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

a reply to: Phage

Are ecosystems isolated?

Or is it possible that damage to one system can result in damage to other neighboring systems?

Is there a line drawn that separates one ecosystem from another?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Is there a line drawn that separates one ecosystem from another?

No.
But in this case there is a whole hell of a lot of water compared to the amount of radioactive material.

originally posted by: Phage

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.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

We were attempting to gauge the statistical odds of guessing a word "X" in one language that translates exactly to word "Y" in another language and equates precisely to word "Z" by theme/concept.

All words were randomized but word Z was defined secretly and all you had to do was guess X.

Of course many variables are unknown but this exercise was a generalized assessment of the statistical odds.

I propose that guessing X correctly is astronomical to the extent it would be anomalous.

In this case word X is "Wormwood", Y is "Chernobyl, and Z is "Fukushima".

It appears to me that Bible prophecy in Revelation 8:10-11 is uncanny statistically speaking. It's author would seem to be a master of coincidences and resemblances. That's even considering that it's all luck.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

No. I don't.

Your post doesn't help.

Fukushima = Apocalypse?

originally posted by: Black_Fox
I was interested in your post till I saw 'Wormwood' and 'prophecy'.
No thank you.

Yes deny ignorance and forget 6000 years of knowlege ,the Ukranian word for Wormwood is Chernyobal

a reply to: Phage

That chart is completely unrealistic and unreliable.

Fukushima is, and will be, continually emanating additional radioactive materials into the environment on a daily basis for decades to come.

Your chart assumes past tense, as if this was a one time spill. It doesn't even say how much time elapsed when it determined the volume it listed.

We can throw your chart into the garbage, it has zero accuracy value and lacks significant data or explanation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

No. I don't.

Your post doesn't help.

Fukushima = Apocalypse?

Strawman fallacy.

Try again.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You are correct that contamination continues. That is indicated by the evidence which shows seawater radiation levels in the area have plateaued (at very low levels instead of showing a steady decline). However, there is no evidence which shows an increase in the region or anywhere else.

The indication is that any accumulated contamination would be in the seafloor in the region rather than seawater. I know that "300 tons of contaminated water" sounds terrifying. But two questions are pertinent. What is the level of contamination? How many tons of water are in the Pacific Ocean?

ourradioactiveocean.org...
kelpwatch.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: muzzleflash

Speaking of straw men, how about avoiding the Bible all together?

If you are eagerly anticipating the Apocalypse, that's your trip.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Birds falling from the sky,whale strandings,fires,lawlessness in Venezuela and Brazil,record heatwaves...none of it is being reported on main stream media I think Fukushima is now a second string concern although I would say its operator Tepco and the Japanese government are probably more in need of lie detectors than radiation detectors.

a reply to: Phage

The OP brought the Bible reference of wormwood into the topic at the end of his post.

You questioned on page one:

What does mugwort have to do with a nuclear meltdown?

So I didn't bring the Bible into the thread.
The OP did.

You then questioned it.

Other members explained the simple correlation.

I then waded in to explain to you why that reference is rather uncanny.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't think it's uncanny.
I think that the fact that Chernobyl is the Ukrainian name for a weed doesn't mean much of anything.

Your opinion may vary.

originally posted by: Phage

If you are eagerly anticipating the Apocalypse, that's your trip.

Where did I say the apocalypse?

I was discussing statistical odds and the seriousness of nuclear meltdowns.

I'm not hysterical. I'm merely conducting a mental exercise to challenge our wits.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Where did I say the apocalypse?

What is the context of the Biblical reference?

I'm not hysterical. I'm merely conducting a mental exercise to challenge our wits.

Groovy. Where did I say you were hysterical?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't think it's uncanny.
I think that the fact that Chernobyl is the Ukrainian name for a weed doesn't mean much of anything.

Your opinion may vary.

You're purposely being obtuse by retracting the other half of the equation.

Of course the fact the city Chernobyl is named after a weed is mostly meaningless on it's own.

But in context of this thread, the fact that the Bible said an object named wormwood (Chernobyl) would poison the ocean is uncanny because something called Fukushima is in fact poisoning the ocean, and Fukushima is called "Japan's Chernobyl".

Why can't you admit that fact? It's a solid fact.
And the odds are astronomical that such a fact could be so at pure random chance.

If mere coincidence, than it is a mighty one.
If we are being reasonable than we have to admit we can at least understand how Evangelists will see this as a type of confirmation of their beliefs.

Making fun of their activities of confirmation via this fact is ignorance. It doesn't matter if the Bible is true or not, it only matters that their book can easily be interpreted in this way and so we should understand how difficult it would be to convince them otherwise on this specific correlation between wormwood in Revelation and Fukushima.

There comes a point when you gotta face your arrogance and pick your battles better. No one always wins.

Revelation could be 99% inaccurate in reality but if you try to fight this wormwood aspect you won't gain any ground against it.

a reply to: muzzleflash

But in context of this thread, the fact that the Bible said an object named wormwood (Chernobyl) would poison the ocean is uncanny because something called Fukushima is in fact poisoning the ocean, and Fukushima is called "Japan's Chernobyl".

What does Fukushima translate to, in whatever Biblical language you choose?

Why can't you admit that fact? It's a solid fact.

Is the Biblical reference to artemisia vulgaris?

And the odds are astronomical that such a fact could be so at pure random chance.

Odds are irrelevant once something occurs.

If we are being reasonable than we have to admit we can at least understand how Evangelists will see this as a type of confirmation of their beliefs.

Of course. Confirmation bias is the only thing that those of faith have, in the face of reality.

originally posted by: Phage

What is the context of the Biblical reference?

I wasn't suggesting the context of apocalypse was true untrue mistranslated or whatever.

I was explaining how to analyze the odds of the correlation between three words and how difficult it would be to succeed at guessing the right words by pure chance.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I was explaining how to analyze the odds of the correlation between three words and how difficult it would be to succeed at guessing the right words by pure chance.

I believe you said the odds were "astronomical." Please show your work.

a reply to: Phage

You're the one that wanted to argue Bible prophecy and ridicule it's proponents. You as a result are guilty of many logical fallacies in this thread as a result of that decision and your reluctance to argue it honestly in a proper manner.

Especially omission. You're omitting specific aspects of the argument so you can avoid the hard number crunching calculation of the odds because we can all see this is an unbelievably rare hit in favor of the evangelists confirmation bias.

Because of your cognitive dissonance when confronted with a clearly articulated argument it is obvious you are the most guilty of confirmation bias in this particular instance of debate.

The odds are absolutely relevant when we are discussing if Bible prophecy is even a viable position to bring up in the context of anything happening in modern times. Especially when the Bible nailed it.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You're the one that wanted to argue Bible prophecy and ridicule it's proponents.

I didn't want to. I had to because it was brought up.

You're omitting specific aspects of the argument so you can avoid the hard number crunching calculation of the odds because we can all see this is an unbelievably rare hit in favor of the evangelists confirmation bias.

You asked if I had taken courses in statistics. I have. In those classes I was required to show my work.