Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,705 posts)

60. An we've both explained to you what that means.

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 04:23 PM

Dec 2013

Feel free to ask questions where you didn't understand.

Also... please be more accurate where placing quotations. You've combined a statement that he did not make with one that he did.

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:

ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise" [View all] PamW Nov 2013 OP

Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy. happyslug Nov 2013 #1

That tells you nothing of the sort kristopher Nov 2013 #2

Lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... PamW Nov 2013 #11

Nope kristopher Nov 2013 #13

100% WRONG AGAIN as always!! PamW Nov 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author kristopher Nov 2013 #22

It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation". caraher Nov 2013 #3

I don't have a favorite political publication PamW Nov 2013 #7

Well, I think we all get that The Nation is not a technical journal caraher Nov 2013 #17

It's STILL an ERROR PamW Nov 2013 #18

Kerry didn't lie, in fact he was validated by MIT a decade later bananas Nov 2013 #4

More typical anti-nuke "logic" PamW Nov 2013 #8

There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues) kristopher Nov 2013 #9

We can address those... PamW Nov 2013 #20

"The MIT study chooses "once through" over closed due to cost." - Nope. kristopher Nov 2013 #21

100% WRONG!! PamW Dec 2013 #25

You're morphing your previous failure into yet another failed argument kristopher Dec 2013 #27

100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #29

MIT study on Proliferation Resistant Fast Reactor PamW Dec 2013 #30

I'm sure NNSA and MIT didn't have that data. kristopher Dec 2013 #31

I'm SURE NNSA and MIT had that data PamW Dec 2013 #32

The conclusions of both MIT and NNSA refute your claims. kristopher Dec 2013 #33

NOT AT ALL PamW Dec 2013 #34

You've been completely and absolutely refuted kristopher Dec 2013 #35

Non-scientist kristopher is 100% WRONG AGAIN PamW Dec 2013 #36

A "Proliferation Resistant" Reactor is like a "Water Resistant" Watch bananas Dec 2013 #39

OH REALLY????? PamW Dec 2013 #40

PamW wrote: "Iran is seeking NOT a plutonium bomb, but a uranium bomb." bananas Nov 2013 #5

Do you doubt it? PamW Nov 2013 #10

What about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)? kristopher Nov 2013 #14

You are arguing with the SCIENTISTS!!! PamW Nov 2013 #16

No, I'm quoting the scientists kristopher Nov 2013 #19

WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #23

No, it isn't wrong. kristopher Dec 2013 #24

100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #28

DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon." bananas Nov 2013 #6

Actualy; the above is NOT true. PamW Nov 2013 #12

No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong. bananas Dec 2013 #37

Its a fools errand madokie Dec 2013 #38

BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #41

No, Pamw, you're wrong again. bananas Dec 2013 #42

Sorry... once again, you've cited something that you simply don't understand. FBaggins Dec 2013 #43

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! PamW Dec 2013 #44

Sorry... once again, you've corrected someone when it's you that's wrong kristopher Dec 2013 #46

100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #48

I can read and Selden's language is unambiguous kristopher Dec 2013 #49

WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #50

Ah... but not if you read without understanding. FBaggins Dec 2013 #56

CORRECT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #62

bananas and kristopher certainly win on source credibility here caraher Dec 2013 #51

NOPE!! They do NOT!! PamW Dec 2013 #52

Well, it seems you are a liar, traitor or a fool - your choice caraher Dec 2013 #53

NOPE!!! PamW Dec 2013 #55

Nope. FBaggins Dec 2013 #54

EXCELLENT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #58

"If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009 kristopher Dec 2013 #59

An we've both explained to you what that means. FBaggins Dec 2013 #60

A clear example of how he was being SLOPPY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #61

More citations on the point of plutonium for weapons kristopher Dec 2013 #63

Non-scientist kristopher MISSES the implicit assumption PamW Dec 2013 #64

"what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor" kristopher Dec 2013 #65

Yes - I know Harold... PamW Dec 2013 #66

And that brings us full circle kristopher Dec 2013 #67

100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #68

Oh look - George Stanford says it TWICE in that interview! bananas Dec 2013 #69

bananas LITANY of ERRORS!! PamW Dec 2013 #70

Evidently bananas does NOT understand... PamW Dec 2013 #71

What's happened to HONESTY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #45

Yes, what happened to honesty? kristopher Dec 2013 #47

Pam - don't worry about him FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #57

The movie was such a blatant farce, I dont know who would waste the energy attacking or defending it NoOneMan Dec 2013 #26