Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(41,694 posts)

7. No more than he has any scientific comprehension about anything.

Thu Apr 16, 2015, 04:39 PM

Apr 2015

Since nuclear power is "EVIIIL" anything can be said to back your point no matter what the truth of it is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Coal versus Nuclear [View all] RobertEarl Apr 2015 OP

Coal doesn't require 50,000 years to biodegrade like nuclear waste. Cleita Apr 2015 #1

Yep RobertEarl Apr 2015 #2

Also coal can be replaced with solar wind and other renewables so Cleita Apr 2015 #5

Centralia Pennsylvania... hunter Apr 2015 #4

Except this isn't a example of why coal power plants are bad. Lancero Apr 2015 #11

Um, why was the coal mined? hunter Apr 2015 #13

Okay. hunter Apr 2015 #20

Do you have any comprehension of the amount of radiation emitted... SidDithers Apr 2015 #6

No more than he has any scientific comprehension about anything. hobbit709 Apr 2015 #7

Link or slink RobertEarl Apr 2015 #10

We actually shouldn't do either. Cleita Apr 2015 #8

Don't be silly Sid... FBaggins Apr 2015 #14

... NuclearDem Apr 2015 #9

The cumulative negative effects on Earth of coal Takket Apr 2015 #16

No. RobertEarl Apr 2015 #17

Unlike the toxic waste from coal? hunter Apr 2015 #19

This is why RobertEarl Apr 2015 #21