Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: ed1: For a WELL BALANCED and DOCUMENTED layman's journal on TMI -

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 06 Jun 12 9:41 AM | 37 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner 		Msg. 18483 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 18479 by lkorrow)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Linda - don't attempt distraction by changing the subject.

Unless, and until, you can show that what I have presented, and now, Due also - on TMI is false through CREDIBLE SOURCES - which you admit you can't find ... this chapter on 'nuclear discussion' is at a standstill.

On Fukushima - quite frankly, my original position, stated at the time of the initial problems, has not changed. Scare mongering does NOT work with me - and so far, I am seeing damned little real information that I consider trustworthy.

When I come across asnine statements such as 'Ce134 and Ce137' do not exist naturally, and were never seen on the face of the earth before man invented 'nuclear energy' - THROUGHOUT THE LITERATURE, including highly scientific sites - I know that the level of propaganda regarding nuclear has become damn near insurmountable. I have no interest in tilting at windmills. You will just spin them faster, ma'am - and my Don Quixote days are OVER.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: ed1: For a WELL BALANCED and DOCUMENTED layman's journal on TMI -
By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION
Wed, 06 Jun 12 9:21 AM 		Msg. 18479 of 21975

monkey, yes, I saw wiki.

That site reported on a school project to go find abnormalities, which they sure did, unless the photos are fakes. Yes, that possibility exists. You would discount such information, because it wasn't done by a scientist.

Why don't I trust official sites? Because I saw the coverup on zarconium cladding fires from the inside. I didn't need Fukushima to show me.

Yet, you still defend nuclear power. Are you going to require containment vessels over the spent fuel ponds? Are you going to force utilities to spend the money to put the fuel in dry casks when it's cool enough (3-5 yrs)?

Tell me, are spent fuel pools many times more lethal than the reactor, which is protected?

Tell me, have the Japanese put a closed loop cooling system back in place that doesn't dump millions of gallons of radioactive water in the Pacific yet? Here we are at Fukushima +1+. Nothing.

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next