BBC to broadcast live superbowl for the 1st time ever, could this be the real sum of all fears?

Just a thought regarding the argueing over dirty bombs vs nuclear bombs.....don't nuclear bombs give off a whole load of radioactive waste anyway..therefore are basicaly more advanced dirty bombs?

Yes i know the idea of dirty bombs are to spread the attatched waste, but basicaly we ae argueing over the same results are we not?

I'm going to watch the game....if i can ever find the thing! Can't see it on the BBC channels anywhere.

CX.

Originally posted by lukeUK
Maybe they want cameras over there to broadcast the event

Yes! Cameras are over there to broadcast "the event".
The event being a football game.

Originally posted by lukeUK
we dont have to argue i heard it and thought it was strange thats all

why are you on ATS if your not open minded why dont you just go and follow the media and watch FOX news - or maybe you've been employed to ridecule peoples comments and disagree.. i dont want arguing grow up!

I'm on here because I enjoy science. My mind is open as much as I let it. I don't let movies and youtube videos influence the diameter.

reply to post by lukeUK

That would be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h...but maybe someone can post that inverted pentagram overlaid on the US map where many terrorist attacks and disasters have "coincidentally" occured.

an Omen ???

6 injured in Superbowl from falling Ice
www.rawstory.com...

reply to post by CX


No.. not the same result at all.

Do I need to lay it out?
Comparing a dirty bomb to a nuke would be like comparing being shot with a bb gun to being shot with a bazooka.
Nukes have fallout, dirty bombs just spread around radioactive material, they don't irradiate the environment.
Nukes could level a city and completely incinerate people, dirty bombs are only as big as the amount of explosives in them and would not be nearly as large as a nuke.

Originally posted by CX
Can't see it on the BBC channels anywhere.

It's on BBC1 late Sunday night.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Same as last year and the year before that and the year before that I guess you don't have much interest in the superbowl?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by CX
Can't see it on the BBC channels anywhere.

It's on BBC1 late Sunday night.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Same as last year and the year before that and the year before that

I guess you don't have much interest in the superbowl?

Thanks for that.

No...i have little interest in the Superbowl, don't even understand the rules of the game to be quite honest, but since being at ATS and among so many US friends, i tend to take more interest in the US sports as i would have done before.

CX.

I flicked between BBC and Sky Sports last year and probably the year before too.

Thing is, because most of the UK is obsessed with crappy football (as a born and bred Brit, I never understood its appeal) you'd be surprised at how huge the UK fanbase is for American football and especially ice hockey.

Originally posted by curious7
I flicked between BBC and Sky Sports last year and probably the year before too.

Thing is, because most of the UK is obsessed with crappy football (as a born and bred Brit, I never understood its appeal) you'd be surprised at how huge the UK fanbase is for American football and especially ice hockey.

Yeah I agree American football is getting more and more popular over here I have a few mates who watch it.
As for Football being crappy I dont agree I LOVE FOOTY ;0)

I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy -- but the NFL has been schlepping teams over to London for three years -- totally disrupting their regular season routines in the process -- to achieve this type of inroad into the UK.

I mean, also, they aren't deciding to air a chicken wing eating contest -- they are airing an event that hundreds of millions of people across the globe watch, and a league with a stated intention to expand internationally.

The alarmism in this thread is completely disregarding the context in which the NFL, a 6 billion dollar per year industry has coveted entre into Europe in general and the UK specifically.

I may know very little about a lot of things, but one thing I do know is sports -- this isn't sinister at all, just good progress for the NFL.

Footy.... Funny
American Football? Does the same crowd in Aussie land and England follow Rugby and Cricket?
Pretty much same groups follow baseball,basketball and FOOTball here in the States.
Sports guys here in U.S have a favorite Team in any Sport.
For me? Other then the Browns, I need to see the point spread.
My buddy from Vegas called to tell Me New England was a LOCK for the AFC Championship Game.
I'm in Tahoe..He's in Vegas and He gambles. A LOCK.
I had some beer for the 12:00 game so I don't ever drink and drive. I BEGGED my wife or kids to drive me to the Casino's to place a bet. It was a LOCK.

I would of lost 200bucks.

We're still friends. Wonder what the over/under is at half time? Hmmmmmm

There are so many rumors and stuff circulating on the Net that security will be tighter than a drum. No way will anybody slip passed with a bomb; I feel sorry for the people going to the game. They're gonna be wanded and x-rayed and all sorts of stuff probably.

Originally posted by curious7
I flicked between BBC and Sky Sports last year and probably the year before too.

Thing is, because most of the UK is obsessed with crappy football (as a born and bred Brit, I never understood its appeal) you'd be surprised at how huge the UK fanbase is for American football and especially ice hockey.

If the fanbase in the UK for American Football and Ice Hockey is so "huge", how come the average attendance for ice hockey games in the UK is 2,300 people and there isn't even one professional American Football team in the whole of the UK? Sorry to burst your bubble but they are both very, very niche sports in the UK. "Soccer" is 20 times more popular in the US than any American sport is in the UK.

For the record, I won't be watching the Superbowl because I find it incredibly boring. Way too stop-start for my liking.

Nuke= slang term for Nuclear, granted most people think atomic bomb, but thats simply not what nuke is.

Atomic bomb=big explosion by nuclear reaction, nuclear material released over wide area

Dirty bomb=small conventional explosion by chemical reaction, nuclear material released over much smaller area.

Both could have the word nuke attributed to them as they both contain nuclear material, as could a nuclear power station be referred to as a "Nuke plant"

Superbowl = Bunch of men who want to play rugby, but are too scared of getting hurt so they wear body armour
(sorry, had too).

One question I have is why do Americans refer to it as football when the majority of the game requires the ball being carried and thrown? It is much better suited to soccer.

reply to post by Lucifersjester


Dear Jester,
If only American media could grasp the subtle and most worthy
humor of Brit TV, and the over the top style of Basil Fawlty?
We are indeed a cheese shop over here, bereft of classy curd.
And yes Kevin, real men don't play with that much paddin'.

reply to post by stoo82


No....borring rubbish is watching some Brits kick a ball back and forth and maybe in the course of a couiple of hours someone gets it in the little net.

Exciting is watching huge gladiators smash out in almost moral combat!!!!!

Just messing with you guys!!!

Originally posted by SrWingCommander


Exciting is watching huge gladiators smash out in almost moral combat!!!!!

Ahhh, so you have watched rugby then! Tis a game played by men with odd shaped balls.

Several here need to go look up the definition of an atomic bomb, a nculdar bomb, and a dirty bomb......I don't think anyone has gotten it completly right yet.

reply to post by SrWingCommander


Actually I did a few posts up.

Any bomb that uses a nuclear reaction is a nuclear bomb, just one uses fission and the other fusion (hydrogen).


A dirty bomb uses a conventional chemical explosion to scatter radioactive material.