Lisa
--- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Lisa
Lets avoid the personal attacks and stick to a
discussion of the facts.
ls
Todd discussed the facts and you're trying to squirm
out from under.
Now stop it and give him an honest response.
The nationmaster link states that 10
Keep in mind that acceptable risk is not a matter of how many in one
million contract a malady,
I do not know if it is the same in the US or OZ but we have an epidemic
of thyroid problems in the UK. In the 50/60s young people with thyroid
disease was extremely rare now I find my local chemist
...and while we're debunking popular myths lets nail
this one too.
Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear
waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a
kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone
on Earth.
By Dr. Helen Caldicott
It is worth a look here for a
Lisa,
You're not debunking any myth. What you're doing is sidetracking the
truth through an act of omission. Plutonium when ingested is essentially
regarded as relatively harmless (not entirely, but relatively) as it's
biological residence time is so short. In fact, notorious nuclear zealot
Lets avoid the personal attacks and stick to a
discussion of the facts.
ls
Or, you can continue to assess the truth as myth and
lend yourself to
the continued dis-informing, mis-informing and
propagandizing of others.
Todd Swearingen
__
Do
Hello Lisa
Lets avoid the personal attacks and stick to a
discussion of the facts.
ls
Todd discussed the facts and you're trying to squirm out from under.
Now stop it and give him an honest response.
Whether you see it a personal attack or not, you are most certainly
propagandizing here.
Seems to me I did exactly that about 2 posts back and you've completely
ignored them, but I'll recapitulate them here.
Regarding ANWR, at peak production in 2025, it will only reduce US
foreign oil consumption by 3 to 6%. Conversely, raising the CAFE
standards could do at least twice that,
Ms. Simpson,
Go back and read what was written. It was an option that you could
exercise, whether knowingly or not. It was far from a personal attack.
You'll know a personal attack beyond any shadow of a doubt should
there ever be cause for one to occur.
So as you suggested, let's stick to
sorry, ls, it is *you* who is attacking, by playing the victim. todd's
comment was not an attack as you well know. he was criticising *your* failure
to
examine the facts adequately, and challenging you to do so. your selective
quote intended to misrepresent his meaning amounts to nothing
Awww, that's okay capt3d,
I've been slobbered, drooled on and thoroughly drenched by enough
infants in my day as to not much worry about it anymore and tend to
treat it all as part of normal fare.
Slurring is righ up there with involuntary actions for some. So I
shouldn't be overly dismayed
--- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Lisa
Lets avoid the personal attacks and stick to a
discussion of the facts.
ls
Todd discussed the facts and you're trying to squirm
out from under.
Now stop it and give him an honest response.
The nationmaster link states that 10
11 matches
Mail list logo
