The Failure Of Climate Change Denial

[jc456]

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

No doubt those people can all move back home any day now.

he never said that you liar. now you're misrepresenting, I think that is a rule violation.

 

[bripat9643]

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

No doubt those people can all move back home any day now.

The vast proportion of the evacuation area is safe to live in. Only a small area around the plant is unsafe for human habitation. Considering the worst possible natural disaster imaginable occurred, that's a pretty good result. There would have been no meltdown if the fuel tanks for the diesel backup generators had been located inside the reactor building.

 

[Liminal]

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

 

[Liminal]

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

No doubt those people can all move back home any day now.

The vast proportion of the evacuation area is safe to live in. Only a small area around the plant is unsafe for human habitation. Considering the worst possible natural disaster imaginable occurred, that's a pretty good result. There would have been no meltdown if the fuel tanks for the diesel backup generators had been located inside the reactor building.

Good result huh. And the land can be used again when?

 

[jc456]

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

No I read the article. And nowhere in there did they say what loss of life there was nor personal property loss. So please, point those out to me since you feel I missed them. post the abstract pieces.

 

[Liminal]

No problem then, nothing to be concerned about......
Japan Fukushima Radioactive Leak Continues in Ocean News teleSUR English

 

[Liminal]

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

No I read the article. And nowhere in there did they say what loss of life there was nor personal property loss. So please, point those out to me since you feel I missed them. post the abstract pieces.

How do you count property loss? Are you discounting the land that won't be available for generations?

 

[Liminal]

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

No doubt those people can all move back home any day now.

he never said that you liar. now you're misrepresenting, I think that is a rule violation.

Misrepresenting and lying is your personal specialty. You violate the rules every day.

 

[bripat9643]

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

 

[Liminal]

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

 

[jc456]

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

No I read the article. And nowhere in there did they say what loss of life there was nor personal property loss. So please, point those out to me since you feel I missed them. post the abstract pieces.

How do you count property loss? Are you discounting the land that won't be available for generations?

and you post comprehension. It said personal property, now was that mentioned in your article? yes or no? Loss of life mentioned, yes or no? it's quite simple. Just read and answer.

 

[jc456]

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

No doubt those people can all move back home any day now.

he never said that you liar. now you're misrepresenting, I think that is a rule violation.

Misrepresenting and lying is your personal specialty. You violate the rules every day.

you post I respond. the response is based on the post. And when people believe they don't have to answer questions in a discussion well loose credibility. I'm always happy to answer any question you or anyone else asks. But you have to ask, and when I reply it is to the question. Now again, you asked me to read an article I did and there was no reference to the target post. As I said you failed to rebut, because, I read the article. Now you just lie about what you, you posted, not me. So I assume this post to me you feel is really at you.

 

[Liminal]

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

No I read the article. And nowhere in there did they say what loss of life there was nor personal property loss. So please, point those out to me since you feel I missed them. post the abstract pieces.

How do you count property loss? Are you discounting the land that won't be available for generations?

and you post comprehension. It said personal property, now was that mentioned in your article? yes or no? Loss of life mentioned, yes or no? it's quite simple. Just read and answer.

I'm sure it's all just that simple for you.

 

[jc456]

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

 

[bripat9643]

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

If a major population center experienced an earthquake stronger than 9.0, the deaths would be in the millions. A nuclear reactor going critical would be the least of our problems.

You eco-nutburgers just have no sense of proportion.

 

[Liminal]

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

Good thing you checked.

 

[jc456]

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

Good thing you checked.

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

 

[Liminal]

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

If a major population center experienced an earthquake stronger than 9.0, the deaths would be in the millions. A nuclear reactor going critical would be the least of our problems.

You eco-nutburgers just have no sense of proportion.

The point I'm making is: Nuclear power plants (current technology) are never going to be safe anywhere, you can't predict where natural disasters will strike. Maybe when fusion reactors are finally developed we will get safe energy.
When you wish upon a star nuclear fusion and the promise of a brighter future Science The Guardian

 

[Liminal]

I guess you've only gleaned the parts that work for you. No concern about the long term effects then, right? Nothing to worry about. And of course we shouldn't worry about the continued radiation leakage and storing of more and more contaminated water, with no long term solution. It just continues to spew radiation.
Ruined Fukushima Plant Leaking Radiation 70 Times Above Normal Levels

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

Good thing you checked.

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

 

[jc456]

The article says there were spikes up to 70 times above average levels. That doesn't mean that water at such levels poured continuously into the ocean. It occurred during rain storms. It also says these spikes have been controlled.

Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation, but keep in mind we're talking about the result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale and a 50 foot tidal wave after that. That's about as extreme an event as you are going to get in this world.

Number of deaths from Fukushima: 0
Number of deaths from the tidal wave: 20,000

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen again. And of course a much more powerful, catastrophic earthquake would be impossible.

again misrepresenting what was written. Bri never said that. You did. And last time I checked an earthquake is natural, so having one is most probable don't you think?

Good thing you checked.

very good thing, because I'm sure you'd figure out a way to make mans fault.

Even though you don't know science.

Thanks, more opinions are always helpful.

oh no, that was a fact. here I'll spell it for you F A C T. FACT!!!