There are some insults that are too low for the Pit, and this is one of them. Just because Nancy Grace happens to be correct on this issue does not mean that she is anymore accurate than a stopped watch that is correct twice a day.
Anyway, this is too low a blow. It is lower than calling for death or calling someone by an anglo-saxon term for vagina.
I appeal to the mods for protection from such disgusting abuse, even in the Pit. This is beyond comparing someone to Hitler.
You might want to watch this and get back to us on whether or not she is correct.
What strawman/men?
A straw man is when you make up an argument or position the other side doesn’t actually have, and then you argue with that, and pretend you’re winning. That’s what the pro-nuke side does!
Typical straw man from your side. When have I ever said we should be fearful of the radioactive particles coming from Japan? Never, that’s when. People have a right to know there are particles coming from Fukushima, just as they have a right to know particles are coming from the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland a while back. They have a right know what particles are hitting them from the sun. And their own basement. Guess what? People hear these things and they don’t panic. Unless the newscasters jump up and scream “run for your lives, wait there’s no where to run, ahhhh!” then it’s news trivia.
Give up that straw man.
Defend your pet industry, and quit crying about how nuke’s failures are everything’s, and everyone’s, fault *except *the nuclear industry’s.
I do think you will have trouble finding anyone that assured him about the particles not getting to the US, of course there is another way to see that, that you are assuming that some one told him that it was going to be unsafe.
Sure, as soon as we do not see people like Nancy Grace sounding the alarm that we are in danger from the particles and running away with it, if the facts do report that there is no reason to fear, then it follows that your say so of “They don’t like facts. Facts lead to knowledge, and knowledge leads to fear” was not relevant or you are then worried that people would gain the proper knowledge (that we should not worry over here in the USA) and not be mislead into fear uh?
I’m on the record of of saying that heads should roll for the current problems at the nuclear plant, that the problems can not be ignored, I also defended solar and wind power before, so this demonstrates that indeed you are still relying on straw men to get your point across. You are just being illogical and unconvincing.
The fact that you think that Nancy Grace is “correct on this issue” suggests that comparing you to Nancy Grace is perfectly appropriate.
In fact, i think i’m going to call you Nancy from now on.
It’s Bushmillertime! 
Oh, God, not that! Frankly, I have no idea on whether Nancy Grace is correct on the issue of FuckUshima as I refuse to watch her or any network that will cablecast her “missing white blond girl of the week” show. It’s like watching W try to say something coherent, a screeching of fingernails on a blackboard. Please, please don’t make me watch her.
No it’s not. The xkcd chart is a dosage chart, the amount of radioactivity absorbed by a human (or potential absorption).
Any measurements of the water (regardless of the actual number) are of the field emitted by the water.
To put it in a more mundane terms, the difference between how bad a sunburn a person got and the luminosity of the sun.
It’s really funny that you say that. On another forum somebody is arguing that sieverts is the only term to use when reporting the radioactivity of water (with radioactive material in it).
I mean right at this very moment somebody is calling me a troll for arguing that sieverts is NOT the correct term to describe radioactivity.
I don’t honestly know what you’re saying here. Nancy Grace is to anti-nuke what Fred Phelps is to Christianity. She’s been mocked and parodied since long before this latest meltdown (heh). You’ll notice she immediately went viral and she made a complete joke out of anyone who might have had some honest questions, and the weatherman made her look and sound even more ridiculous.
Do you honestly think anyone cares what Nancy Grace thinks, except maybe people just like her?
So what’s your point? Is Nancy Grace the only person you can point to spreading anti-nuclear hysteria? That’s all you got?
then we’re on the same side.
If you’re on my side how can I be using a straw man against you?
:rolleyes:
I do however see the real cost that the use of fossil fuels will bring to the future, Nuclear power is and will be a supplement to solar, wind and other alternative power sources.
I was not crying about how nuke’s failures are everything’s, and everyone’s, fault except the nuclear industry’s.
So yes, you are claiming I was doing so, that was lie. And a fallacy also.
I probably said “you” in the general sense. Don’t take it personally.
bolding mine
Nitpick: I thought upthread it was established that there is no minimum radiation dose below which the health risk shrinks to zero.
Thats the ASSUMPTION.
First, it might not be true.
Second, at some point doesn’t it just not freaking matter? Let’s say the math says that 1 person in 10 million will get a deadly cancer (statistically speaking) because of “disaster X”. BFD. You could probably make a similar calculation that driving 55.01 miles per hour vs the legal limit of 55.00 has the same impact. Nobody freaks the fuck out about people driving a smidgen over the speed limit (or way the hell over it for that matter).
The math does not say that. You are making up numbers and pretending they have relevance in the real world. No 55.01mph does not compare to real cancer caused by radiation.
Your so dense you can’t even get the point, much less make a decent logical arguement about it.
Yeah, I pulled numbers out of my ass. I figured any idiot could see that. But that doesnt mean the point is bad or invalid.
You don’t think the world is full of things where if something is bit more (or less) X and that likely causes a small but non-zero probability of an additional death? Got news for you sonny, its most very likely how the world actually works.
Or do you think for some reason radiation caused deaths are extra special somehow?
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
Nitpick: I thought upthread it was established that there is no minimum radiation dose below which the health risk shrinks to zero.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. About the same non-zero health risk of going out in the sun, give or take some small level of ridiculousness. But yeah…there isn’t a minimum radiation dose that has absolutely zero health risks.
-XT
He didn’t say that driving at 55.01 mph compares to cancer, you chucklehead. He was talking about a comparison of risk, not a comparison of consequences.
Yes, there have been very slightly elevated levels of radiation in the United states as a result of the situation in Japan. But basically every scientist and medical expert has been arguing, unequivocally, that the levels pose no health risks to American citizens. As an individual, your chances of suffering any health effects from this radiation—short term or long term—are so low as to be effectively zero.
Some evidence:
And from the Union of Concerned Scientists’ daily press briefing:
As Lyman says, they stick with the assumption that no dose of radiation is completely safe, but that also includes the background doses that you get just living your life every day. The question to ask is how much the tiny amounts from Japan raise the risk of someone in the United States, and the answer is that the increase in risk is so small as to be basically zero.
It is not drool. He really really loves big bosses, bankers and and corporate leaders.
Except that this plant DID survive the quake. And except for poor forthought of where the generators were sited, it also survived the Tsunami. As has been noted add naueseam, another Reactor that was half the distance from the epicentre did survive the whole thing intact.