the nonsense that was spoonfed to you by scientists who are effectively the employees of special interest groups (at least at the international level, there are still scientists out there doing good work after all).

Finally, I also accidentally showed how you guys just, to coin the phrase, talk out your arse.

Actually, you're the one talking out your arse when you claim you coined the phrase. Which means you probably didn't know what the phrase "coin the phrase" meant, which ummm..."accidentally" shows that you are "parroting the nonsense" of your preferred special interest groups.

Are you one of the people pretending the pro-Hoax crowd doesn't have it's eye on trillions of dollars of research money?

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

The part that's irking me a bit is how sensitive the both of you have been in dealing with increases in CO2 levels, but don't consider increases in radiation to have the same potential??

It's going to take an incredible amount of radiation to cause the imaginary rise in temperatures some people like to believe will be caused by human activity.

The Mayor does not believe that any number of broken reactors can change the global temperatures.

Just like human activity hasn't changed the global temps with CO2.

Also, the radiation hitting the Mayor's beach isn't anything to worry about yet. The Mayor must still turn on lights to read at night.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

A portion of japan is going to remain uninhabitable for BILLIONS of years, and we can't even fully measure the extent of the damage that WILL be caused by this because the crisis is not over.

Exagerate much? Besides, not one of the Japanese people I've met has ever expressed a desire to live inside a used reactor pressure vessel. That's probably not something even Steinbeck would invent.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

Oh, and what happens in wartime where these nuclear subs, nuclear aircraft carriers etc start getting blown out of the water??

Nothing.

The United States and the Soviets have each lost at least two operational nuclear submarines at sea.

The oceans didn't die.

Ya, they need to be built in space where even if they do meltdown that they can be abandoned and drift off into eternity. Just look at the map of where all the main nuclear facilities are built?? They are almost all built on fault lines because that's where you typically find a source of water that's sufficient to keep the reactors cool.

I think what this situation in japan has shown is that no matter how well you plan out fail proof systems and how many levels of redundancy you take into account that nuclear power is simply not safe. Not in the sense that I understand the word.

Then quit wetting your pants and try to understand what the term "reactor safety" actually means.

Chernobyl was built by incompetents who didn't care about the country the reactor was in because it wasn't their country, it was a slave nation satrapy and the failing Evil Empire could no longer afford to maintain safety, especially not for something as archaic and deliberately unsafe as that thing. Imagine, building a reactor whose reactivity is controlled by graphite rods. Gee, what happens to reactor power when the graphite burns away? Coal, btw, is an example of graphite, if you were suffering under any confusion about the inherent primary design flaw at Chernobyl.

Fukushima was old, but well designed. Their design flaw was the presumption that something like three layers of safety systems could not be breached. Well, paint the Mayor purple, to coin a phrase, but standard engineering wisdom of that era was that multiple compounding casualties would not occur. This lesson was followed by no less an authority than NASA, which was blindsided when a cascading casualty almost killed the three Apollo Thirteen astronauts.

The second design flaw in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI2 was less obvious. The high power density requires immense cooling capacity. Modern designs prefer lower power density cores to minimize the chances of catastrophic heating events. NOTE: The reason the sunken submarine cores never melted down is because the bottoms of the oceans are filled with water, so the broken reactors had plenty of cooling available....wouldn't want you to worry overmuch about the USS Thresher, ya know.

So, Chernobyl killed up to a million people in the past 25 years... Japan's population is much more dense and they don't have a whole lot of territory to spare to these types of accidents... so we can only imagine what that will cause.

Mayor Snorkum appreciates the facile way you make up figures.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

Ya, it might dissipate after 8 days, BUT it's still coming in... so, today is 181 times safe levels tomorrow it'll go up to 190 times, and after 8 days is only the HALF-LIFE... so, it takes 8 days to drop by half, another 8 days to be at a quarter, another 8 days to be 1/8th... etc... BUT that's not counting whats' still getting blown in.

Now, this is just ignorant.

Purest ignorance, with no redeeming features of cuteness, like when you were coining phrases.

Would you care to cite just when the radioactive material was created?

No, you would not. However, the primary RAM was created when the Fukushima reactor was critical. ALL the RAM going airborne was initialized at the same time, ALL the RAM is on the same clock. The "new stuff" is decaying at the same exponential rate at the stuff already hear. There's no "future peak", today's sample is the ONLY peak.

So, do the damn math.

Eight days from now, it will be 90 x
Sixteen days from now, it will be 45 x
twenty four days from now, it will be 22x
thirty-two days from now, it will be 11 x
forty days from now, it will be 6 x
forty eight days from now, it will be 3x
and fifty six days from now, it will be background.

For all of that particular specides of RAM.

That's how it's not any big deal.

 

[ricksfolly]

Oh, please, do elaborate on how something being complicated makes it inherently false. >>

First, let me compliment you on your bull dog tenacity, sticking to your guns against all opposing views, and haven't given an inch. However, that's not to say your believes is fact, just a strongly held religion.

What is the threshold for the "common person" >>

Being able to see or feel it.

Which arbitrary standard do you have that makes something turn into "science fiction" >>

Theories that cannot be mechanically, electrically or chemically demonstrated.

You said "relate with." What does that even mean? >>

Being on the same page, same zone, same familiar ground...

If it doesn't fit "common sense," it's automatically false? Please, explain this view of yours. >>

I don't remember any of the exact words I used, and I never regurgitate, if I said anything it was about demonstration, things that can be proved and theories that cannot be proved.

If you can't see it or touch it, it's theory, science fiction, fantasy, or illusion.

ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

Oh, please, do elaborate on how something being complicated makes it inherently false. >>

First, let me compliment you on your bull dog tenacity, sticking to your guns against all opposing views, and haven't given an inch. However, that's not to say your believes is fact, just a strongly held religion.

What is the threshold for the "common person" >>

Being able to see or feel it.

Which arbitrary standard do you have that makes something turn into "science fiction" >>

Theories that cannot be mechanically, electrically or chemically demonstrated.

You said "relate with." What does that even mean? >>

Being on the same page, same zone, same familiar ground...

If it doesn't fit "common sense," it's automatically false? Please, explain this view of yours. >>

I don't remember any of the exact words I used, and I never regurgitate, if I said anything it was about demonstration, things that can be proved and theories that cannot be proved.

If you can't see it or touch it, it's theory, science fiction, fantasy, or illusion.

ricksfolly

Here's your demonstration that anyone can relate to:

Take two sealed glass boxes of equal size. One with normal atmosphere. In the other, increase the concentration of CO2. (you can buy CO2 in tanks) Start the experiment in the morning, before sunrise. Next, mark the temperature periodically throughout the day in each box. I recommend every half hour.

The box with the greater CO2 concentration will get warmer, faster, and maintain its temperature for longer after the sun goes down.

Or does this not count for some reason?

Also, you can't see xrays. Does this mean they don't exist? Or does being able to "see" something via other methods make it ok?

 

[Deuce]

Exagerate much? Besides, not one of the Japanese people I've met has ever expressed a desire to live inside a used reactor pressure vessel. That's probably not something even Steinbeck would invent.

Although technically in a few billion years, none of Japan will be inhabitable

But yeah, uninhabitable for billions of years... that's just hilarious.