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

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

7. People can't care about a disaster unless it is the greatest of all time?

Reply to RC (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 18, 2013, 10:25 AM

Nov 2013

The entire world obviously disagrees with your absolutely bizarre, nuclear loving perspective about what disasters we should care about.

Perhaps you should consider that it is your values that are skewed, rather than sneering at the vast majority.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TEPCO risks all at Fukushima [View all] unhappycamper Nov 2013 OP

We can hope madokie Nov 2013 #1

The quote from the article that makes you go WTF! Lochloosa Nov 2013 #2

Unless she has a starship and an Earthlike planet to fly to... caraher Nov 2013 #8

Hyperbole to make a point pscot Nov 2013 #12

Seems closer to a non sequitur than hyperbole caraher Nov 2013 #13

she probably means moving them deep into the southern hemisphere, like Australia. n/t CRH Nov 2013 #16

If I understand what the "worst case scenario" involves, I'm not sure any place will be safe. Lochloosa Nov 2013 #17

The Forgotten Legacy of the Banqiao Dam Collapse RC Nov 2013 #3

It's not about how many have been killed to date. It's about the catastrophic consequences of a magical thyme Nov 2013 #4

171,000 people dead is not a catastrophic consequence? RC Nov 2013 #6

People can't care about a disaster unless it is the greatest of all time? kristopher Nov 2013 #7

Denigrating the messenger, instead of disproving the facts I provided? RC Nov 2013 #9

ROFLMAO kristopher Nov 2013 #11

Maybe to you it sounds dumb. But what was wrong with what I stated? RC Nov 2013 #14

What's wrong? Aside from the point that you don't understand the meaning of 'values'? kristopher Nov 2013 #15

No, radiation does NOT go in a straight line. bananas Nov 2013 #18

You are trying to confuse the issue. RC Nov 2013 #19

1.1 The Skyshine Problem bananas Nov 2013 #21

google "site:nrc.gov skyshine" - get "About 1,960 results" bananas Nov 2013 #23

Try reading them. FBaggins Nov 2013 #25

How is that any less relevant kristopher Nov 2013 #26

Simple FBaggins Nov 2013 #28

I didn't make any errors. bananas Nov 2013 #32

Don't be silly... Of course you did FBaggins Nov 2013 #34

SAME MISTAKE - basically NOT UNDERSTANDING the Physics. PamW Nov 2013 #36

100% WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #20

1.1 The Skyshine Problem bananas Nov 2013 #22

Sorry... no. FBaggins Nov 2013 #24

More STUPIDITY from Arnie Gunderson???? PamW Nov 2013 #27

Well... to be fair to Arnie... FBaggins Nov 2013 #29

PamW is 100% WRONG!!! bananas Nov 2013 #30

Of course it was Arnie FBaggins Nov 2013 #31

No, it was by Michael S. Bassett, and it was written in the 1980's. bananas Nov 2013 #33

Lol... oh come on. FBaggins Nov 2013 #35

Physicists support nuclear power by 98% PamW Nov 2013 #37

I did not say that 170,000 is not a catastrophe. magical thyme Nov 2013 #10

They haven't had it right so far, they had better be right now. Where are these rods going? marble falls Nov 2013 #5