Rantings about stupid nuclear reporting, and I want to bitchslap somebody, also other crap

[matt]

@Gary_Kumquat

Oh please tell me he really said that?

Right here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13593152&postcount=613

@FXMastermind

You are inhaling all the radioactive fallout that lands on the leaves, and putting directly into your lungs, where it does the most damage. Before WWII smoking cigs didn’t cause cancer like it does now.

Cancer rates spiked after WWII, especially the kind that kills you. But good luck trying to prove it had anything to do with radioactive fall out.

And here I gave him a cite showing he was wrong. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13599554&postcount=812

[Gary_Kumquat]

That is a truly beautiful piece of stupidity. Thanks Matt!

[FXMastermind]

@DSeid

(And yes, “cite” as commonly accepted shorthand for “citation” is fine, as is “script” for “prescription” and “quote” for “quotation”. Few ask for “citations” on message boards.)

And the voice of authority ignores that, but wants to label my thoughtful post, that included references and even links, as shit?

This is an example of what I call “internet irony”. While the delicious humor of it is to be savored, that does little to fight ignorance.

Cite is a verb.

Citation is a noun.

You can’t interchange them, no matter how much you wish bad grammar and people with no education can change the world.

OK you can, but it makes one look stupid. It’s just wrong.

[ol]
[li]The article citations several experts on the subject.[/li][li]The museum had often been citationed as an example of successful fund-raising.[/li][li]He citationed evidence suggesting she was in the area when the crime was committed.[/li][li]She was citation for reckless driving.[/li][/ol]

It’s just totally wrong. The obverse is also wrong.

[ol]
[li]He was issued a cite.[/li][li]He received a cite for reckless driving.[/li][li]He gave her a cite for bravery.[/li][/ol]
Of course the words are connected, but they are not the same thing. The correct form:

The officer decided to cite him for speeding. He gave him a citation. In court the man cited a previous case in his defense. He also mentioned he had received a citation for bravery in the war. The Judge found that he had previously been cited for being a big fat liar, and lectured him about citing Wikipedia as a tactic.

Internet says the following is OK

The officer decided to citation him for speeding. He gave him a cite. In court the man citation a previous case in his defense. He also mentioned he had received a cite for bravery in the war. The Judge found that he had previously been citation for being a big fat liar, and lectured him about citationing Wikipedia as a tactic.

[Zeriel]

You and Le Jaqingoff should form some kind of “Thread Jesus” club, since you both have this habit of resurrecting dead threads a few days after the last post to dribble some more stupidity on them.

[FXMastermind]

More trolls from the boring side of the tracks

[XT]

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
And the voice of authority ignores that, but wants to label my thoughtful post, that included references and even links, as shit?
[/QUOTE]

You seriously reopened this lame ass thread to do a language lecture on the proper use of the term citation/cite??? Really? And you think others look stupid?? Good grief.

-XT

[XT]

Moved his from the Nuclear Power thread in Cecil’s forum:

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Such uninformed spench give a topic the appearance of an opinion piece, long on rhetoric, completely absent of fact.
[/QUOTE]

It was what I would call a ‘joke’. A ‘joke’ is a term used when someone (me in this case) is trying to be funny. The general ‘clue’ that someone is trying to make a ‘joke’ is the insertion of a ‘smiley face’. Like this one ‘:p’. In the future, keep an eye out for this indicator. What was said may or may not actually BE funny, but it will help you to know when someone trying to tell one of those ‘joke’ thingies.

I usually ignore such an internet driveler, preferring a fact based discussion, even when facts are scrace, we can at least compose ourselves to support our opinions based on reality, or at least our view of it.

Are you saying that you don’t believe that you and gonzomax are representative of the majority opinion in the US wrt nuclear energy?? I’ll ignore your assertion that you prefer ‘a fact based discussion’, as it’s sending me off into uncontrollable fits of laughter. However, I’m interested in why you think what you quoted there is incorrect. I actually was being completely serious there…I DO think that, at least wrt your anti-nuclear stance on nuclear energy and the exaggerated viewpoint of the dangers and risks, you and gonzomax DO represent a majority opinion in the US. If you didn’t then I’m puzzled as to why nuclear energy is pretty much at a standstill (or even going in reverse) here in the US. I’m also puzzled as to why this statement offended you. You did understand what I was getting at there, right? I ask not to be snarky but because I really don’t get why you were offended by the statement.

-XT

[FXMastermind]

The real problem you have, is that you don’t know shit. Seriously. You don’t even have a clue. Yet you want to type out bullshit of the most boring kind, and I think you even imagine it seems important, that you actually constructed some sort of cogent and compelling argument, when it’s just opinion and your fantasy, your imagining what is. That you can’t see that, that you seem so strident and serious about it, it’s just more comedy.

I would encourage you, but it’s not that good of comedy. It gets old after one time. You need some new material.

[FXMastermind]

Like Zeriel up there. Utter boredom. He doesn’t even try, much less lift a finger to learn anything. It’s like a bored person complaining. It’s beyond boring.

Make a fucking effort at least. I have know idea who the other poster is. Would it fucking kill you to put a link to his most egregious example of late? Think of it as added value.

If you take the time to type out some complaint, at least make it understandable. Other wise, nobody gives a fuck.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@FXMastermind

The real problem you have, is that you don’t know shit. Seriously. You don’t even have a clue.

Can I just quote that whole “Before WWII smoking cigs didn’t cause cancer like it does now” thing again. Because honestly, it’s about the most wonderful demonstration of just what you know that I could have asked for.

[FXMastermind]

To be effective, you have to link to something. It’s not hard, but that way people can verify that you didn’t just make something up in order to further whatever agenda you are trying to ram down people’s throats. Over and over.

Like a huge dildo you want them to be aware of.

You see? Just making something up isn’t all that effective.

[Miller]

Oh, motherluvin’ Christ, on top of everything else, the poor dumb bastard is a prescriptivist. There really is no hope for him.

[FXMastermind]

Here’s how easy it is.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13593152&postcount=613

See? The conversation was about how much radioactivity smoking cigs exposes people to. I noted that the fallout from bomb testings vastly increased the amount of radioactive material that is in tobacco, due to the endemic nature of nuclear fallout.

And how lung cancer rates rose after WWII (not all cancers, just some), and how impossible it would be to ever prove it had anything to do with nuclear pollution.

When you selectively quote something out of context, like “Before WWII smoking cigs didn’t cause cancer like it does now.”, you both miss the meaning, as well as attempt to mislead others.

Rather than ask the follow up questions, or even lift a finger yourself to see if there is anything to it, you start harping about it. Well, not you of course, you already know everything. No, the other guy, over there.

Another way to say “Before WWII smoking cigs didn’t cause cancer like it does now.” would be to state lung cancer rates increased dramatically after 1947

It doesn’t mean smoking was safe before, it means it became a lot more statistically dangerous after fallout from bomb tests begin polluting the worlds crops. Because unlike foods, tobacco goes into your lungs, and the cesium and other nuclear goodness increased the risk from smoking.

Of course cooking food, especially greasy foods, and breathing the smoke/soot is far worse than smoking, but good luck getting any warning labels about that.

[FXMastermind]

We could always both beat a radioactive horse and look at how shitty and stupid people posting in this thread are.

@FXMastermind

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/nuclear-reactor-crisis-faq.html#us-plant-risk
Lets look at that as if it is all fact.

First, the rooms that they needed to get to, to hook up outside power to (because their generators and fuel were fucked by the tsunami) were flooded. The couldn’t hook up power, and the salt water also fucked up other shit there.

That was the cause of no external power to all the reactors. After the back up and the back up to the back up failed. The first reactor that blew the fuck up, from hydrogen gas, that was due to a reactor overheating.

All of the reactors overheated of course, and all the building had explosions. All of them. Even #4, which had no fuel in the reactor blew the fuck up, probably from damage to it from the #3 explosion. Nobody knows yet.

But the screamingly obvious fact is that if you lose back up power to one of these kind of reactors, even if you shut it down before losing power, even if it is already cooling down, bad shit happens.

Could this happen to one of the same kind in the US or elsewhere? Of course. But the venting added to the US ones would prevent the hydrogen explosion (we hope), but it won’t stop the core from burning and damaging it. That’s just physics. If your back up power goes down, and you can’t fly in a bunch of huge ass diesels and hook them up before the batteries go dead, you are fucked.

If the battery system also goes down, or the power couplings, or anything in the chain stops the water from cooling a reactor, you are fucked.

That’s the laws of physics for that design.

“Measures that increase the chance of restoring power within the four-hour time period, and provide better cooling options if that time runs out, would make U.S. reactors less vulnerable”

No fucking shit. But that doesn’t change the facts as they are now. Could this shit happen in the US? Of course.

Could it happen to more reactors in Japan? Of course.

In fact, another huge ass tsunami right now and all the other plants, the ones at sea level, they could suffer the same fucking disaster.

Does my bitching about it change a fucking thing? Well, not in regards to making anything safer, but I sure feel better.

Now the source I cited is reasonable and scientific in nature.

It has all kinds of real information.

Like

U.S. plants have the same key vulnerability that led to the crisis in Japan. The basic problem is that the Japanese reactors lost both their normal and back-up power supplies, which are used to cool fuel rods and the reactor core. The reactors had batteries that could supply power for eight hours until the back-up system or normal power supply was restored. But officials were unable to fully restore either. Most U.S. reactors are designed to cope with station power outages (where both primary and back-up power supplies are out) lasting only four hours. Measures that increase the chance of restoring power within that four-hour time period, and provide better cooling options if that time runs out, would make U.S. reactors less vulnerable.
In addition, we know that earthquakes can cause fires at nuclear reactors, and U.S. reactor safety studies conclude that fire can be a dominant risk for reactor core damage by disabling primary and backup emergency systems. Yet dozens of U.S. nuclear reactors have operated for years in violation of federal fire protection regulations, with no plans to address these safety risks any time soon.
Finally, U.S. reactor emergency plans assume that a reactor accident would be the only demand on emergency response resources. The accident in Japan is another reminder of the need to revisit emergency plans to ensure that emergency responders are able to respond to both a problem at a nuclear power plant and the needs of the surrounding community.

Does anyone respond to these points? Even attempt to have a reasoned conversation?

Of course not. Instead we get the shitheads of the internet (who for some reason are all nuclear moonbats)

@xtisme

Good grief…anything fucking fear wracked anti-nuclear thread by the same idiot so prominent in the other one of these train wrecks in the Pit?? :eek: Why do we need a second thread full of fear, tired rantage and strawmaning of the supposed ‘pro-nuclear’ positions? There seemed to be enough of that in the other thread.

-XT

See? It’s the tactic of somebody who is dead in the water to try and dance around the issues. It’s the same fuckhead mentality of those people who actually make decisions and hide facts and let the whole situation happen. Liars, and fucking shit for brains, running the nuclear programs.

So far, despite the obvious and serious lack of power for US plants, nobody has done jackshit to try and prevent a disaster in the Americas.

It’s the nature of self serving businessmen to lie, cheat and swindle. Nuclear isn’t any different than BP or any other super mega corporation. What’s really fucked up, is how complete nobodies defend them on the internet. Clearly they have learned to love their masters.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Zeriel

You and Le Jaqingoff should form some kind of “Thread Jesus” club, since you both have this habit of resurrecting dead threads a few days after the last post to dribble some more stupidity on them.

AAAAAmen, brothah!

[Gary_Kumquat]

@FXMastermind

To be effective, you have to link to something. It’s not hard, but that way people can verify that you didn’t just make something up in order to further whatever agenda you are trying to ram down people’s throat.

Why, you are absolutely correct. I should have given a link for your statement:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13593152&postcount=613

[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
You are inhaling all the radioactive fallout that lands on the leaves, and putting directly into your lungs, where it does the most damage. Before WWII smoking cigs didn’t cause cancer like it does now.
[/QUOTE]

Cheers for the excuse for posting that again! As a succinct demonstration of your understanding of the topic it’s pure gold.

[XT]

@FXMastermind

See? It’s the tactic of somebody who is dead in the water to try and dance around the issues. It’s the same fuckhead mentality of those people who actually make decisions and hide facts and let the whole situation happen. Liars, and fucking shit for brains, running the nuclear programs.

So far, despite the obvious and serious lack of power for US plants, nobody has done jackshit to try and prevent a disaster in the Americas.

It’s the nature of self serving businessmen to lie, cheat and swindle. Nuclear isn’t any different than BP or any other super mega corporation. What’s really fucked up, is how complete nobodies defend them on the internet. Clearly they have learned to love their masters.

It’s the tactic of someone responding to an idiot in yet another Pit thread on a subject that already had a Pit thread on it on the first page…you fucking idiot. If you wanted a debate you wouldn’t open a second useless Pit thread on the subject when we already had one on the same topic.

-XT

[FXMastermind]

The level of intellect here is fucking astounding

A rant thread, which actually includes in the title “and other crap” the notification that it is going to be crap, bothers the astute and those yearning for a serious discussion.

Meanwhile, there isn’t one serious science based discussion about the ongoing Fukushima crisis, the Nuclear Energy issues, or pretty much anything science based in regards to nuclear disasters.

Idiots try to demand I go start one. Which would be like trying to have a formal debate in the middle of a shit flinging contest.

Oh it’s not just nuclear issues, there is a vast void when it comes to a lot of serious and interesting scientific issues. But the focus, (well, at least for the terminally bored who always are on, always posting), is how stupid I must be, how trollish it seems, all the while the idiot profundus among us simply avoid responding to any science or reason.

And yet you want me to care. How far gone are you really? Is that really your level of disconnect from reality? Seriously?

Or are you actually the clever wit who is playing along?

Sadly, nothing has shown you to posses even a rudimentary level of banter, much less any innate intelligence.

[FXMastermind]

@Hallucinex

At least the OP is self-policing.

Yep. Unlike the stream of fucktards that tried to make this a debate topic. With their amazing counterpoints.

Like, “you are wrong”, "you are an idiot:, “you stood to close to a radiation source”, and all the other useless shitpiles that offered nothing at all.

C’mon you complete losers. Don’t you know how to fucking write a rant?

[FXMastermind]

You nuclear moonbats should love this next one.

Nebraska Nuclear Plant Lost Cooling System After Fire

http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/06/nebraska-nuclear-plant-at-level-4-disaster/

Pictures
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/ne-npp-flood/ne-npp-flood.htm