Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast as result of Fukushima nucle

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Then you definitely can't read.




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


I read fine, you don't know how to post to the source of your quotes. If a blog quotes another article, then you need to find a link to the other article. It is just good technique.

In addition, your posts, and the blogs to which you link, do not address the points in the Op. As far as debunking goes, it is a poor effort.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Now I'm wondering if it's a more serious issue than reading...

The articles I quoted and linked are specifically about the situation the OP refers to.
edit on 15-1-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


Naw,

You have reading comprehension problems, as well as posting problems.

The Op points out that the original story does not consider Fukushima.

This point just seems to go straight over your head.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by raymundoko
 


Naw,

You have reading comprehension problems, as well as posting problems.

The Op points out that the original story does not consider Fukushima.

This point just seems to go straight over your head.



So the OP doesn't say...


a phenomenon that the data suggests is a direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima


Oh wait...it does. Then it links to the junk science article that makes that claim...are you in the wrong thread?



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


sorry you don't understand the meaning of data.

Keep trying.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Imo. He done right,
also it is clear that he (Raymundokok)
do not invented this Statements!

The NaturalNews Article is debunked, as usual because of their low Quality,
the Hoax-Bin is the right Place!



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 


Claims of successful debunk is highly exaggerated.

A quote of a quote does not work. It does not give the complete story, and if that is the best you can do, then you need to give up.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Let's be fair though.... National Geographic belongs to Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp... So them not mentioning Fukushima doesn't necessarily set alarm bells ringing over the OPs theory.

Chances are if NewsCorp is ignoring anything... It's relevant to whichever story you hearing at the time.


At the same time I'm sceptical of 98% of the Pacific floor.
Maybe 98% within a certain radius of the Pacific floor.

Also someone mentioned Climate Change doing this!!! All within the space of 4 months???
That's probably a scarier thought than Fukushima being the cause!!!
If so why isn't that the main headline of the 21st Century(Fox)???
My little joke at the end may actually be the answer to my own question!

Peace.
edit on 7-2-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!



new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join