General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

64. I think the following is good advice for any and all important subjects in discussion:

Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:43 AM

Jan 2015

The issues "should not be minimized, they should also not be wildly exaggerated."

I rarely agree strongly with Dithers, but that is good advice not only for this subject, but for the crafting of language around every subject.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How Quickly Did Fukushima Radiation Reach North America, and When Will it Peak? [View all] SidDithers Jan 2015 OP

But, but, but Sid! The Sea Starzzzzz! longship Jan 2015 #1

I read this 10 years ago when I hitched a ride with the time traveling radiation. zappaman Jan 2015 #2

But but ... the Starfish are melting FreakinDJ Jan 2015 #3

About the virus said to be found RobertEarl Jan 2015 #24

No thanks FreakinDJ Jan 2015 #46

2001? Control-Z Jan 2015 #4

....Yeah- I caught that, too. 2001- so not as quickly as we thought, huh? Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #8

You need ENEnews.com then RobertEarl Jan 2015 #10

I've seen it. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #14

No, you must not have RobertEarl Jan 2015 #22

Well, AFAIC we're all on the same team. At least I am. Fukushima was and is a clusterfuck. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #42

+1 newfie11 Jan 2015 #59

Pretty much sums up my opinion on nuclear as well. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #69

Half a million not dead, 25,000 not mourned properly here. nt Bonobo Jan 2015 #5

What do you mean about Boreal Jan 2015 #13

No, 25,000. Bonobo Jan 2015 #16

I still have great empathy Boreal Jan 2015 #20

You're gonna love this sid RobertEarl Jan 2015 #6

"doomers who pretend to know something about science"...nt SidDithers Jan 2015 #7

Well RobertEarl Jan 2015 #9

Kinda like rejecting the report that Fukushima rice is no longer dangerous? nt Bonobo Jan 2015 #11

I didn't reject it RobertEarl Jan 2015 #12

The Japanese gove says up to 2,000 becquerels/kilo of vegetable is acceptable. Bonobo Jan 2015 #19

6.9? Seriously? FBaggins Jan 2015 #50

well, then, let's just build us some more "nucular plants"! I feel safer already. bbgrunt Jan 2015 #15

Actually, yes, we should. Just not ones based on tech 60 years out-of-date... DRoseDARs Jan 2015 #17

So why even pretend that it could possibly exist? delrem Jan 2015 #27

You don't follow modern nuclear developments, do you? DRoseDARs Jan 2015 #28

Thanks for the uplifting post! delrem Jan 2015 #29

What do we do with the waste? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #32

Ah, another one that thinks the US nuclear industry is all there is. nt DRoseDARs Jan 2015 #37

Wrong again RobertEarl Jan 2015 #39

Germany is not even close. The answer is France. Bonobo Jan 2015 #40

Oh, damn! And here I was... freshwest Jan 2015 #18

Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #21

Some background on nuclear radiation from an expert RobertEarl Jan 2015 #23

Prokaryotes ~3.6 billions years ago DRoseDARs Jan 2015 #25

Typical pro-nuke response RobertEarl Jan 2015 #34

Says the guy who quoted a non-biologist from 1982 about the earliest life. nt DRoseDARs Jan 2015 #38

He was a nuclear expert RobertEarl Jan 2015 #41

+1 nt newfie11 Jan 2015 #60

No, that fact is not true. jeff47 Jan 2015 #66

That was a good lock and a good hide. zappaman Jan 2015 #70

That's an entire ocean, Mr. Dithers. delrem Jan 2015 #26

Radiation didn't do this~~ Bonobo Jan 2015 #30

No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either. nt delrem Jan 2015 #31

You think the particulate contamination in China...is a...hoax? Bonobo Jan 2015 #33

That's what I say about the nuke industry RobertEarl Jan 2015 #35

Great quote! Sadly out of context. nt Bonobo Jan 2015 #36

No, I think you are changing the topic. delrem Jan 2015 #43

Be my guest, but it is not changing the subject and you DID imply pollution in China was a hoax. Bonobo Jan 2015 #45

Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #47

31. No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either. nt hobbit709 Jan 2015 #48

Again, pollution in China isn't "radiation" a la Fukushima. delrem Jan 2015 #52

If that's the topic and China is the subtopic then I'll add the fact that China is currently running Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #62

Whatever you do, don't mention France jeff47 Jan 2015 #67

What did this mean? "No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either." Bonobo Jan 2015 #49

Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #51

you might want to delete that "idiot" remark hobbit709 Jan 2015 #53

NO! delrem Jan 2015 #54

Don't say you weren't warned. hobbit709 Jan 2015 #55

Starfish was already looked into jeff47 Jan 2015 #68

Strange little encounter, Bonobo Jan 2015 #56

Once a fanatic's mind is made up, there is no swaying with facts or reality. hobbit709 Jan 2015 #57

Now Sid, you know the time traveling radiation alters the facts. hobbit709 Jan 2015 #44

ROFL: But the MILK! The California MILK!!!!! alcibiades_mystery Jan 2015 #58

+1 FSogol Jan 2015 #61

Heheh... SidDithers Jan 2015 #63

I think the following is good advice for any and all important subjects in discussion: Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #64

Hell, I almost NEVER agree with him but he's right on this one. nt Bonobo Jan 2015 #65

Just returning to the U.S. from Japan. tblue Jan 2015 #71