Persistant Myths From Japan

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 



I'm just here to thank you for pointing-out the topic of this fine thread.
No star for you.

keyword; deflection


Nice Rebuttal... did you think of that all by yourself?

Quote my *ENTIRE POST* in it's entirety, and just say "Deflection"

Seriously, if you want to debate, you should at least have an opinion on the matter, as opposed to hurling logical fallacies at me.

My information is backed up by solid sources....

What about yours?

Because from where i'm sitting, your statement about "deflection", is baseless and wholly wrong.


But, just to be fair.... what is it exactly that you believe that I am deflecting?

No, go ahead... I'll wait for an actual rebuttal.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by loveguy
 



I'm just here to thank you for pointing-out the topic of this fine thread.
No star for you.

keyword; deflection


Nice Rebuttal... did you think of that all by yourself?

Quote my *ENTIRE POST* in it's entirety, and just say "Deflection"

Seriously, if you want to debate, you should at least have an opinion on the matter, as opposed to hurling logical fallacies at me.

My information is backed up by solid sources....

What about yours?

Because from where i'm sitting, your statement about "deflection", is baseless and wholly wrong.


But, just to be fair.... what is it exactly that you believe that I am deflecting?

No, go ahead... I'll wait for an actual rebuttal.


I'll be nice...

What does the price of rice in china have anything to do with this topic?

Chernobyl was one reactor that hundreds of thousands of selfless individuals threw themselves on-top to minimize those numbers you stand by...numbers in japan will be counted slower due to the lack of selfless individuals too selfish to try and minimize it...

And those numbers will be counted outside of Japan as well, long into the future.
Meanwhile, you and I will sit here and bicker about it all day long. One reactor does not reach the death-toll of four reactors. And don't neglect;

Fuel storage pools.

We can argue over the pros and cons of nuclear energy all day long; but when it comes down to you standing side by side with me to throw ourselves on that unharness-able ball of energy b/c something simple went wrong...

I ain't throwing myself on that ball of death for you or anybody. The benefits do not outweigh the detriments. Quit trying to put sour milk back into the refrigerator.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 



What does the price of rice in china have anything to do with this topic?


Why are you bringing up rice in a topic about radioactivity and nuclear power?


Chernobyl was one reactor that hundreds of thousands of selfless individuals threw themselves on-top to minimize those numbers you stand by...


You do realize that you aren't actually saying anything, right?


numbers in japan will be counted slower due to the lack of selfless individuals too selfish to try and minimize it...


Let me get this straight.... you think that because we don't have any information on how many people were effected and killed by radiation, that it must be an astronomical number?

Really?

You keep barking, with nothing more substantive than your FEELINGS to back up your "Claims" (No, they aren't actually claims, it's just the feelings insinuating a point)


And those numbers will be counted outside of Japan as well, long into the future.


You really don't know how to read, do you?

Here, let me post this for you AGAIN:


A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.


You want to try pulling numbers out of your butt again?

Because your whole argument smells like poo.


And don't neglect;

Fuel storage pools.


Would you like to explain this one? Or are you going to keep insinuating things until you have no more emotions left to convey?

Listen, I KNOW that you are not arguing, because you haven't even IMPLIED anything remotely close to a POINT yet.....

All you are doing is hurling emotionally laden buzzwords, without the faintest inkling of a CLUE.

Stop doing this...

I feel sorry for you already.


We can argue over the pros and cons of nuclear energy all day long; but when it comes down to you standing side by side with me to throw ourselves on that unharness-able ball of energy b/c something simple went wrong...

I ain't throwing myself on that ball of death for you or anybody.


And what is your point?

That you don't want to risk yourself to save anyone?

Is that it?

Great, now I know that.... And how DARE you attempt to minimize the selflessness of those who WOULD throw themselves in harms way to protect someone as uncaring as you.

For shame.


The benefits do not outweigh the detriments.


the benefits and detriments Of *WHAT?*



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by loveguy
 



And what is your point?

That you don't want to risk yourself to save anyone?

Is that it?

Great, now I know that.... And how DARE you attempt to minimize the selflessness of those who WOULD throw themselves in harms way to protect someone as uncaring as you.

For shame.


The benefits do not outweigh the detriments.


the benefits and detriments Of *WHAT?*


You simply fail to recognize the danger of nuclear energy. Every element daughter's-off a new deadly element; for-ever---->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Because I do recognize the danger, I will not advocate utilizing it in the first place...how many selfless individuals have to throw themselves on top of that ball of fire? Ever hear of clean green free energy? It exists, lightning is the proof! Now that you can harness, by george.

That's where you are putting 'selfish' people in danger. Selfish people who are trying to sustain life, not profit off of 'consumers'. What is nuclear energy but a service to consumers? It has no folly as long as enough consumers keep them afloat! What do they do to keep us afloat, but a carrot on the end of a stick...

But that is not for this topic....

You did a great job in getting the OPs point across.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 



You simply fail to recognize the danger of nuclear energy


Oh, you must have gotten that from the part where I state quite clearly that people have died from nuclear accidents....




Every element daughter's-off a new deadly element; for-ever




Let's take a look at the decay tree for Uranium, shall we?


An example is the natural decay chain of 238U, which is as follows:

* decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.8 days to polonium-218
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.1 minutes to lead-214
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 27 minutes to bismuth-214
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes to polonium-214
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 160 microseconds to lead-210
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 22 years to bismuth-210
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 5 days to polonium-210
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 140 days to lead-206, which is a stable nuclide.


Keep in mind, this is the natural decay rate, and does not take into account the accelerated decay environment of the neutron flux rich nuclear reactor core.

At the end of the decay tree, you have lead-206, which is stable, and non-radioactive.

And the total natural decay time amounts to some 4.6 billion years.

Remember, the Higher the half-life, the less radioactive a given sample is over a short time.

The lower the half life, the quicker it is converted into non-radioactivity.

So, when you said "Forever", what you actually meant to say was "IT decays to a ground state of a stable isotope eventually"


Because I do recognize the danger, I will not advocate utilizing it in the first place


Then I guess we shouldn't live in wood houses, because they can catch fire.


In 2010, fire departments responded to 384,000 home fires in the United States, which claimed the lives of 2,640 people (not including firefighters) and injured another 13,350, not including firefighters (Karter 2011).

www.cdc.gov...

And we shouldn't drive cars, because they kill people....


"Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”

www.foxnews.com...

And I guess we should get rid of indoor plumbing...


Drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub: 341 (deaths in 2000)

danger.mongabay.com...

And Sex....

Millions of people die every year due to sex related deaths, actually.... should we ban sex?

You see, this is what you fail to understand....

There is a subtle difference between "Acknowledging Danger", and retreating back into your mothers womb because the world isn't a perfect wonderland of undying happiness.

Go Away.


how many selfless individuals have to throw themselves on top of that ball of fire?


www.usfa.fema.gov...


Ever hear of clean green free energy? It exists, lightning is the proof! Now that you can harness, by george.



Number of Lightning Deaths in the United States, 1990 to 2003: 756



You did a great job in getting the OPs point across.


Exposing your fearmongering as a MYTH perpetrated to destroy certain sovereign nations energy independence from the global fossil fuel syndicates?

Yeah.... THAT.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by loveguy
 


Every element daughter's-off a new deadly element; for-ever


Let's take a look at the decay tree for Uranium, shall we?


An example is the natural decay chain of 238U, which is as follows:

* decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234

* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.8 days to polonium-218
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.1 minutes to lead-214
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 27 minutes to bismuth-214
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes to polonium-214
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 160 microseconds to lead-210
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 22 years to bismuth-210
* which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 5 days to polonium-210
* which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 140 days to lead-206, which is a stable nuclide.


So, when you said "Forever", what you actually meant to say was "IT decays to a ground state of a stable isotope eventually"


Yes, after everyone is dead! Did you not even read what you quoted?

4.5 BILLION YEARS!!!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Nuclear Energy is in Theory maybe okay
but not now (2012-2025) and i doubt that we will find a way to control Fusion
and taking care of all the nasty Waste- Products!



It is stupid to produce something where we have no final Solution for!
edit on 17-3-2012 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 



Yes, after everyone is dead! Did you not even read what you quoted?

4.5 BILLION YEARS!!!


Did you not read the part where this is the NATURAL decay time for Uranium 238?

As in the Element that is ALREADY here on earth, happily decaying without one single ounce of human intervention?

You don't seriously think that *WE* are *CREATING* the Uranium in our Reactors, are you?

The stuff is already HERE on earth....


IT is in the Air.

IT is in the Water.

It is in the Earth.


That's the reason that we can GET to it.

BECAUSE IT'S

ALREADY HERE



Whether we dig it out of the ground OR NOT... it's still radioactive, it's still here, and it's still going to take 4.5 billion years to decay.

When we purify it, and put it through our reactors.... we are actually making it decay *FASTER* than it would naturally.

That's where the energy comes from.
edit on 18-3-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by loveguy
 



Yes, after everyone is dead! Did you not even read what you quoted?

4.5 BILLION YEARS!!!


Did you not read the part where this is the NATURAL decay time for Uranium 238?

As in the Element that is ALREADY here on earth, happily decaying without one single ounce of human intervention?

You don't seriously think that *WE* are *CREATING* the Uranium in our Reactors, are you?

The stuff is already HERE on earth....


IT is in the Air.

IT is in the Water.

It is in the Earth.


That's the reason that we can GET to it.

BECAUSE IT'S

ALREADY HERE



Whether we dig it out of the ground OR NOT... it's still radioactive, it's still here, and it's still going to take 4.5 billion years to decay.

When we purify it, and put it through our reactors.... we are actually making it decay *FASTER* than it would naturally.

That's where the energy comes from.
edit on 18-3-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)


Why do I need nuclear energy?
If I need it so bad and it is such a service to provide me, why should I submit to double jeopardy and afford the cost?

free energy but it costs to store and access it, I wonder why...





top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join