General Discussion

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

39. You really aren't going to comment on any of the data, are you?

Tue May 28, 2013, 04:41 PM

May 2013

Or the fact that the data exist.

Let me pose the same question to you that I posed in response to the OP: is the Pacific ocean toxic with radiation? Harmful? Above background?

Is there any real justification for getting hysterical, or do you stir up fear just for fun?

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