Author Topic: Nuclear Power – Unfairly Demonised (Read 7147 times)

OzmO · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2007, 08:22:36 AM »

We haven't gotten better at making nuclear power safe in 20 years? common!

Cavalier22 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:47:47 PM »

chernobyl was a poorly designed and poorly run nuclear plant. american nuclear plants are much safer and have much more guidelines in place to make sure nothing like this could even come close to happening.

Anal Iceman Lubeth · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:51:53 PM »

Quote from: Cavalier22 on January 30, 2007, 02:47:47 PM

chernobyl was a poorly designed and poorly run nuclear plant. american nuclear plants are much safer and have much more guidelines in place to make sure nothing like this could even come close to happening.

your right. USA is on the ball. 3mile island was the last in the USA, and no one died, and it was a long time ago.

Iran and all countries in the middle east SHOULD NOT have nukes cause they can't control them.

BRUCE · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2007, 03:06:13 PM »

Quote from: G o a t b o y on January 30, 2007, 07:57:14 AM

I always consider people with an axe to grind to be reliable, credible, and objective sources of information.

Uh, me too. Amazing the amount of abuse I see here on my return, and yet not one has disproved a single fact! But what do they say about it being the last resort of a person that has lost the argument. As for being a fiction writer, well, I am proficient at that too! I do, however, unlike my abusive friend Beserker, leave that to the Gossip and Opinion board.

Read this, your sister's diagnosis is touching, but I doubt it has anything to do with Chernobyl:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf

And I quote:

'The expert group has seen no evidence indicating that there is decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure'

I guess you can debate the rest of that document with the experts at the World Health Organisation.

BRUCE · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2007, 05:37:28 PM »

Quote from: BRUCE on January 30, 2007, 03:06:13 PM

Uh, me too. Amazing the amount of abuse I see here on my return, and yet not one has disproved a single fact! But what do they say about it being the last resort of a person that has lost the argument. As for being a fiction writer, well, I am proficient at that too! I do, however, unlike my abusive friend Beserker, leave that to the Gossip and Opinion board.

Read this, your sister's diagnosis is touching, but I doubt it has anything to do with Chernobyl:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf

And I quote:

'The expert group has seen no evidence indicating that there is decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure'

I guess you can debate the rest of that document with the experts at the World Health Organisation.

Have I killed this thread?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2007, 06:03:19 PM »

That's it Bruce... Good god you're such a pussy. Oh Oh Berserker's abusing me...

You know I'm done... I can't agrue here without hurting your over sensitive ass

If you want to think that accident was harmless, live your delusion. I give a shit not

BRUCE · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2007, 06:17:31 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on January 30, 2007, 06:03:19 PM

That's it Bruce... Good god you're such a pussy. Oh Oh Berserker's abusing me... You know I'm done... I can't agrue here without hurting your over sensitive ass If you want to think that accident was harmless, live your delusion. I give a shit not

Your post made me smile. Your abuse confirms my victory over you on this one, thank you.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2007, 06:26:59 PM »

Quote from: BRUCE on January 30, 2007, 06:17:31 PM

Your post made me smile. Your abuse confirms my victory over you on this one, thank you.

quit crying you baby... You up and announce no facts were refuted despite my lengthy post showing the absurdity of suggesting Chernobyl is no big deal and you did what? Ignored it... Acted like it didn't exist... You win shit bubba... and stop crying abuse... If you think you're being abused

OMG

Take it to Ozmo or Delusional or Ron but please stop crying about it...

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2007, 06:41:41 PM »

somewhere between 30 to 100 times the radioactivity of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was realeased... Oh no big deal

BRUCE · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2007, 07:01:47 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on January 30, 2007, 06:41:41 PM

somewhere between 30 to 100 times the radioactivity of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was realeased... Oh no big deal

And yet even this has not reached the magnitude of your current meltdown. Congrats, you read part of it, now continue on a read the rest. If I am so clearly wrong in anything I have said, point it out. If it's so evident that I'm mistaken, why such a heated, abusive response?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2007, 07:08:17 PM »

say abuse one more time bruce...

BRUCE · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2007, 07:13:33 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on January 30, 2007, 07:08:17 PM

say abuse one more time bruce...

Avoid the debate once again, Beserker.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:21:17 AM »

BRUCE, here's the report that Crichton interprets.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

Unlike you, I have actually read it.

It predicts an increas of thyroid cancer, directly linked to Chernobyl, see page 17 and the diagram there.

Also read 14,15 and 16.

Hopefully you'll see that Crichton has tweaked this report to fit his agenda.

With all this being said, this report has been critisized by environmentalist groups for being very conservative and also being pro-nuclear power.

Which is understandable, since it is IAEA, the nuclear agency, which has submitted the report.

Nevertheless, Crichton refused to tell the whole truth.

What does that say about Crichton?

-Hedge

240 is Back · « **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2007, 05:19:02 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on January 31, 2007, 02:21:17 AM

Which is understandable, since it is IAEA, the nuclear agency, which has submitted the report.

Wow, they certainly have motivation to downplay the longterm effects. That's like asking Philip morris to give us the defining word on lung cancer causes.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #39 on:** January 31, 2007, 06:32:32 AM »

Quote from: BRUCE on January 30, 2007, 07:13:33 PM

Avoid the debate once again, Beserker.

You forgot to cry abuse... go ahead, do it...

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2007, 06:34:06 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on January 31, 2007, 02:21:17 AM

BRUCE, here's the report that Crichton interprets.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

Unlike you, I have actually read it.

It predicts an increas of thyroid cancer, directly linked to Chernobyl, see page 17 and the diagram there.

Also read 14,15 and 16.

Hopefully you'll see that Crichton has tweaked this report to fit his agenda.

With all this being said, this report has been critisized by environmentalist groups for being very conservative and also being pro-nuclear power.

Which is understandable, since it is IAEA, the nuclear agency, which has submitted the report.

Nevertheless, Crichton refused to tell the whole truth.

What does that say about Crichton?

-Hedge

good job researching this Hedge! Nicely said as usual

Hedgehog · « **Reply #41 on:** January 31, 2007, 06:39:53 AM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on January 30, 2007, 12:10:07 AM

I do know that the "56" you mention, are the 56 persons that could be accounted for right after the disaster. Those are workers on the power plant, et al. The same report you got that from, the Chernobyl Forum, mentions that 9000 people are expected to die from cancer related to Chernobyl BTW.

Quote from: BRUCE on January 30, 2007, 12:59:01 AM

Wrong. The 56 number I have given is the correct figure for the total number of deaths from Chernobyl. These 'effects' you have seen are simply a result of green hysteria. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this, using facts, of course.

I think I've proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is in fact the Chernobyl Forum Report that number was taken.

Also, that the increase in thyroid cancer due to the Chernobyl disaster has increased.

This is even the conclusion by IAEA.

Case closed, point proven.

Thank you.

-Hedge

Dos Equis · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2007, 07:38:10 AM »

Quote from: Berserker on January 30, 2007, 07:08:17 PM

say abuse one more time bruce...

Say it Bruce, say it!

BRUCE · « **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:21:01 PM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on January 31, 2007, 06:39:53 AM

I think I've proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is in fact the Chernobyl Forum Report that number was taken.

Also, that the increase in thyroid cancer due to the Chernobyl disaster has increased.

This is even the conclusion by IAEA.

Case closed, point proven.

Thank you.

-Hedge

Uh oh, beware the man that declares a debate 'closed' due to his own post. How about you read my report from the WHO, or do they also have a radioactive axe to grind?

tu_holmes · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:22:06 PM »

Free Nukes for ALL!!!

BRUCE · « **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:23:13 PM »

Oh by the way, Hedgehog, it's interesting how your story has gone from some '9,000' dead to a rant about thyroid cancer. Lost on that one, my friend?

OzmO · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:23:55 PM »

I don't get why this is even a freaking debate

Nuclear power is far safer now than it ever was. Yes, there were accidents. Accidents that we have learned from.

And it's cleaner and cheaper.

BRUCE · « **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:28:53 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on January 31, 2007, 02:23:55 PM

I don't get why this is even a freaking debate

Nuclear power is far safer now than it ever was. Yes, there were accidents. Accidents that we have learned from.

And it's cleaner and cheaper.

Yes, not to mention Chernobyl occurred in a Soviet nation where the least regard for human safety existed. This being said, we still clearly have some people willing it to be a bigger disaster than it was. Can someone please point out to me why Crichton would be interested in skewing the Chernobyl evidence? Last time I checked he was an author that writes about catastrophes, such as what some on here want Chernobyl to be conceived as.