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

PamW

(1,825 posts)
28. HOGWASH!!!
Mon Dec 23, 2013, 03:17 PM
Dec 2013

darkangel states
I lived through Chernobyl. No one, not you, not that poster nor anyone else, could possibly be effective in convincing me that nuclear power is safe.

What utter and complete HOGWASH!!!

DA, you didn't learn a DAMN thing because you experienced the Chernobyl accident.

It's like someone who survives the crash of an airliner; are they now experts in aerodynamics?

Really, suppose someone says all those people who survived the crash of the Asiana Boeing 777 are experts in aerodynamics because they survived an airliner crash.

That would be one of the stupidest, most braindead claims someone could make; that they somehow got some expertise in aerodynamics and was now an expert in airliner safety because they survived the Asiana Boeing 777 crash.

BALONEY - it just means that they were among the lucky of the unfortunate very few that were involved in an accident from the safest form of transportation we have.

You don't learn anything and your metal capabilities are NOT increased just because one is involved in an accident.

To claim otherwise is DISHONEST in the extreme.

Nothing is 100% safe, and if one is one of the unlucky few that doesn't make one an expert; it just makes them one of the unlucky.

Besides, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor was terribly flawed in design, and that was known prior to the accident.

It's like someone who survived the crash of the also flawed Hindenberg claiming now to be an expert on Boeing 777 safety.

The Boeing 777 is NOTHING like the Hindenberg; so it is ILLOGICAL to "think" that any experience from the Hindenberg accident translates into some expertise with regard to Boeing 777s.

I'm astonished that anyone would attempt to make such an outlandish and obviously WRONG claim.

PamW

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Radiation from Fukushima ...»Reply #28