Discussion:
Fukushima Radiation: A Killer
(too old to reply)
gordo
2016-03-22 05:40:43 UTC
Permalink
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.

After all, it’s only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson’s article, “When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk,” appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: “This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath.”
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
R Kym Horsell
2016-03-22 06:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
I was amused with a recent group of stories on my google news page.

The first was that radiation had now killed all the robots they sent into
the plant.

The next story was about power company execs to stand trial for "negligence"
of some kind.
(Conviction rates in Japan are sommin like 99% -- you don't go to
trial unless there's a good face-saving prospect of you serving time for
whatever).

The next story was from regional officials saying nuke plants and
even radiation levels around the plant (currently avg around 20x
international standards of being "safe") was all perfectly safe.

Same ol same ol.
Post by gordo
After all, it?s only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson?s article, ?When Radiation Isn?t the Real Risk,? appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: ?This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath.?
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
--
Arjuna Capital -- Tough Proxy Climate: Exxon, Chevron Face Stranded Carbon
Asset Resolutions After Losing Bids At ...
PR Newswire, 21 Mar 2016 17:53Z
This is the first year a shareholder proposal asking ExxonMobil to
prioritize returning more capital to shareholders in light of increasingly
risky investments in potentially stranded carbon assets will be put to the
ballot. Exxon was able last year to ...

Record-Breaking 16-Foot Python Found in Florida Along With 42 Others in the
Same County
Newsweek, 21 Mar 2016 18:56Z
pythons-captured Biologist have captured 43 pythons, collectively weighing a
ton, over the last three months from Collier County, in southwest Florida.
Highly Cited:Biologists remove one ton of pythons from South Florida in 90
daysAction -- NewsJax.com

Broome fish kill likely 'one-off' warming event
ABC News, 21 Mar 2016 11:05pm
The Department of Fisheries says a large-scale fish kill on the Kimberley
coast appears to have been a one-off, caused by warm waters and big tides.

What we're doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years,
scientists say
Wash Post, March 21 at 12:00 PM
[N]ew research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our
current period, in at least one key respect: We're putting carbon into the
atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then.
[The research says 10x faster].

Assaad Razzouk Verified account #@AssaadRazzouk 21 Mar 2016 23:32Z
It's the beginning of the end of the age of oil headline, redux #climate
#strandedassets
<Loading Image...>
Bondholders suffer $150 bn oil price hit
george152
2016-03-22 19:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Strange as to how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were repopulated months after
being destroyed by nuclear weapons.
Yet this power station wreck radiation is greater than a nuke ?


Riiiiiight
gordo
2016-03-23 01:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by george152
Strange as to how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were repopulated months after
being destroyed by nuclear weapons.
Yet this power station wreck radiation is greater than a nuke ?
Riiiiiight
Actually radiation continues at Fukushima and they are running out of
robots. Riiiiight?
george152
2016-03-23 03:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by george152
Strange as to how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were repopulated months after
being destroyed by nuclear weapons.
Yet this power station wreck radiation is greater than a nuke ?
Riiiiiight
Actually radiation continues at Fukushima and they are running out of
robots. Riiiiight?
So an atomic bomb creates less radiation than a bust nuclear power
station...
Reeeeaaaallllly.
Is your medication up to date
a***@gmail.com
2016-03-24 00:39:56 UTC
Permalink
the word is <omma hormesis
Post by george152
So an atomic bomb creates less radiation than a bust nuclear power
station...
Reeeeaaaallllly.
Is your medication up to date
Tunderbar
2016-03-22 19:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
"But people in the streets and on the ground in Japan tell a different story about the risks of radiation. They talk about illnesses and death."

Hold it. The science says one thing, but you claim anecdotally otherwise.

On the one hand, climate science is eternal truth, but nuclear science is not to be trusted.

Laypeople discussing climate change is evil, but laypeople discussing anecdotal evidence about radiation is gospel.

And you will insist that Exxon and Koch and us "deniers" are evil conspirators but climate scientists and left wing activists and politicians are not.

Quite the line in the sand you draw there buddy.
gordo
2016-03-23 01:54:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
"But people in the streets and on the ground in Japan tell a different story about the risks of radiation. They talk about illnesses and death."
Hold it. The science says one thing, but you claim anecdotally otherwise.
No. I posted an article. Fukushima radiation is a killer.
Post by Tunderbar
On the one hand, climate science is eternal truth, but nuclear science is not to be trusted.
No science is an eternal truth. The radiation continues and the deaths
will continue from it.
Post by Tunderbar
Laypeople discussing climate change is evil, but laypeople discussing anecdotal evidence about radiation is gospel.
And you will insist that Exxon and Koch and us "deniers" are evil conspirators but climate scientists and left wing activists and politicians are not.
Quite the line in the sand you draw there buddy.
The evidence for Exxon and Koch has already been posted multiple times
and tunderblunder sticks his fingers in his ears and says " I cant
hear you, I cant hear you" . Your talking point about Exxon and Koch
is really stupid.
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-25 15:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"But people in the streets and on the ground in Japan tell a different
story about the risks of radiation. They talk about illnesses and
death."
Hold it. The science says one thing, but you claim anecdotally
otherwise.
No. I posted an article. Fukushima radiation is a killer.
The 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and the following tsunami killed 23,600 persons
and severely damaged 187,900 homes. 561 square kilometres of coast were
inundated. Oil refineries burned, sewer and gas lines burst, dozens of
chemical plants were destroyed, tons of deadly chemicals were washed
away. No one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
a***@gmail.com
2016-03-25 23:45:28 UTC
Permalink
you got it
Post by Paul Aubrin
The 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and the following tsunami killed 23,600 persons
and severely damaged 187,900 homes. 561 square kilometres of coast were
inundated. Oil refineries burned, sewer and gas lines burst, dozens of
chemical plants were destroyed, tons of deadly chemicals were washed
away. No one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-26 00:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"But people in the streets and on the ground in Japan tell a different
story about the risks of radiation. They talk about illnesses and
death."
Hold it. The science says one thing, but you claim anecdotally otherwise.
No. I posted an article. Fukushima radiation is a killer.
The 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and the following tsunami killed 23,600 persons
and severely damaged 187,900 homes. 561 square kilometres of coast were
inundated. Oil refineries burned, sewer and gas lines burst, dozens of
chemical plants were destroyed, tons of deadly chemicals were washed
away. No one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be accomplished lets hope
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-26 06:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"But people in the streets and on the ground in Japan tell a
different story about the risks of radiation. They talk about
illnesses and death."
Hold it. The science says one thing, but you claim anecdotally otherwise.
No. I posted an article. Fukushima radiation is a killer.
The 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and the following tsunami killed 23,600
persons and severely damaged 187,900 homes. 561 square kilometres of
coast were inundated. Oil refineries burned, sewer and gas lines burst,
dozens of chemical plants were destroyed, tons of deadly chemicals were
washed away. No one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one was
killed by radiations at Fukushima.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-26 13:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"But people in the streets and on the ground in Japan tell a
different story about the risks of radiation. They talk about
illnesses and death."
Hold it. The science says one thing, but you claim anecdotally otherwise.
No. I posted an article. Fukushima radiation is a killer.
The 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and the following tsunami killed 23,600
persons and severely damaged 187,900 homes. 561 square kilometres of
coast were inundated. Oil refineries burned, sewer and gas lines burst,
dozens of chemical plants were destroyed, tons of deadly chemicals were
washed away. No one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one was
killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he said they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is not limited to the no fishing region
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-26 15:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one was
killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he said
they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is not limited
to the no fishing region
I met some friends who will never eat food that happens to have been in a
microwave oven. They fear the effect of the bad vibrations of microwaves
on foodstuff. I carefully avoided to tell them that their cell phones
emit in the same frequency bands.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-27 02:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one was
killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he said
they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is not limited
to the no fishing region
I met some friends who will never eat food that happens to have been in a
microwave oven. They fear the effect of the bad vibrations of microwaves
on foodstuff. I carefully avoided to tell them that their cell phones
emit in the same frequency bands.
We use those microwave ovens with a door closed for a reason, and we try our best to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation. Your cavalier attitude toward such a powerful energy source is rather stupid as the melted down fuel in fukushima is in such a bad condition they have to build one time use disposable million dollar robots to clean up a debris in an unkown state.


http://nypost.com/2011/06/09/japans-green-tea-contaminated-with-radiation/
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-27 09:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be
accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one was
killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he
said they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is not
limited to the no fishing region
I met some friends who will never eat food that happens to have been in
a microwave oven. They fear the effect of the bad vibrations of
microwaves on foodstuff. I carefully avoided to tell them that their
cell phones emit in the same frequency bands.
We use those microwave ovens with a door closed for a reason, and we try
our best to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation. Your cavalier
attitude toward such a powerful energy source is rather stupid as the
melted down fuel in fukushima is in such a bad condition they have to
build one time use disposable million dollar robots to clean up a debris
in an unkown state.
Your answer is misleading, at 2.4GHz microwave ovens waves are not
ionizing radiations. Microwave oven are closed to avoid power leaks which
would burn you. Everybody tries to avoid ionizing radiations as much as
one's can, although you cannot totally avoid the natural radiation
background or the UV from the sun.
The Tohoku disaster made tens of thousand of victims, ionizing radiation
in Fukushima none.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
http://nypost.com/2011/06/09/japans-green-tea-contaminated-with-
radiation/
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-27 11:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be
accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one was
killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he
said they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is not
limited to the no fishing region
I met some friends who will never eat food that happens to have been in
a microwave oven. They fear the effect of the bad vibrations of
microwaves on foodstuff. I carefully avoided to tell them that their
cell phones emit in the same frequency bands.
We use those microwave ovens with a door closed for a reason, and we try
our best to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation. Your cavalier
attitude toward such a powerful energy source is rather stupid as the
melted down fuel in fukushima is in such a bad condition they have to
build one time use disposable million dollar robots to clean up a debris
in an unkown state.
Your answer is misleading,
Not really you first brought up a different source in your apples to oranges comparison in your stupid attempt to marginalize dangers. Read again, the use of the word AND is a separator, between my point about dangers a microwave has a door, exposure to the ranges frequencies are a danger for people who have pace makers.

Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally think a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a power plant, why dont you think that very same energy source could be a danger?
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-27 11:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be
accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one
was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he
said they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is
not limited to the no fishing region
I met some friends who will never eat food that happens to have been
in a microwave oven. They fear the effect of the bad vibrations of
microwaves on foodstuff. I carefully avoided to tell them that their
cell phones emit in the same frequency bands.
We use those microwave ovens with a door closed for a reason, and we
try our best to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation. Your cavalier
attitude toward such a powerful energy source is rather stupid as the
melted down fuel in fukushima is in such a bad condition they have to
build one time use disposable million dollar robots to clean up a
debris in an unkown state.
Your answer is misleading,
Not really you first brought up a different source in your apples to
oranges comparison in your stupid attempt to marginalize dangers. Read
again, the use of the word AND is a separator, between my point about
dangers a microwave has a door, exposure to the ranges frequencies are
a danger for people who have pace makers.
Sorry, but you first introduced your friends coming back from Japan in
the discussion. I commented on their attitude with another example of
irrationality. Except when damaged, microwave ovens are safe even for
pacemaker owners.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally think
a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a power plant,
why dont you think that very same energy source could be a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back from Japan and their
apprehensions. Why are you so upset when other examples of such
apprehensions are discussed?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-27 12:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Currently in meltdown status, clean up still yet to be
accomplished lets hope
23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single one
was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
talked to my friend who was visiting from japan the other day, he
said they dont trust the fish being caught, as the food chain is
not limited to the no fishing region
I met some friends who will never eat food that happens to have been
in a microwave oven. They fear the effect of the bad vibrations of
microwaves on foodstuff. I carefully avoided to tell them that their
cell phones emit in the same frequency bands.
We use those microwave ovens with a door closed for a reason, and we
try our best to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation. Your cavalier
attitude toward such a powerful energy source is rather stupid as the
melted down fuel in fukushima is in such a bad condition they have to
build one time use disposable million dollar robots to clean up a
debris in an unkown state.
Your answer is misleading,
Not really you first brought up a different source in your apples to
oranges comparison in your stupid attempt to marginalize dangers. Read
again, the use of the word AND is a separator, between my point about
dangers a microwave has a door, exposure to the ranges frequencies are
a danger for people who have pace makers.
Sorry, but you first introduced your friends coming back from Japan in
the discussion. I commented on their attitude with another example of
irrationality. Except when damaged, microwave ovens are safe even for
pacemaker owners.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally think
a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a power plant,
why dont you think that very same energy source could be a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted down, are you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a microwave oven?
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-27 13:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally
think a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a
power plant, why dont you think that very same energy source could be
a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted down, are
you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a microwave oven?
I didn't say that. I said: "23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster,
but not a single one was killed by radiations at Fukushima".
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-27 14:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally
think a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a
power plant, why dont you think that very same energy source could be
a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted down, are
you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a microwave oven?
I didn't say that.
You tried to marginalize the effects of radioactive contamination from such a powerful source yet you compared the dangers to a microwave, so either you were playing stupid with the dangers or you are stupid to make the comparison.
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-27 15:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally
think a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a
power plant, why dont you think that very same energy source could
be a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted down,
are you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a microwave oven?
I didn't say that.
You tried to marginalize the effects of radioactive contamination from
such a powerful source yet you compared the dangers to a microwave, so
either you were playing stupid with the dangers or you are stupid to
make the comparison.
You told us an anecdote, I answered by another one.
But the bottom line is that no one has been killed by radiations in
Fukushima: 23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but not a single
one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-27 16:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you personally
think a nuclear power source is such a great choice to operate a
power plant, why dont you think that very same energy source could
be a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted down,
are you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a microwave oven?
I didn't say that.
You tried to marginalize the effects of radioactive contamination from
such a powerful source yet you compared the dangers to a microwave, so
either you were playing stupid with the dangers or you are stupid to
make the comparison.
You told us an anecdote, I answered by another one.
Your reply was a stupid comparison as noted by your own link, so why do you think a power source strong enough to power up the grid should not be dangerous when the fuel sources are in a meltdown status?
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-27 20:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you
personally think a nuclear power source is such a great choice
to operate a power plant, why dont you think that very same
energy source could be a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted
down, are you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a
microwave oven?
I didn't say that.
You tried to marginalize the effects of radioactive contamination
from such a powerful source yet you compared the dangers to a
microwave, so either you were playing stupid with the dangers or you
are stupid to make the comparison.
You told us an anecdote, I answered by another one.
Your reply was a stupid comparison as noted by your own link, so why do
you think a power source strong enough to power up the grid should not
be dangerous when the fuel sources are in a meltdown status?
I am as entitled as you are to tell little slightly off topic anecdotes.
The bottom line is that 23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but
not a single one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-27 20:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Secondly, you stupid game avoids the question of if you
personally think a nuclear power source is such a great choice
to operate a power plant, why dont you think that very same
energy source could be a danger?
You introduced your friends coming back
No need to dwell on your confusion, fukushima reactors melted
down, are you saying melted down reactors are as safe as a
microwave oven?
I didn't say that.
You tried to marginalize the effects of radioactive contamination
from such a powerful source yet you compared the dangers to a
microwave, so either you were playing stupid with the dangers or you
are stupid to make the comparison.
You told us an anecdote, I answered by another one.
Your reply was a stupid comparison as noted by your own link, so why do
you think a power source strong enough to power up the grid should not
be dangerous when the fuel sources are in a meltdown status?
I am as entitled as you are to tell little slightly off topic anecdotes.
The bottom line is that 23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but
not a single one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status, lets hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is money
a***@gmail.com
2016-03-27 21:12:20 UTC
Permalink
the hey word is, hormesis;
DU is actively excreted as the potent chemical toxin, it is, but
the half-life is so big, that
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
not a single one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status, lets hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is money
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-29 16:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Your reply was a stupid comparison as noted by your own link, so why
do you think a power source strong enough to power up the grid should
not be dangerous when the fuel sources are in a meltdown status?
I am as entitled as you are to tell little slightly off topic
anecdotes.
The bottom line is that 23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but
not a single one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status, lets hopt
nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is money
The bottom line is that Fukushima radiations killed nobody, the tohoku
earthquake and tsunami killed 23,000.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-29 16:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Your reply was a stupid comparison as noted by your own link, so why
do you think a power source strong enough to power up the grid should
not be dangerous when the fuel sources are in a meltdown status?
I am as entitled as you are to tell little slightly off topic anecdotes.
The bottom line is that 23,000 persons died in the Tohoku disaster, but
not a single one was killed by radiations at Fukushima.
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status, lets hopt
nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear statement until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the range of expected development of cancer.

Bottom line is 3 melted down fuel sources, you have no clue about the status of the material, how to remove it. Last time we chatted you mentioned normal decommissioning costs which is bs, then previously you mentioned hormesis which is shows a pattern of your obsessive behavior trying to play coy with an obviously dangerous energy source
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-30 14:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status, lets
hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear statement
until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the range of
expected development of cancer.
Yet, if the Tohoku disaster killed 23,000 persons, radiations in Fukushima
killed none.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-30 16:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status, lets
hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear statement
until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the range of
expected development of cancer.
Yet,
Time for the radioactive wasted to build up in the offshore food chain, as the offshore runoff and contaminated groundwater disposal long after the power plants stopped producing power are making its way into human consumption.

Time for the engineers to design and build million dollar disposable one time use robots strictly for the task if cleaning up the melted down fuel source in an unknown status, even though power is no longer being generated.

Then of course we have the question of what to do with this radioactively contaiminated debris, long after the power plant is no longer producing power.

Bottom line, there is a lot of work to be done, lets hope all thats wasted is money
Paul Aubrin
2016-03-31 05:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status,
lets hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is
money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear statement
until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the range of
expected development of cancer.
Yet,
Time for the radioactive wasted to build up in the offshore food chain,
as the offshore runoff and contaminated groundwater disposal long after
the power plants stopped producing power are making its way into human
consumption.
Vain speculations, as shown by the IAEA report.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/technical-volume-4-gonzalez.pdf

The Tohoku disaster claimed 23,000 casualties, radiations none.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-03-31 12:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status,
lets hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is
money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear statement
until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the range of
expected development of cancer.
Yet,
Time for the radioactive wasted to build up in the offshore food chain,
as the offshore runoff and contaminated groundwater disposal long after
the power plants stopped producing power are making its way into human
consumption.
Vain
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from the nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last time i checked fish do swim around the entire island
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-02 08:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status,
lets hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is
money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear
statement until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the
range of expected development of cancer.
Yet,
Time for the radioactive wasted to build up in the offshore food chain,
as the offshore runoff and contaminated groundwater disposal long
after the power plants stopped producing power are making its way
into human consumption.
Vain
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from the
nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last time i
checked fish do swim around the entire island
A well documented fact is that, while the earthquake and following
tsunami claimed 23,000 casualties and wounded an even larger number of
persons, sometimes for life, radiations caused not a single casualty.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-03 05:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The bottom line is you have 3 fuel sources in meltdown status,
lets hopt nobody gets hurt and the only thing being wasted is
money
The bottom line
Your stupidity is astounding, nobody can make such a clear
statement until its completely cleaned and, and we are beyond the
range of expected development of cancer.
Yet,
Time for the radioactive wasted to build up in the offshore food chain,
as the offshore runoff and contaminated groundwater disposal long
after the power plants stopped producing power are making its way
into human consumption.
Vain
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from the
nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last time i
checked fish do swim around the entire island
A well documented fact is that
A well documented fact is that the earthquake occurred years ago, which begs the question if the situation is as safe as you imply, why do you think they still have not sent people in to clean up the melted down fuel sources by now?
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-03 17:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from the
nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last time i
checked fish do swim around the entire island
A well documented fact is that
A well documented fact is that the earthquake occurred years ago, which
begs the question if the situation is as safe as you imply, why do you
think they still have not sent people in to clean up the melted down
fuel sources by now?
The Fukushima electric plant is certainly badly damaged. Yet radiations
in Fukushima claimed no lives.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-03 17:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from the
nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last time i
checked fish do swim around the entire island
A well documented fact is that
A well documented fact is that the earthquake occurred years ago, which
begs the question if the situation is as safe as you imply, why do you
think they still have not sent people in to clean up the melted down
fuel sources by now?
The Fukushima electric plant is certainly badly damaged.
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the situation is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in humans remedy the situation as its not producing power and yet costing lots of money and hours to maintain?
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-08 17:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from
the nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last
time i checked fish do swim around the entire island
A well documented fact is that
A well documented fact is that the earthquake occurred years ago,
which begs the question if the situation is as safe as you imply, why
do you think they still have not sent people in to clean up the
melted down fuel sources by now?
The Fukushima electric plant is certainly badly damaged.
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the situation is
as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in humans remedy the
situation as its not producing power and yet costing lots of money and
hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its harmlessness. The
shortage of energy has a heavy human and economic cost in Japan.
Unlike what Gordo stated in the subject of the thread, radiations killed
nobody.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-08 22:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
well documented reports of waste water dumps, and yes runoff from
the nuclear debris is making its way into the food chain, and last
time i checked fish do swim around the entire island
A well documented fact is that
A well documented fact is that the earthquake occurred years ago,
which begs the question if the situation is as safe as you imply, why
do you think they still have not sent people in to clean up the
melted down fuel sources by now?
The Fukushima electric plant is certainly badly damaged.
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the situation is
as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in humans remedy the
situation as its not producing power and yet costing lots of money and
hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best for use on the national power grid level would assume such a large power source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body of science perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a melted down fuel source is actually harmless.
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-09 13:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the situation
is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in humans remedy
the situation as its not producing power and yet costing lots of
money and hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best for
use on the national power grid level would assume such a large power
source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body of science
perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a melted down fuel
source is actually harmless.
No industry is harmless. Nuclear energy is among the safest energy
production techniques because it is subject to strict rules and tight
controls.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-09 14:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the situation
is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in humans remedy
the situation as its not producing power and yet costing lots of
money and hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best for
use on the national power grid level would assume such a large power
source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body of science
perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a melted down fuel
source is actually harmless.
No industry is harmless.
Are you claiming if humans cleaned up the melted down debris it would be harmless?
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-10 06:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the
situation is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in
humans remedy the situation as its not producing power and yet
costing lots of money and hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best
for use on the national power grid level would assume such a large
power source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body of
science perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a
melted down fuel source is actually harmless.
No industry is harmless.
Are you claiming if humans cleaned up the melted down debris it would be harmless?
Did I claimed that? I mentioned that, if the earthquake and tsunami
killed tens of thousands, Fukushima's plant radiations killed nobody.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-10 06:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the
situation is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in
humans remedy the situation as its not producing power and yet
costing lots of money and hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best
for use on the national power grid level would assume such a large
power source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body of
science perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a
melted down fuel source is actually harmless.
No industry is harmless.
Are you claiming if humans cleaned up the melted down debris it would be harmless?
Did I claimed that?
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about microwave ovens?
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-10 07:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the
situation is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in
humans remedy the situation as its not producing power and yet
costing lots of money and hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its
harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best
for use on the national power grid level would assume such a large
power source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body
of science perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a
melted down fuel source is actually harmless.
No industry is harmless.
Are you claiming if humans cleaned up the melted down debris it would be harmless?
Did I claimed that?
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the same
time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about microwave
ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't. Radiations at Fukushima's plant
killed nobody, that's the material fact.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-10 12:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Its been damaged for years, which begs the question if the
situation is as harmless as you claim, why havent they sent in
humans remedy the situation as its not producing power and yet
costing lots of money and hours to maintain?
It is damaged forever. Which gives no clue about its
harmlessness.
On the other hand your arguments that such energy sources are best
for use on the national power grid level would assume such a large
power source is harmless, this is counter to the well known body
of science perhaps you can show a specific case where cleanup of a
melted down fuel source is actually harmless.
No industry is harmless.
Are you claiming if humans cleaned up the melted down debris it would
be harmless?
Did I claimed that?
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the same
time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about microwave
ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup has yet to be attempted
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-10 18:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the
same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about
microwave ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted
we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup
has yet to be attempted
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-10 22:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the
same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about
microwave ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted
we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup
has yet to be attempted
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.

Proper management says its a waste of money and possibly live to clean up the mess now as we dont have the tools or even know the status of the debris field. Robots are having a hard time getting a clear image as the radiation is so intense, fukushima is a mess
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-11 06:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the
same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about
microwave ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted
we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup
has yet to be attempted
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.
Proper management says its a waste of money and possibly live to clean up the mess now as we dont have the tools or even know the status of the debris field. Robots are having a hard time getting a clear image as the radiation is so intense, fukushima is a mess
Note that Japan is restarting or has restarted all of its reactors.
That's how concerned it is.

Also note that Germany is shutting down its reactors, mainly because of
the Fukushima event.

Ironic, eh, Germany is pulling the plug because of Japan, but Japan is
firing its nuke fleet back up.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-11 06:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the
same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about
microwave ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted
we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup
has yet to be attempted
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.
Proper management says its a waste of money and possibly live to clean up the mess now as we dont have the tools or even know the status of the debris field. Robots are having a hard time getting a clear image as the radiation is so intense, fukushima is a mess
Note that Japan is restarting or has restarted all of its reactors.
That's how concerned it is.
Also note that Germany is shutting down its reactors, mainly because of
the Fukushima event.
Ironic, eh, Germany is pulling the plug because of Japan, but Japan is
firing its nuke fleet back up.
Ironic you never mentioned 3 melted down fuel sources that have yet to be cleaned, and the best we can hope for is that its a big waste of money
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-11 07:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the
same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about
microwave ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted
we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup
has yet to be attempted
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.
Proper management says its a waste of money and possibly live to clean up the mess now as we dont have the tools or even know the status of the debris field. Robots are having a hard time getting a clear image as the radiation is so intense, fukushima is a mess
Note that Japan is restarting or has restarted all of its reactors.
That's how concerned it is.
Also note that Germany is shutting down its reactors, mainly because of
the Fukushima event.
Ironic, eh, Germany is pulling the plug because of Japan, but Japan is
firing its nuke fleet back up.
Ironic you never mentioned 3 melted down fuel sources that have yet to be cleaned, and the best we can hope for is that its a big waste of money
Apparently it only matters to Germany.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-11 07:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so do you think it would be an act of malice/negligence to tell
employees to clean up the melted down debris in person while at the
same time marginalizing the dangers to their lives by talking about
microwave ovens?
You mentioned microwaves. I didn't.
So you are premature in declaring no deaths or injuries for as you noted
we are years after the disaster and yet the worst part of the cleanup
has yet to be attempted
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.
Proper management says its a waste of money and possibly live to clean up the mess now as we dont have the tools or even know the status of the debris field. Robots are having a hard time getting a clear image as the radiation is so intense, fukushima is a mess
Note that Japan is restarting or has restarted all of its reactors.
That's how concerned it is.
Also note that Germany is shutting down its reactors, mainly because of
the Fukushima event.
Ironic, eh, Germany is pulling the plug because of Japan, but Japan is
firing its nuke fleet back up.
Ironic you never mentioned 3 melted down fuel sources that have yet to be cleaned, and the best we can hope for is that its a big waste of money
Apparently it only matters to Germany.
Really, how much money is being wasted to not produce electricity at fukushima, and why dont you care about such wasted money?

Is that part of your wealth redistribution plan?
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-11 13:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations, just like maintenance workers in wind mills are protected
from all the hazards they can meet there (moving mechanical parts, risks
of falling, etc.). Yet radiations in Fukushima killed nobody, the
earthquake and tsunami kill tens of thousands.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Proper management says its a waste of money and possibly live to clean
up the mess now as we dont have the tools or even know the status of
the debris field. Robots are having a hard time getting a clear image
as the radiation is so intense, fukushima is a mess
Note that Japan is restarting or has restarted all of its reactors.
That's how concerned it is.
Also note that Germany is shutting down its reactors, mainly because of
the Fukushima event.
Yet German reactors are of a safer technology.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Ironic, eh, Germany is pulling the plug because of Japan, but Japan is
firing its nuke fleet back up.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-11 16:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.

Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-11 22:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-12 01:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-12 20:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-12 21:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project, but not solar got it, yes you are a trolling hypocrite
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-12 21:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-12 22:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
Na, but its obvious your posts against tax payer funding support for next generation energy solutions seem to somehow stop and flip from a negative to a positive when it comes to LFTR. Lets call that what it is, hypocritical bs from you, a politically motivated hack.
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 02:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
Na, but its obvious your posts against tax payer funding support for next generation energy solutions seem to somehow stop and flip from a negative to a positive when it comes to LFTR. Lets call that what it is, hypocritical bs from you, a politically motivated hack.
Show me where I said any such thing.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 02:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
Na, but its obvious your posts against tax payer funding support for next generation energy solutions seem to somehow stop and flip from a negative to a positive when it comes to LFTR. Lets call that what it is, hypocritical bs from you, a politically motivated hack.
Show me where I said any such thing.
So are you now saying you support tax payer funding for solar and wind?
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 02:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
Na, but its obvious your posts against tax payer funding support for next generation energy solutions seem to somehow stop and flip from a negative to a positive when it comes to LFTR. Lets call that what it is, hypocritical bs from you, a politically motivated hack.
Show me where I said any such thing.
So are you now saying you support tax payer funding for solar and wind?
Just so you can stop this infantile game, I am opposed to public
subsidization of any energy industry. Wind, solar, nuclear, oil, gas,
coal, you name it.
Wally W.
2016-04-13 12:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
Na, but its obvious your posts against tax payer funding support for next generation energy solutions seem to somehow stop and flip from a negative to a positive when it comes to LFTR. Lets call that what it is, hypocritical bs from you, a politically motivated hack.
Show me where I said any such thing.
So are you now saying you support tax payer funding for solar and wind?
Just so you can stop this infantile game,
It may not be common for anyone else get the last word in an exchange
with CAI.

He may bob, weave, dodge, and distract for as long as it takes to
exasperate a sane opponent ... then he "wins" because his was the last
word in the exchange.
Post by Chom Noamsky
I am opposed to public
subsidization of any energy industry. Wind, solar, nuclear, oil, gas,
coal, you name it.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 12:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic attempt
to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted down fuel
sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Now we are years down the road, containment beyond normal decommissioning is needed as the fuel sources are still in meltdown status, we have yet to actually figure out how to clean up the debris all the while no energy is being produced.
So you'll be supporting new and much safer designs like LFTR? The
design can even be used to dispose of existing stockpiles of nuclear
wastes.
Are you supporting a project that is subsidized with tax payer money?
Numerous private companies working on LFTR, including in Canada.
So outside free market assistance is ok with this project,
That's the Bret Fallacy... inventing something someone didn't say then
addressing it as if they did.
Na, but its obvious your posts against tax payer funding support for next generation energy solutions seem to somehow stop and flip from a negative to a positive when it comes to LFTR. Lets call that what it is, hypocritical bs from you, a politically motivated hack.
Show me where I said any such thing.
So are you now saying you support tax payer funding for solar and wind?
Just so you can stop this infantile game,
It may not be common for anyone else get the last word in an exchange
with CAI.
He may bob, weave, dodge, and distract for as long as it takes to
exasperate a sane opponent ... then he "wins" because his was the last
word in the exchange.
Paul seems to modify other peoples words, you know embellish them with his own type of idiocy, so of course im not going to let him or you speak for me, but i do find the fact you need to help him out of the hole he has dug for himself rather funny
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-13 13:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Just so you can stop this infantile game,
It may not be common for anyone else get the last word in an exchange
with CAI.
He may bob, weave, dodge, and distract for as long as it takes to
exasperate a sane opponent ... then he "wins" because his was the last
word in the exchange.
An ostensibly irrelevant answer is not a win.
But sometimes, it is funny to see CAI dance his liar's jig.
a***@gmail.com
2016-04-13 20:36:38 UTC
Permalink
this reminds me of a local area, much in the LATimes,
supposedly beset by lead from a local industry, but
it is also a heavy metal, so
Post by Paul Aubrin
An ostensibly irrelevant answer is not a win.
But sometimes, it is funny to see CAI dance his liar's jig.
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-12 15:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic
attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted
down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel
sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the
best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks. Unlike what the OP tried
to suggest, radiations in Fukushima killed nobody.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-12 17:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Radioactivity is not microwaves. Radiations in Fukushima caused no
casualties.
Proper management protects workers from being subject to the stupid
actions one may think would be safe based on your petty idiotic
attempt to marginalize the deadly ionizing radiation from melted
down fuel sources at the fukushima plant.
Of course workers are in nuclear plants are kept protected from
radiations,
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3 fuel
sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling showing the
best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production facility years after an accident. A profit driven energy producer most certainly would have safely been abandoned/revamped the infrastructure and either been long gone or they should have returned back to normal operations by now.

This of course is not the case with 3 melted down nuclear fuel sources which constantly require a huge amount of energy and money to minimize the risks long after energy stopped being produced, so once again your attempt to trivialize the dangers has been refuted.
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-12 20:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-12 21:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-12 22:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd have
stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure nuttyology to
oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg once in a while. The
answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe,
not stop building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 02:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 02:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.

She had an accident.

She learned from it.

She moved on.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 03:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.

People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.

Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 04:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.
People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.
Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
My condolences, but don't give me no sob stories. Been through it all
with both parents, six months apart in 2014. Still don't know what to
do with dad's ashes, was thinking of chucking him out of his airplane
over the mountains, but I sold the plane before I got around to it.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 04:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.
People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.
Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
My condolences, but don't give me no sob stories. Been through it all
with both parents, six months apart in 2014. Still don't know what to
do with dad's ashes, was thinking of chucking him out of his airplane
over the mountains, but I sold the plane before I got around to it.
No sob story at all, but your previous lame posts beg the question if they learned from the accident that resulted in you and decided to stop having kids while they were behind the curve, as they knew they were responsible for a troll like you?
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 04:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.
People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.
Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
My condolences, but don't give me no sob stories. Been through it all
with both parents, six months apart in 2014. Still don't know what to
do with dad's ashes, was thinking of chucking him out of his airplane
over the mountains, but I sold the plane before I got around to it.
No sob story at all, but your previous lame posts beg the question if they learned from the accident that resulted in you and decided to stop having kids while they were behind the curve, as they knew they were responsible for a troll like you?
My folks didn't call it trolling, they called it "free and independent
critical thinking".
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 05:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.
People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.
Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
My condolences, but don't give me no sob stories. Been through it all
with both parents, six months apart in 2014. Still don't know what to
do with dad's ashes, was thinking of chucking him out of his airplane
over the mountains, but I sold the plane before I got around to it.
No sob story at all, but your previous lame posts beg the question if they learned from the accident that resulted in you and decided to stop having kids while they were behind the curve, as they knew they were responsible for a troll like you?
My folks didn't call it trolling, they called it "free and independent
critical thinking".
Wow so they had an accident, you were the result, and they learned bad the messed up.
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 05:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.
People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.
Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
My condolences, but don't give me no sob stories. Been through it all
with both parents, six months apart in 2014. Still don't know what to
do with dad's ashes, was thinking of chucking him out of his airplane
over the mountains, but I sold the plane before I got around to it.
No sob story at all, but your previous lame posts beg the question if they learned from the accident that resulted in you and decided to stop having kids while they were behind the curve, as they knew they were responsible for a troll like you?
My folks didn't call it trolling, they called it "free and independent
critical thinking".
Wow so they had an accident, you were the result, and they learned bad the messed up.
Your momma's gonna jump out of the grave and smack you one if you keep
embarrassing her with your total and utter lack of wit.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 05:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on.
Hey idiot, my point is that they cant move on, because they still need to learn how to clean up the melted down debris, you have no learning curve for idiots like you its a stagnant point of non-growth.
Just use your momma for an analogy.
Well idiot, she passed away just 2 1/2 weeks ago in our home she did not work in the nuclear industry, was an ICU for decades and avoided as best as she could the radiation from repeated x-ray exposures.
People like her learned long ago the dangers you play stupid with, i hope one day your momma depends upon you for her very last showers, potty visits, and you perform every last lift of her failing body with the care i did you dumb ass.
Now her urn is just 20 feet away, she was a true environmentalist, and she is rolling over from your COMPLETE IDIOCY!
My condolences, but don't give me no sob stories. Been through it all
with both parents, six months apart in 2014. Still don't know what to
do with dad's ashes, was thinking of chucking him out of his airplane
over the mountains, but I sold the plane before I got around to it.
No sob story at all, but your previous lame posts beg the question if they learned from the accident that resulted in you and decided to stop having kids while they were behind the curve, as they knew they were responsible for a troll like you?
My folks didn't call it trolling, they called it "free and independent
critical thinking".
Wow so they had an accident, you were the result, and they learned bad the messed up.
Your momma's gonna jump out of the grave and smack you one if you keep
embarrassing her with your total and utter lack of wit.
You are acting so stupid your dad is going to be glad when your mom tells him you are not his, now shut up radiation is a killer and 3 melted down reactor fuel sources still have yet to be cleaned up
gordo
2016-04-13 02:55:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd have
stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure nuttyology to
oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg once in a while. The
answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe,
not stop building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault line.
Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no doubt that a
big earthquake is certain. What is not known is when the big one hits.
I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the explosion at Fukushima.
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 02:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd have
stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure nuttyology to
oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg once in a while. The
answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe,
not stop building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault line.
Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no doubt that a
big earthquake is certain. What is not known is when the big one hits.
I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the explosion at Fukushima.
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
gordo
2016-04-13 07:50:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:59:59 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd have
stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure nuttyology to
oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg once in a while. The
answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe,
not stop building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault line.
Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no doubt that a
big earthquake is certain. What is not known is when the big one hits.
I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the explosion at Fukushima.
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 12:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:59:59 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd have
stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure nuttyology to
oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg once in a while. The
answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe,
not stop building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault line.
Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no doubt that a
big earthquake is certain. What is not known is when the big one hits.
I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the explosion at Fukushima.
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
Paul is stuck in a rather hypocritical position, if he claims such a powerful energy source is good to drive the economies of the world, but somehow he plays the stupid game of marginalizing the risks even though we still have 3 melted down fuel sources emitting radiation in an uncontrolled manner with all the hard work ahead.
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-13 13:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
Paul is stuck in a rather hypocritical position, if he claims such a
powerful energy source is good to drive the economies of the world, but
somehow he plays the stupid game of marginalizing the risks even though
we still have 3 melted down fuel sources emitting radiation in an
uncontrolled manner with all the hard work ahead.
You misrepresent my position. I only mentioned that the subject of the
thread is a lie: radiations in Fukushima killed nobody.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 17:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
Paul is stuck in a rather hypocritical position, if he claims such a
powerful energy source is good to drive the economies of the world, but
somehow he plays the stupid game of marginalizing the risks even though
we still have 3 melted down fuel sources emitting radiation in an
uncontrolled manner with all the hard work ahead.
You misrepresent my position.
Your projections fail to address the reason you are trying to trivialize a rather dangerous situation 3 melted down fuel sources
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 20:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
Paul is stuck in a rather hypocritical position, if he claims such a
powerful energy source is good to drive the economies of the world, but
somehow he plays the stupid game of marginalizing the risks even though
we still have 3 melted down fuel sources emitting radiation in an
uncontrolled manner with all the hard work ahead.
You misrepresent my position.
Your projections fail to address the reason you are trying to trivialize a rather dangerous situation 3 melted down fuel sources
Did the world stop building ships because the Titanic hit an iceberg?

A rational mind would say find ways to make ships and navigation better,
the irrational mind says stop building ships.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-13 21:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
Post by Chom Noamsky
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
Paul is stuck in a rather hypocritical position, if he claims such a
powerful energy source is good to drive the economies of the world, but
somehow he plays the stupid game of marginalizing the risks even though
we still have 3 melted down fuel sources emitting radiation in an
uncontrolled manner with all the hard work ahead.
You misrepresent my position.
Your projections fail to address the reason you are trying to trivialize a rather dangerous situation 3 melted down fuel sources
Did the world stop building ships because the Titanic hit an iceberg?
Hey idiot, the melted fuel has yet to be dealt with, and if people like paul wont admit to a melt down status years after it would seem a level of denialism is acting like a protective insluating blanket limiting him from actually understanding the incredible stupidity of his posts on this topic
Chom Noamsky
2016-04-13 20:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:59:59 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know that 3
fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind modeling
showing the best possible luck of off shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a production
facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes and
move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd have
stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure nuttyology to
oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg once in a while. The
answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe,
not stop building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault line.
Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no doubt that a
big earthquake is certain. What is not known is when the big one hits.
I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the explosion at Fukushima.
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to replace and
supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in Washington, not
far from where I live? No. Would you?
Answer the question I asked.
Nobody
2016-04-13 22:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:59:59 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:08:10 -0700,
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we
know that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions,
and wind modeling showing the best possible luck of off
shore winds during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a
production facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to
cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy
production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the
mistakes and move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a
disaster we'd have stopped building ships after the Titanic.
It is pure nuttyology to oppose nuclear energy because it
hit's an iceberg once in a while. The answer is to find ways
to avoid the icebergs and make ship travel safe, not stop
building ships. There is enough easily obtainable fertile and
fissionable nuclear material to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault
line. Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no
doubt that a big earthquake is certain. What is not known is
when the big one hits. I know, Paul says nobody was killed in
the explosion at Fukushima.
Do you support the development of safe nuclear designs to
replace and supercede risky ones?
Do I support a nuclear plant built on a fault line in
Washington, not far from where I live? No. Would you?
Answer the question I asked.
Good luck with that

Paul Aubrin
2016-04-13 11:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault line. Now
what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no doubt that a big
earthquake is certain. What is not known is when the big one hits.
I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the explosion at Fukushima.
Nobody was killed from /radiations/ in Fukushima. One operator was
killed, maybe by the explosion of hydrogen.
Nobody
2016-04-13 17:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:40:03 -0700, Chom Noamsky
Post by Chom Noamsky
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:21:15 PM UTC-7, Paul Aubrin
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:08:10 -0700,
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ah now we are getting somewhere, so now the case is we know
that 3 fuel sources melted down, we had explosions, and wind
modeling showing the best possible luck of off shore winds
during the events.
Every kind of energy production induces risks.
Not every kind of energy production has such trouble with a
production facility years after an accident.
You are right. Most energy production facilities are more
risky.
And yet most energy production facilities dont take years to
cool down, seems like risk management for nuclear energy
production is at a much higher level than most.
Every industry has a learning curve, you learn from the mistakes
and move on. If everyone threw in the towel after a disaster we'd
have stopped building ships after the Titanic. It is pure
nuttyology to oppose nuclear energy because it hit's an iceberg
once in a while. The answer is to find ways to avoid the icebergs
and make ship travel safe, not stop building ships. There is
enough easily obtainable fertile and fissionable nuclear material
to power the planet for a million years.
Not far from where I live there is a nuclear plant on a fault
line.
You lie gordo.

The closest thing that can be considered a nuclear plant is the
Canadian Blood Services irradiation facility in Vancouver.
There is TRIUMF but they deal with particle accelerator-based
science.
Surely you are not idiotic enough to consider the St. Joseph's
General Hospital in Comox to be a nuclear plant when they just use
isotopes for medical treatment.

You can plainly see for yourself that you lie.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/maps-of-nuclear-
facilities/results.cfm

Come on gordo. Time to quit runing and explain your lies for a
change.
Post by gordo
Now what lesson did we learn from Fukushima? There is no
doubt that a big earthquake is certain. What is not known is when
the big one hits. I know, Paul says nobody was killed in the
explosion at Fukushima.
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2016-03-24 00:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
No one died of radiation poisoning. Wildlife in Chernobyl is thriving. Scientists are re-evaluating the consequences of minor radiation exposure.
Look up the doses people get in a normal year and what they got during Fukushima. You get more radiation in a Utah basement or a beach in Brazil.
DESMODUS
2016-03-29 14:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
You can make the argument that setting off all the planet's nuclear weapons could actually be the best thing to happen in the long run as it would so disrupt human 'civilisation' that the population would be reduced to the level where humans no longer are a threat to the planetry environment -in areas such as Chernobyl where humans have been excluded due to radiation wildlife has generally thrived and evolved to cope desmodus
Post by gordo
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-05 12:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
Still no humans sent in to clean up the melted down fuel (we need million dollar one use robots), but yet we have paul mentioning microwaves as a diversion and avoiding an explanation as to why the mess has not been cleaned up yet?
a***@gmail.com
2016-04-06 23:11:05 UTC
Permalink
it is probably just like Chernobyl,
in terms of the tiny amount of radiation that can be detected,
in most places (some places have more natural background rads
in hte rocks, but the people that live ther have the fewest cancers,
overall
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Still no humans sent in to clean up the melted down fuel (we need million dollar one use robots), but yet we have paul mentioning microwaves as a diversion and avoiding an explanation as to why the mess has not been cleaned up yet?
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-08 17:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
Still no humans sent in to clean up the melted down fuel (we need
million dollar one use robots), but yet we have paul mentioning
microwaves as a diversion and avoiding an explanation as to why the mess
has not been cleaned up yet?
It is uncommon to call radioactivity "microwaves". Radio-activity comes
in 3 flavours alpha, beta and gamma. Only gamma rays are (very energetic)
electromagnetic waves.
The dismantlement of a large industrial installations is a long process.
Several small nuclear reactors have been dismantled. Large nuclear plants
are more difficult to dismantle, but they generate less wastes than their
conventional counterparts.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-08 22:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
Still no humans sent in to clean up the melted down fuel (we need
million dollar one use robots), but yet we have paul mentioning
microwaves as a diversion and avoiding an explanation as to why the mess
has not been cleaned up yet?
It is uncommon to call radioactivity "microwaves".
Its stupid and uncommon for somebody to compare the possible damage to the unprotected human body when cleaning up melted down fuel sources for a nuclear power plant to the use of microwave oven
Paul Aubrin
2016-04-09 13:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an
example of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and
tsunami; whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can
withstand the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of
the deaths (16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years
after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists
met in Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
Still no humans sent in to clean up the melted down fuel (we need
million dollar one use robots), but yet we have paul mentioning
microwaves as a diversion and avoiding an explanation as to why the
mess has not been cleaned up yet?
It is uncommon to call radioactivity "microwaves".
Its stupid and uncommon for somebody to compare the possible damage to
the unprotected human body when cleaning up melted down fuel sources for
a nuclear power plant to the use of microwave oven
You are uncommonly stupid then.
Tunderbar
2016-04-07 13:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
In all of that long article, still zero confirmation of any injuries or deaths attributable to radiation from Fukushima. A lot of speculation and allegations and anecdotes, but still nothing.

That's gotta be killing you. LOL. Pun intended.

Did you know that Marie Curie was 66 when she died. She worked directly with all kinds of radioactive material, sometimes carrying it around the lab in her pockets, for something like 30-some years. And she lived until 66.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2016-04-07 20:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
"The cocksure pro-nuclear crowd has trumpeted Fukushima as an example
of Mother Nature taking lives because of an earthquake and tsunami;
whereas, the power plant accident proves nuclear power can withstand
the worst without unnecessary death and illness. All of the deaths
(16,000) were the fault of Mother Nature, not radiation.
After all, it's only one year ago that science journalist George
Johnson's article, "When Radiation Isn't the Real Risk," appeared in
the New York Times, September 21, 2015: "This spring, four years after
the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in
Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/fukushima-radiation-a-killer/
In all of that long article, still zero confirmation of any injuries or deaths attributable to radiation from Fukushima. A lot of speculation and allegations and anecdotes, but still nothing.
That's gotta be killing you. LOL. Pun intended.
na, but if you think its so safe maybe you could explain why you think they have not sent in humans to clean up the melted down fuel sources, after all its been years they are spending lots of money for containment and yet not producing any power?
Loading...