Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

19. Here's the thing about that.

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 02:44 PM

Dec 2013

I don't "get" the caps and excessive use of bold and exclamation points. It must have something to do with the earliest days of the internet (where I did used to see a very similar style among government scientists)...

... But she is teaching you... and you clearly don't want to listen.

The OP is demonstrably hogwash. Weapons testing put out thousands to tens of thousands of times as much radioactive material as Fukushima (probably more - since the comparison I cited doesn't include plutonium or a number of other elements that Fukushima wouldn't have released). Yet not only are you "invincibly ignorant" on the subject... you're actually laughing about it.

If a DUzy is in order... it's to the three of you making yourselves look foolish while relying on an anonymous blogger as a source for scientific fact.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Radiation from Fukushima Will Be 10 Times Bigger than All Radiation from Nuclear Tests Combined [View all] Demeter Dec 2013 OP

Nope. FBaggins Dec 2013 #1

Should be required reading for everyone madokie Dec 2013 #2

He beat you to it Demeter Dec 2013 #3

Yup madokie Dec 2013 #4

Seriously? You found that "informative" FBaggins Dec 2013 #5

Whatever you say, Mr madokie Dec 2013 #6

It's not "whatever I say"... it's reality. FBaggins Dec 2013 #7

"its reality" darkangel218 Dec 2013 #22

Nope... not "as perceived by me" FBaggins Dec 2013 #26

I call BS. lol darkangel218 Dec 2013 #27

You can "call" whatever you like FBaggins Dec 2013 #32

Lulz!!! darkangel218 Dec 2013 #34

What difference does 3 miles vs. 50 miles make? NickB79 Dec 2013 #37

Huge difference. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #40

Interesting. The Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones aren't as large as I thought NickB79 Dec 2013 #43

BTW, TEPCO dumped an incredible amount of irradiated water into the Pacific Ocean, darkangel218 Dec 2013 #50

The nearest nuclear power plant to me.. PamW Dec 2013 #46

STILL TRIVIAL PamW Dec 2013 #8

THERE you are! Demeter Dec 2013 #9

Lmao!!!! darkangel218 Dec 2013 #10

ooPS! Demeter Dec 2013 #12

- 1 million, Pam darkangel218 Dec 2013 #11

Whatever... PamW Dec 2013 #52

Talk about not knowing how to read... NNadir Dec 2013 #13

Welcome to the discussion! Demeter Dec 2013 #14

You and kristopher appear to be in agreement -- do you also have "a thing going on?" phantom power Dec 2013 #16

Not after he yelled at me Demeter Dec 2013 #17

I don't know if it's still running, but I think this thread needs a DUZY Demeter Dec 2013 #15

And the DUzy goes to the poster with the most Caps!!! darkangel218 Dec 2013 #18

Here's the thing about that. FBaggins Dec 2013 #19

FBaggings.. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #21

HOGWASH!!! PamW Dec 2013 #28

Pam, give it up. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #29

Seriously.. PamW Dec 2013 #35

lol.. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #36

Why get so upset over a change of font PamW Dec 2013 #39

Honey, im not only upset over the font, darkangel218 Dec 2013 #41

What's "not working" PamW Dec 2013 #44

"I really do NOT care if you learn anything." darkangel218 Dec 2013 #45

Well good! PamW Dec 2013 #47

Most of that OP is from a Woods Hole article, including the infographic kristopher Dec 2013 #23

Lol... except for... FBaggins Dec 2013 #24

So Pam is not the only one using bold heh darkangel218 Dec 2013 #25

Pam's rhetorical abuses are not that she uses bold FBaggins Dec 2013 #30

FBaggings.. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #33

WRONG Again PamW Dec 2013 #38

Bold again, Pam? darkangel218 Dec 2013 #42

Yes - bold. PamW Dec 2013 #48

"members of the target audience", eh? darkangel218 Dec 2013 #49

Which still leaves it head and shoulders above the content of ... kristopher Dec 2013 #31

See post 30 madokie Dec 2013 #51

This is a real jumble of factoids caraher Dec 2013 #20