On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>wrote:

>> " Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely
>>> above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic
>>> effects from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet."
>Hard to reconcile that with this:

An estimated 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances were released
> into the atmosphere in March 2011 by the triple meltdowns at the Fukushima
> No. 1 nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday.

Why are those 2 facts supposed to be incompatible?

> You continue to speak of the Fukushima disaster in the past tense,


> when in fact this is still very much an unfolding event.

I believe the majority of the radiation that Fukushima is going to put into
the environment it has already done so; but if I am wrong you have the
opportunity to make money off of my error. I will make you the following
bet, if more radiation is released between today and November 24 2014 than
was released between March 11 2011 and today I will give you $1000, if more
radiation is not released you only have to give me $100. I'm giving you 10
to 1 odds , so do we have a bet?

> Furthermore the statement you quote is the historic BS half-truth metric
> that the pro-nuclear lobby loves to trot out

That "BS" comes from the journal "Science", it and "Nature" are the 2 most
respected journals in the world! I get my information from scientists,
where do you get yours, environmental dimwits who make their living by
scaring people?

> The intellectual dishonesty lies in speaking only of exposure, while
> ignoring contamination;

That makes no sense, you can't get contaminated if you're not exposed.  And
speaking of intellectual dishonesty, environmental groups say they're for
renewable energy because global warming is of supreme existential
importance, but just yesterday i was reading how a company called Duke
Energy Renewables had to give a one million dollar fine to environmental
groups because its wind farm killed 14 eagles. The American Bird
Conservancy no doubt likes the money and said the fine was a positive first
step but the government needs to do more. Pure undiluted hypocrisy.

> Exposure levels can be very low, but if you are one of the unlucky
> bio-organisms to become contaminated you get cancer,

And other than the significant exceptions of Fukushima and Chernobyl,
Nuclear power plants only release 1% as much radioactivity into the
environment as a coal power plant of the same size. Coal contains both
radioactive Uranium and Thorium and when it is burned it goes right up the
chimney and into the air. Coal also produces a witches brew of other
substances that, although not radioactive, are highly carcinogenic; and
unlike nuclear power coal produces lots and lots of greenhouse gasses that
environmentalists keep telling us are horrible.

     John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to