It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking: explosion at the Marcoule French Nuclear plant

page: 7
107
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Nosred

These were not X-ray machines, and the waste housed at the facility was not dangerous. This is an industrial accident, not a nuclear one.


X-ray machines contain nuclear materials.

This furnace contained nuclear materials.

What do you NOT UNDERSTAND HERE?

Containment very likely could be breached, it is a nuclear accident by definition.


I think the point he is trying to make is that there are MANY types of radiation and radioactive materials, some more harmful than others. You would also be surprised at the amount of inconclusive research has done into different types of radiation and how they effect biological creatures. This is not an exact science. There is no linear model saying you will see these harmful effects after X amount of Y radiation release from Z material.

Cosmic background microwave radiation, for example, has been shown to REDUCE levels of thyroid cancer and increase lifespans. Look at cancer statistics in Colorado(Exposed to more cosmic radiation than most other states).

The real danger with nuclear waste comes from certain radioactive particles that get lodged in your body, usually in your lungs(such as plutonium particles, which there are many different types).

Most of this radiation fear mongering comes from people with little knowledge in chemistry, nuclear physics, and biology. Common sense doesn't really help you when you are dealing with dozens of different types of radioactive isotopes and their rate of decay/half life. So do your research, and cite reliable sources before you start trying to scare the crap out of people.

You can certainly argue against the currently accepted scientific consensus, but you better have your own hard science to back it up.

My sources are any highschool/basic college textbook. Here is another source talking about the effects of radiation on cells, and mentions the Colorado tidbit.

NRC




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Nosred

These were not X-ray machines, and the waste housed at the facility was not dangerous. This is an industrial accident, not a nuclear one.


X-ray machines contain nuclear materials.

This furnace contained nuclear materials.

What do you NOT UNDERSTAND HERE?

Containment very likely could be breached, it is a nuclear accident by definition.


I noticed you called someone out for resorting to an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. This post I have quoted here is a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

If A has B, and C has B, then A and C must both be the same.

Tell me what that logical fallacy is called.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Tralfamador
 


I wasn't fear mongering at all. My intention is to make sure lies get put in their place.

I was the one posting links to documented information to prove my case.

The person name calling posted no links or logical points.

If it scares someone to know the truth it's not my fault.

I don't see anyone posting evidence to the contrary, so I will continue on.

Isn't calling someone a fear monger simply admitting defeat? Attack the points made, not the person. Thanks.

Find one point I made that is in-factual, supply evidence to prove it, and I will openly correct my mistake. That's all I ask.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Tralfamador
 


I wasn't fear mongering at all. My intention is to make sure lies get put in their place.

I was the one posting links to documented information to prove my case.

The person name calling posted no links or logical points.

If it scares someone to know the truth it's not my fault.

I don't see anyone posting evidence to the contrary, so I will continue on.

Isn't calling someone a fear monger simply admitting defeat? Attack the points made, not the person. Thanks.

Find one point I made that is in-factual, supply evidence to prove it, and I will openly correct my mistake. That's all I ask.


Are we in a battle? Not sure how I can admit defeat when we haven't even been engaged in any sort of discussion. I was posting to clarify what I perceive as the point Nosred was trying to prove.

My second post dealing with logical fallacies was more of an "attack" directed at you. Which is dealing with the structure of your argument.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Again, ignoring the facts. The radioactive material that was at the waste treatment facility where the explosion occurred was not dangerous, you could have sat in a room full of the stuff and been fine. 99% of nuclear waste is not harmful to humans.


I was not ingoring any facts, why be so negative? I tihnk you did not read anything about the substance in question:


Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which allows it to readily bind to hydroxyl radicals, forming tritiated water (HTO), and to carbon atoms. Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin.[14][15][16][17] HTO has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment. Tritium has leaked from 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States, resulting in higher than drinking water levels.[1


Read that. And then repeat what you said about;



you could have sat in a room full of the stuff and been fine.


Unless you have no need to eat,drink or breathe... it is dangerous.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Seems like a pretty sure fire way to reduce population, radiation poisoning/cancer. It seems the one way where no one would question what's going on...at least in regards to the government(s) Could be just really coincidental, but you would think with the Fukushima disaster, we would keep a closer watch for accidents. Or maybe it's just me.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Didn't Billy Meier predict this very thing, at this very place, years ago? I'm gonna do a google real quick...

www.prweb.com...

Eh, I don't know....



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

reply to post by LilFox
....

When I think of bad management and poisoning, Majak/Mayak comes to mind.
...


edit on 12/9/2011 by LilFox because: Adding link


WARNING: That video contains a brief view of aborted foetuses in jars.
edit on 12/9/2011 by LilFox because: WARNING


WOW. It is very sad that these villagers have to endure this. We can all see the negative side to this experiment, since we cannot stop it lets take a look at the positive side.

It will be interesting to see what will happen to these villagers as they have generation after generation born there. Natural selection at work, maybe some good mutations will come out of it. Eventually it is possible that those villagers will be extremely robust people that can withstand radiation. Notice the kid with the larger cranium, in history larger craniums have provided advancement for species. Being able to withstand radiation is reason enough for the experiment. Eventually our Sun will run out of control and so will its radiation, or we may have to endure a world wide nuclear war in the future.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Nuclear waste is just as deadly as any other nuclear material. Plutonium is not something you would want to keep in your house. I think people have the right to be concerned since the nuclear industry has been less than forthcoming with regards to the truth.

One example, when the Chernobyl accident happened, the fallout map looked like this:



Even though half of France was receiving 5 to 10 times the background radiation, the French government said there was no fallout in France.

This is still going on:


Did the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl cause serious health problems in France? No, a court in Paris has ruled, saying there is no scientific proof of a link. Critics complain that French authorities were negligent, failing to take preventive measures such as banning the consumption of fresh produce. Some claim the effects of Chernobyl were minimized, partly to protect France’s own nuclear industry.


Source

We have a right to be concerned given the blatant lies fed to us in the past. I only hope an independent agency or even people with Geiger counters start taking measurements.

With regards to nosred, he is either working for, or payed by, the nuclear industry. Who else would make such an asinine remark as "99% of nuclear waste is not harmful".



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tralfamador

I noticed you called someone out for resorting to an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. This post I have quoted here is a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

If A has B, and C has B, then A and C must both be the same.

Tell me what that logical fallacy is called.


Why not go the extra mile and back up your accusation with substance rather than cryptic suppositions?

Was the conclusion inaccurate? Yes or No?

If A (Cigs) contains B (Tobacco products)
And C (Dip) contains B (Tobacco products)
than A and C must both contain B (Tobacco Products).

This argument is sound. The premises are true and the conclusion is valid.

It is not a False Analogy.

A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked.


In fact the two things compared are factually similar in the manner invoked.

It is not non-sequitur, it is a simple transitive property I was pointing out which easily debunked the false claims that only nuclear reactors can cause nuclear accidents.

What you are doing in your post is actually very deceitful, you formed a straw-man argument in order to hopefully confuse me.

I never argued that A=C, B=C, therefore A=B. You spun what I said into something else.

What I said was that A contains C, and B contains C, therefore both contain C. This is vaild 100%.

I believe your straw-man is burning.

edit on 12-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


It was not a "nuclear explosion" technically.

It is a conventional explosion - which happened to very likely eject nuclear materials. We do not know yet if these materials have escaped the containment facility.

Nuclear explosions utilize atomic fission or fusion to create energy, conventional explosions utilize chemical reactions between different chemicals to achieve a release of energy.

This incident is very similar to a "Dirty Bomb". Conventional explosion + radioactive material.
edit on 12-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Tralfamador

I noticed you called someone out for resorting to an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. This post I have quoted here is a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

If A has B, and C has B, then A and C must both be the same.

Tell me what that logical fallacy is called.


Why not go the extra mile and back up your accusation with substance rather than cryptic suppositions?

Was the conclusion inaccurate? Yes or No?

If A (Cigs) contains B (Tobacco products)
And C (Dip) contains B (Tobacco products)
than A and C must both contain B (Tobacco Products).

This argument is sound. The premises are true and the conclusion is valid.

It is not a False Analogy.

A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked.


In fact the two things compared are factually similar in the manner invoked.

It is not non-sequitur, it is a simple transitive property I was pointing out which easily debunked the false claims that only nuclear reactors can cause nuclear accidents.

What you are doing in your post is actually very deceitful, you formed a straw-man argument in order to hopefully confuse me.

I never argued that A=C, B=C, therefore A=B. You spun what I said into something else.

What I said was that A contains C, and B contains C, therefore both contain C. This is vaild 100%.

I believe your straw-man is burning.

edit on 12-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


You were saying because x-ray machines contain radioactive material, and this furnace contains radioactive material, then they must both be equally as dangerous because they are both technically classified as "nuclear", which you like to use as an umbrella term for anything hazardous. If that isn't what you meant, then perhaps you need to restructure the wording.

Rereading your posts, I see now what you are trying to say. You are simply arguing the semantics of what constitutes a nuclear incident... but what is your point? You can say this is a level 4 nuclear incident, and compare it to the scale of Chernobyl, but that only serves to obfuscate the actual severity of this incident, and gives people the impression that it is comparable in severity to Chernobyl or Fukushima.

I could go off on a tangent about radioactive particles being present everywhere in the world from the hundreds of nuclear weapons that have been tested through out the years, and the potential health hazards they pose... and it might all be factually correct, but my intent is clearly to invoke fear by stating such facts just to state them.

Maybe you should clearly state what you are trying to say, and stop trying to argue semantics. Because the only impression I have gotten from reading your posts is that you are trying to win "something". I'm still not sure what that something is.

Clarify what your argument is, and what you are trying to prove. My argument is that only a small minority of nuclear waste and radioactive isoptopes are harmful to biological creatures, and that the known effects they cause to biological creatures are not fully understood.

Also, you have quite a hostile way of discussing things with people. This is not a personal attack, just an observation. You respond emotionally and defensively. I can almost see your victory arm pump at the end of your post.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tralfamador



You were saying because x-ray machines contain radioactive material, and this furnace contains radioactive material, then they must both be equally as dangerous because they are both technically classified as "nuclear", which you like to use as an umbrella term for anything hazardous.


False assumption on your part or purposely created straw-man. Either way, you are wrong.

I never said that they were equal, I actually pointed out that the severity is unknown at least 2 or 3 times.

You are twisting what I said into a fantasy version of my post.

Show me EXACTLY where I said they are "EQUALLY AS DANGEROUS". You can't! I merely said they are both the same CLASSIFICATION which has no bearing on severity!

Where did I say that? Oh I didn't ever say that?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tralfamador

Rereading your posts, I see now what you are trying to say. You are simply arguing the semantics of what constitutes a nuclear incident... but what is your point? You can say this is a level 4 nuclear incident, and compare it to the scale of Chernobyl, but that only serves to obfuscate the actual severity of this incident, and gives people the impression that it is comparable in severity to Chernobyl or Fukushima.


Yes I am arguing semantics mostly. Correct.

I didn't say it was level 4 though, I said it could develop into level 4 only if containment is breached. This is correct by definition of what a level 4 accident is.

Currently I would call it a level 3 because there is no proof containment was breached.

I also made absolute sure to point out that this accident has no way to go above level 4, it could never reach level 5 because of the specifics of the incident.

My actual post was intended to calm people down about it, and assure them that it is not catastrophic. Level 3 accidents happen quite often.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Tralfamador



You were saying because x-ray machines contain radioactive material, and this furnace contains radioactive material, then they must both be equally as dangerous because they are both technically classified as "nuclear", which you like to use as an umbrella term for anything hazardous.


False assumption on your part or purposely created straw-man. Either way, you are wrong.

I never said that they were equal, I actually pointed out that the severity is unknown at least 2 or 3 times.

You are twisting what I said into a fantasy version of my post.

Show me EXACTLY where I said they are "EQUALLY AS DANGEROUS". You can't! I merely said they are both the same CLASSIFICATION which has no bearing on severity!

Where did I say that? Oh I didn't ever say that?


I apologize, you are correct. My mistake was assuming because you were trying to classify them both as nuclear, you were trying to compare the severity of the two as being the same. I still believe that is what you were going for, but it is still just my personal assumption.

There is also no need for the sarcastic emoticons at the end. Your argument can stand on its own merits without resorting to such childish behavior.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tralfamador


I apologize, you are correct. My mistake was assuming because you were trying to classify them both as nuclear, you were trying to compare the severity of the two as being the same. I still believe that is what you were going for, but it is still just my personal assumption.


I apologize as well, I didn't intend to debate you specifically. I was out for the inflammatory poster on the previous page who has failed to respond to points made which debunk his claims.

I never had the intention to equate this incident with anything on the scale of a nuclear meltdown, they are totally separate and this incident is almost meaningless in comparison to Fukushima.

I simply wanted people to use the correct terminology and to not allow the media to skew everything with misnomers.

This is actually a rather tame accident, if the reports I have read so far are true to any extent.

It's like a really big dirty bomb exploding inside a concrete box. At least, I hope the furnace was inside of a building...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I cannot help but wonder, if we have a nuclear accident every few years, and each time it happens, a little more of our Earth is irradiated, how long will it be before the whole planet is toxic? Its unfortunate that often the perception is that because its off in a foreign land far away it wont really affect us.The fact is, anything that is introduced into a closed environment like the Earth,( and it IS closed because we are living on a ball with a gas envelope around it) it stands to reason that its only a matter of time before all our food and water will be contaminated with chemicals and radioactive toxins. Its very worrisome that the pacific is getting all this radiation from Fukishima, which certainly will filter into the sea life and the food chain, and eventually, us. Think about it, in the last 2 years we have had a massive oil spill and a nuclear meltdown. Extrapolate that across the coming decades with more population, more reactors, more pollution, and we are headed for something that is not going to be very pretty. Its pretty much driven by materialism and greed, two very ingrained human qualities, so these are the things we will have to fix or at least learn to control, before we can pull ourselves back from the abyss.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
why has this been happening a lot lately?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Will you lot stop arguing?!


Put a lid on your kettle, put a brick on the lid, pressure builds. Bang.
This may well be a criticality accident as I previously stated. Too much fissile material in one place, instant reaction and fire, generates heat and expansion of air, bang. I am not privvy to the construction of these furnaces. Speculate all you like but please stop arguing.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Tralfamador

I noticed you called someone out for resorting to an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. This post I have quoted here is a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

If A has B, and C has B, then A and C must both be the same.

Tell me what that logical fallacy is called.


Why not go the extra mile and back up your accusation with substance rather than cryptic suppositions?

Was the conclusion inaccurate? Yes or No?

If A (Cigs) contains B (Tobacco products)
And C (Dip) contains B (Tobacco products)
than A and C must both contain B (Tobacco Products).

This argument is sound. The premises are true and the conclusion is valid.

It is not a False Analogy.

A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked.


In fact the two things compared are factually similar in the manner invoked.

It is not non-sequitur, it is a simple transitive property I was pointing out which easily debunked the false claims that only nuclear reactors can cause nuclear accidents.

What you are doing in your post is actually very deceitful, you formed a straw-man argument in order to hopefully confuse me.

I never argued that A=C, B=C, therefore A=B. You spun what I said into something else.

What I said was that A contains C, and B contains C, therefore both contain C. This is vaild 100%.

I believe your straw-man is burning.

edit on 12-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


I don't believe x-ray machines contain ANY nuclear materials, actually, so the argument is pointless. X-ray machines produce x-rays electrically, they do not radiate from some nuclear materials hidden inside. Rather thet are produced when the x-ray tubes are powered on. Any cathode ray electron acceleration tube (for example, old style TV picture tubes) produces x-rays in some amount. However, there are other machines used in hospitals, for the treatment of cancer, that do contain nuclear materials.

To add a note to some other posts, too, according to a recent Christopher Busby talk, cancer is not necessarily the best way to judge the effects of radiation, though the nuclear industry favors it heavily because the effects take a long time to show up. But even very small amounts of radiation in the bloodstream can damage the heart muscles in such a way that they cannot repair themselves anywhere nearly quickly enough. The numbers of people around Chernobyl that died from heart disease are very high, and often people do not live long enough for cancer to even set in. I think we need to force our governments to take this into account when measuring the effects of all these leaks!
edit on 12-9-2011 by Videot because: Spelling

edit on 12-9-2011 by Videot because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
107
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join