General Discussion

intaglio

(8,170 posts)

35. Nice trivialisation

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 03:26 AM

Aug 2013

Shame that the belittlement of the consequences of nuclear accidents has been a constant theme of a small number of posters. Let's look at other real world examples.

Your response to Minamata
A: The whole city is poisoned!
B: But it's only the bay
A: But it's in the fish, they eat the fish!
B:
A: Are you an apologist for the chemical industry?

Your response to the Pinto design flaw
A: Pintos explode when rear ended!
B: Not always, it's only a few
A: But the design is killing people!
B:
A: Are you being an apologist for the motor industry?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TEPCO: 950 million becquerels of radioactive cesium per liter of water detected near No. 2 reactor [View all] The Straight Story Jul 2013 OP

Grab the marshmallows, dude mindwalker_i Jul 2013 #1

This is the way the world ends rug Jul 2013 #2

We are so fucked! wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #3

I wish you were wrong, Bill. nt Mnemosyne Jul 2013 #4

me also.... wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #7

I have two grandsons, and possibly three more, and a teenaged granddaughter, soon. I try to teach Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #11

When I was younger I was a tad angry we never had kids nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #12

"Not with a bang, but with a whimper." Or as another DUer wrote here, "with a becquerel.". Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #13

I agree with that DU'er nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #15

The planet will thrive again once it chews us up and spits us out. The creatures suffer because of Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #26

Fortunately, it takes many billions of becquerels to be dangerous. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #16

I wish I didn't understand that at times. Life would be so much less worry if I had been ignorant. Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #21

It is still so much worse than they have admitted, more comes out all the time and Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #25

Ha! that ship sailed obliviously Aug 2013 #39

Sadly, I think this kind of environmental destruction will become closeupready Jul 2013 #5

Impossible for that to harm even a fly according to a few DUers. kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #6

updated with more info and a link (nt) The Straight Story Jul 2013 #10

Eat your bananas, you will be fine nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #8

WTF! Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2013 #9

Not sure if I did my math correctly here... Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #14

Either way, I don't think I would drink it The Straight Story Aug 2013 #18

I redid my math. A swimming pool's worth has enough activity to severely injure 50+ people... Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #19

This is not going to be an easy task. longship Aug 2013 #17

Just so you know, a becquerel is a very small unit of measure Silent3 Aug 2013 #20

Even the millions/billions listed here isn't really all that much. FBaggins Aug 2013 #23

If there ''isn't really all that much,'' why is it still a radioactive catastrophe 2.5 years on? Octafish Aug 2013 #29

Maybe because there's much more to it than the contamination in this water? FBaggins Aug 2013 #32

Bullshit. Octafish Aug 2013 #33

950,000,000 Bq per litre is 9.5 billion Bq per tonne intaglio Aug 2013 #28

"Now, as you appear to be an apologist for the nuclear industry..." Silent3 Aug 2013 #31

Nice trivialisation intaglio Aug 2013 #35

Because your kneejerk reaction deserved to be trivialized Silent3 Aug 2013 #36

To quote intaglio Aug 2013 #37

I also said "The real problem is bad localized hot spots, which is worrisome enough". Silent3 Aug 2013 #38

When it gets to 975 sell!!! DeSwiss Aug 2013 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author mick063 Aug 2013 #24

But but but malaise Aug 2013 #27

Our Friend The Radioactive Pacific. Safetykitten Aug 2013 #30

Because of Fukushima there are *parts of the Pacific* that are currently very bad... Silent3 Aug 2013 #34