General Discussion

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

35. You didn't like Rockwell's data (or your first response to it)?

Tue May 28, 2013, 04:27 PM

May 2013

No problem. I gave you another: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Do you hate Idaho State University, too? Or just data...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Fukushima Effect [View all] Safetykitten May 2013 OP

Are the levels of radiation in the ocean above background? Dangerous? Buzz Clik May 2013 #1

It's all fine RobertEarl May 2013 #3

So asking what the actual radiation levels are... Silent3 May 2013 #4

I think that is sarcasm. Rex May 2013 #6

I interpreted the comment as sarcasm... Silent3 May 2013 #9

Well, yes, indeed RobertEarl May 2013 #13

Are you with us or against us. Right, brother Earl? Buzz Clik May 2013 #16

Why would you need to know that... Silent3 May 2013 #62

I don't need to know RobertEarl May 2013 #63

Please link to serious claims that "radiation is good for you". Silent3 May 2013 #64

Eh? RobertEarl May 2013 #66

So, you agree that radiation is good for you... Silent3 May 2013 #74

Good dancing, RobertEarl May 2013 #75

You took it wrong. Silent3 May 2013 #78

Discussion xenoturkey May 2013 #79

No. No mod RobertEarl May 2013 #80

"For 18 months"... SidDithers May 2013 #84

Buzz is lightyears beyond us mere mortals RobertEarl May 2013 #8

Somthing relevant to shine a little light on our sarcastic friend: Buzz Clik May 2013 #14

Sunshine, bananas, and flying marions ghost May 2013 #7

Or get around a wind turbine farm! Rex May 2013 #10

The fact that some people are clearly motivated to underplay and deny real radiation hazards... Silent3 May 2013 #65

Radiation is cumulative marions ghost May 2013 #67

Did I ever say, or even come close to hinting, that "allowable levels" should be raised? Silent3 May 2013 #68

I took your post to mean marions ghost May 2013 #69

And it would exactly prove the point of my post... Silent3 May 2013 #70

If you equate 2 extremes as you did marions ghost May 2013 #71

You're supposed to be able imagine and account for the range of middle positions yourself. Silent3 May 2013 #73

If these are valid questions marions ghost May 2013 #76

Obviously? Silent3 May 2013 #77

If you have to use marions ghost May 2013 #81

You wouldn't listen no matter what... Silent3 May 2013 #82

Who would like your tone? marions ghost May 2013 #83

Of course you don't like the tone. Silent3 May 2013 #85

I was replying to RobertEarl Post #3 marions ghost May 2013 #86

Agreeing with that and then expanding upon it... Silent3 May 2013 #87

Are you the thread police? marions ghost May 2013 #88

In other words... Silent3 May 2013 #89

Yep marions ghost May 2013 #91

Quick rejoinder followed by a loaded question. Buzz Clik May 2013 #12

You really are clueless? RobertEarl May 2013 #18

That's right, Earl. Ignorance is your friend. When all you have to sell is fear, keep science away. Buzz Clik May 2013 #19

Radiation levels around California RobertEarl May 2013 #20

Such ugly, ugly responses. Do you think that the data do not exist? Buzz Clik May 2013 #21

Are you pro-nuke? RobertEarl May 2013 #22

I asked a question of the author of the OP if they had any knowledge of rad dangers in the ocean. Buzz Clik May 2013 #23

What do you know? RobertEarl May 2013 #25

Here's more. Buzz Clik May 2013 #27

'Find any you like?' zappaman May 2013 #30

Did you find anything you liked at your link? RobertEarl May 2013 #31

Heh. zappaman May 2013 #24

Heh. Hmmm RobertEarl May 2013 #26

Seriously? RobertEarl May 2013 #34

You didn't like Rockwell's data (or your first response to it)? Buzz Clik May 2013 #35

OMG, you did donate to him? RobertEarl May 2013 #37

You really aren't going to comment on any of the data, are you? Buzz Clik May 2013 #39

Buzz, buzze, buzzed RobertEarl May 2013 #40

And, we're done for this thread. Buzz Clik May 2013 #43

What's the background radiation in the ocean, Buzz? RobertEarl May 2013 #44

Nice try. I gave you links with that information. Now, goodbye. Buzz Clik May 2013 #45

Many many MANY times the amount that Fukushima released FBaggins May 2013 #46

You again? RobertEarl May 2013 #48

Wow! You watched that entire 30-minute video... FBaggins May 2013 #49

Hey, genius RobertEarl May 2013 #50

Aww... poor baby FBaggins May 2013 #51

The oceans had radiation? RobertEarl May 2013 #52

You should stick with "duh" FBaggins May 2013 #53

Heh. RobertEarl May 2013 #54

I can't? FBaggins May 2013 #55

The nuclear power industry is dying RobertEarl May 2013 #56

Having trouble sticking to one topic (or six)? FBaggins May 2013 #57

It is dying RobertEarl May 2013 #59

Having trouble getting a visa, eh? FBaggins May 2013 #60

That's all you have? RobertEarl May 2013 #61

+++++ marions ghost May 2013 #90

Nothing in all that 'data' to indicate presence of radionuclides from Fukushima. Octafish May 2013 #41

You're kinda coming in the middle of this. I was illustrating that background data are available. Buzz Clik May 2013 #42

See the link in post #46 for a comparison. FBaggins May 2013 #47

One thing I do know, if a tsunami ever hits the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station... hunter May 2013 #2

I'll say! FBaggins May 2013 #15

LOL! Buzz Clik May 2013 #17

Do you mean after California falls into the ocean? siligut May 2013 #28

In all fairness, he is correct: Buzz Clik May 2013 #36

I believed him, I was just trying to figure out how siligut May 2013 #38

The internet is like a great big breakroom FarCenter May 2013 #5

+1 Buzz Clik May 2013 #11

I'll give that one a 10. RC May 2013 #29

Hey---My supermarket advertises "Gulf Shrimp!" like that's a good thing! WinkyDink May 2013 #32

Meanwhile my marine science friends say marions ghost May 2013 #33

Yep! WinkyDink May 2013 #72

my sig line upi402 May 2013 #58