Fortunately, that leaves at least 99% of the surface area of the earth available,
No, because radioactive accidents in the past have poisoned land far away from the burning/leaking reactors.
It was when they finally realized that radioactive cesium (and strontium, plutonium, etc) falling from the skies all over the world was actually harming people that they stopped above ground testing of bombs. Up until then they actually didn’t know shit about the effects of radioactivity from nuclear bombs.
Rich powerful people don’t want an invisible cloud of death slowly increasing their cancer rates. Before they knew that cesium was a problem they actually exploded clouds of radioactive cesium in the atmosphere to use to test radar systems. Florida has a well known fallout pattern from these tests, based on cesium levels in milk.
Just like we know deaths must occur from coal burning, we also know deaths have occurred world wide from nuclear bomb testing, reactor meltdowns, and other accidents. It’s science.
And just like the coal industry, nuclear apologists deny any possibility of death happening from nuclear power. I don’t blame them actually. Especially if it is a lower death rate than coal.
But don’t try to piss on my leg and tell me it’s rain.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
And just like the coal industry, nuclear apologists deny any possibility of death happening from nuclear power.
[/QUOTE]
Can you quote a single poster who has said that there is no possibility of death from nuclear power? Just a single one? I will take silence or handwaving as admission that you are, again, just making stuff up.
-XT
A reliable test to check and see whether your particular fanaticism has gone too far is whether you have totally lost your sense of humor.
I was making a joke that most people in the world are not sane. I implied it, but it should have been obvious anyway. That you missed says a great deal. Take a long step back. You’ve stopped doing your cause any good.
I thought it was funny.
No really. It was a good joke. I was just messing with you by pretending not to get it.
Well OK then.
Obviously you made up the strawman " there is no possibility of death from nuclear power", rather than responding to what was actually said. I stated, “And just like the coal industry, nuclear apologists deny any possibility of death happening from nuclear power.”
This denial takes many forms, but the essence can be gleaned from here with ease. Remember, it about the denial of the possibility of death.
Message> Deaths from nuclear power are so few they just don’t matter.
Message> It’s unrealistic to be concerned about deaths from nuclear power plants.
Message> eating is far more dangerous than a meltdown and explosion at a nuclear plant.
Message> If only people would stop prventing it, we could build a safe reactor. Nobody has yet of course, but they could.
Message> Nobody was even harmed, much less ever died from cancer or anything.
Message> Obviously exactly what I stated. There isn’t even a possibility that anyone died from TMI. Nobody even got sick.
Do you pay attention to what you write? You sound like Christopher Monckton. It was said by you here:
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
And just like the coal industry, nuclear apologists deny any possibility of death happening from nuclear power. I don’t blame them actually. Especially if it is a lower death rate than coal.
[/QUOTE]
It is a strawman, no one said that, (And this point was mentioned many times before by many others before, it is one of the main reasons why I decided not to deal with you anymore on the other threads, not acknowledging your straw-manning is a demonstration of dishonesty) and your pathetic exercise here shows how clueless you are.
The last examples are specific to TMI, the quote demanded by **xtisme **was from a “single poster who has said that there is no possibility of death from nuclear power” That was a strawman of yours, no one here said that, TMI could, and I repeat, could had been deadly to some; but the people quoted here are not talking possibilities, they are talking history, no one did die there for the incident, there may be a chance, but on that specific case one is safe to say that no one died there because of the incident, now Chernobyl on the other hand did cause many deaths, and that was also aknowleged many times before by me and others, but as it would demonstrate to others how silly your points are, it is essential for you to deny or ignore what we said before.
This thread has gone beyond discussion into squabbling.
If you want to debate this issue, start a thread in Great Debates.
If you want to beat on someone, start a thread in the Pit.
This thread is closed.