Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Radiation So Destructive, Not Even Robots Can Survive

a reply to: Phage

Phage think of the statistical odds.
It's so unlikely that it's anomalous.

The context is that this type of synchronization happens everywhere around us.

Since we're dealing with words from other languages, we maybe have 250,000+ words available to randomly get.

But yet somehow we get a direct 3 step correlation?
Fukushima = Chernobyl = Wormwood?

You can recognize an obvious statistical anomaly while still remaining skeptical. It could be a coincidence that some prophet got it about 75% correct without understanding any of this.

It's a hell of a mighty coincidence though!

a reply to: muzzleflash

So...
Fukushima = Nibiru ?

originally posted by: skatz
I wish there were only 2 threads for this politics. How can something so massive and deadly not be in the forefront of everything.

a reply to: Phage

Have you ever taken a course in statistics?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CHONGO

Cesium doesn't glow much. Even in high concentrations.

Is cesium the only radioactive particulate involved in a nuclear meltdown?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Is cesium the only radioactive particulate involved in a nuclear meltdown?

No. But it would be the predominant one.

I know radium glows but I don't think there is much of that involved with a nuclear meltdown.

Have you ever taken a course in statistics?

Yes. More than one. But that was a while back.

a reply to: Phage

Predominance is irrelevant in some cases.

For example you are in a concrete pillbox and I fire 50,000 bullets and 1 tomahawk cruise missile at it.

Bullets are by far the predominant projectile, but they didn't breach the concrete. It was that one missile that did.

Well that cesium is sorta like that.
The other projectiles are plutonium, neptunium, strontium, tellurium, etc.

Some of those are very powerful sources of danger to biological lifeforms. Maybe all of them are, to varying degrees of course.

a reply to: muzzleflash

So, which would make people (or sushi) glow?

originally posted by: Phage

I know radium glows but I don't think there is much of that involved with a nuclear meltdown.

All radioactive elements emit radiation.

Visible light is a tiny slice of the spectrum.

So they're all glowing, it's just that most of it is invisible to our optical organs.

With technology like a detector that is calibrated to "sense" or "see" other wavelengths, we can measure the energy radiating that we do not see.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

So, which would make people (or sushi) glow?

Technically yes.

Though it may not be optically visible to our eyes.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I glow in infrared. Does that count? Have I been eating too much ahi?

originally posted by: Phage

Have you ever taken a course in statistics?

Yes. More than one. But that was a while back.

Ok lets imagine we are gambling in Vegas.
Each bet placed was 1$.

And for sake of simplicity lets say we already have the prophecy template provided for us.

"Rock falls in ocean and poisons waters killing tons of life. That rock is called _____"

Lets randomize the words for Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Wormwood.

All known words from all known languages on Earth through history are in our randomization database.

Would you bet you can guess word X that translates to word Y that is equivalent with word Z's theme?

What are the odds you will bet correctly on each try?

And each time you bet, words X Y and Z are again randomized so you cannot use the process of elimination. The original prophet did not have the benefits of elimination so neither can we.

How many billions of dollars will it take to guess X correctly?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

I glow in infrared. Does that count? Have I been eating too much ahi?

So you don't take this topic seriously at all?

It's all a big joke huh?
Posterity will not look kindly upon supposed "professional scientists" who polluted our Earth with such callous disregard and then turns around and treats their negligent polluting ways like it's all a big joke.

It disheartens me to realize a man with your education will say such things.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It's all a big joke huh?

No. I seldom find ignorance funny.

a reply to: Phage

We have seen that the Oxford English Dictionary contains 171,476 words in current use,

The largest corpus of modern Chinese words is as listed in the Chinese Hanyucidian (汉语辞典), with 370,000 words derived from 23,000 characters,

So that's 540,000 words from just two languages, yet in our equation we have included all known words in all known languages on Earth.

So there would easily be several million possible choices for word X.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

It's all a big joke huh?

No. I seldom find ignorance funny.

So this is just one those rare topics where you find making a joke of anyone who does take it seriously as funny?

Or do you agree those jokes you made aren't funny? Like you knowingly made an unfunny joke?

Wouldn't that be rude?

a reply to: muzzleflash

When ignorance does not respond to reason other measures are called for.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

It's all a big joke huh?

No. I seldom find ignorance funny.

Could you please explain to everyone how the Fukushima nuclear disaster is not dangerous to the ecosystem?

I believe it appears to have an exceptionally great potential for danger and resulting damage overall.

And on a secondary note could you tell us the statistical odds of guessing word X at random in the scenario I described above.

I love being educated about how I got it all wrong. Avoid logical fallacies like strawmen and provide solid explations please. Thanks.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

When ignorance does not respond to reason other measures are called for.

That is never true.

Reason is always necessary and paramount.

I cannot believe you just admitted you abandoned reason and adopted "other measures".

This is a disgrace.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Could you please explain to everyone how the Fukushima nuclear disaster is not dangerous to the ecosystem?

I have said, multiple times, that the disaster will be a great problem for the region now and into the future.

I believe it appears to have an exceptionally great potential for danger and resulting damage overall.

If by that you mean on a global level, I think your belief has little factual basis.

And on a secondary note could you tell us the statistical odds of guessing word X at random in the scenario I described above.

On a primary note, I have no idea what you are talking about.