“Cite?”
You haven’t watched the news, have you?
Um…what do you think that cite proves? Just curious.
-XT
Where does it say that they are hiding the information regarding the deadly levels of radiation to the workers?
Please check the definition of “context” when replying again.
The problem between you and **FX **is poor communication.
**Elucidator **says: “I haven’t that much faith in their candor. Not that I blame them so much, public panic won’t help anyone, but they have a motivation, however legitimate, not to be totally open. Except for good news.”
**Fx **says: “you certainly don’t want to tell anyone if a reactor is leaking dangerous amounts of radioactive materials. They might leave the country or something.” ****FX ****was being sarcastic.
You say: “it has to be pointed out that there is no good evidence that the reactor is leaking.” Then, “I do not see that that is being hidden from the people.” FX didn’t say it was being hidden from the people.
FX: “it’s hidden from the people trying to save the place. That’s one of the biggest problems.” This means the workers can’t see into the reactor buildings, much less the reactors themselves.
You: “Cite?” Cite what? That the workers can’t see what’s going on in there? That they can’t say for sursies whether the reactor is damaged/cracked/leaking?
FX: (paraphrasing) “They’re using an American spy drone to infrared image the plants. See!” This means that now maybe they’ll get a better view, and understanding, of what’s actually going in the reactors.
There isn’t much useful communication going on between you two, IMHO.
Nope, it is clear that the radiation levels are reported to the workers, anything else is just obfuscation.
And if it was sarcasm, the context shows that his second reply of “it’s hidden from the people trying to save the place. That’s one of the biggest problems.” was not.
Cite?
Anyway, that isn’t the point. As usual.
Funnily enough the drone report says that workers are told of the radiation levels near the storage ponds, other reports I have seen report that they are told when to move out to shelters when the radiation levels get too high, and when to go out again when they drop.
I already said my point, guys like FX are relying on misinformation and being alarmist. The situation is bad enough as it is.
You are correct. Very insightful explanation there. I should drop the sarcasm, but it’s my defense to keep me from getting nasty.
No, it does not. It says, “Dangerous levels of radiation are preventing nuclear workers and emergency responders from safely approaching the facility’s four reactors to control fires and assess the extent of damages.”
Again, this is not telling the workers what the radiation levels are. Realistically, I’m sure the workers are the ones taking readings so it makes sense some of the workers - the ones taking the readings - know what the radiation readings are. Telling the workers to move back because the radiation just spiked is not the same as telling them what the levels are. They’re not hiding anything exactly, keeping the workers informed of the exact moment-to-moment readings isn’t their priority right now. Telling them “move back, now!” is.
How can FX be relying on misinformation when you cite (incorrectly, unfortunately) the exact same source that he just did?
You’re real beef is with alarmism. Fine. Just so we’re clear. It’s best not to quote factual articles as evidence of this alarmism and misinformation.
I forget you have no idea of my posting style, nor my background. So sarcasm isn’t fair at all.
Simple point: There appears to be no good info, even for the people on the scene, due to the inability to observe what is happening, especially in the critical hot spots. I’m pissed off that the entire world is so ill prepared to deal with a nuclear power plant problem. It’s criminal in it’s irresponsibility.
Same for idiots who still try and claim nuclear is safe, and we should just go forth with things as they are. When it’s bleeding obvious that nobody is prepared to deal with a very serious problem like this.
While the 311 disaster was bad, most people were unaffected, life goes on. But this steaming pile of crap is looming over not all the survivors, rescuers and ordinary folk who didn’t lose much, it’s threatening the world in a multitude of ways.
Well see, as I have seen many times, the proof will be on your postings that follow.
On edit: just noticed his last post, so never mind. Alarmist points all the way and clearly insulting others directly.
It’s not ‘alarmist’ to speak of the dangers that are real and present. The term ‘Alarmist’ is reserved for global warming idiots, who try to alarm everybody about something that might happen. This is actually happening, however much it pains the radiation true believers.
Nobody knows how bad it will become. We do know it’s extremely bad already.
:rolleyes:
Global warming is a fact, but I see that you do not mind insulting others to get your sorry points across.
No, a nuclear plant disaster, a tsunami and a big earthquake are facts. Global warming is a theory. I mean why not, let’s drag global warming into the argument as well. Anything to avoid the facts here.
If Global Warming was not, then all this evidence would be false:
But good to know that at least you are aware that a tsunami and a big earthquake also took place, it looked as if you could be not aware that that hampered the efforts or caused them to be ill prepared to deal with a nuclear power plant problem…
That was criminal for their part, sure. :rolleyes:
I feel the same about you.
So lets see if there is a difference now:
As I posted evidence of what I said, can you cite who is telling you that I could be against the facts?
I don’t understand your question.
Ah, you are trying to talk about global warming. Isn’t there a topic or three about that? I refuse to drag yet another issue itt
I am actually convinced of many things mankind does that effects climate, but that is not the same thing as the nebulous CO2 hypothesis. So, where’s that topic?
And from that you are assuming that they are **not **being told?
Realistically, the point was supposed to be a sarcastic one, but it seems that you were wrong. 
More seriously, it is stretching reason to assume that workers that are taking measurements and just ignore years of working with others to turn around and not tell their coworkers about the dangers.
There is also logic, I have trouble agreeing with your interpretation of the reports.