T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It is you that can't read. The increase was slight. It wasn't some massive thing.
Why is the left afraid of nuclear energy?
- Thread starter Tinkerpeach
- Start date
It is you that can't read. The increase was slight. It wasn't some massive thing.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Oh, so that makes it all better?
Think it through, will ya please? "increase" from what? Other or natural causes? In any event, you're condoning creating leukemia in plant workers because of your asinine devotion to the corporate nuke power policy.
Now you'll stupidly run to the old wonk mantra "as opposed to mining accidents", etc., etc. Thing is when you do and people ask, "So are you saying two wrongs make a right?" you either dummy up or spew forth all types of convoluted logic and smoke screens.
Also, the report I linked alludes to the fact that you have solid lung or heart cancers also occurring, but they didn't have the fine tuned diagnostic equipment to determine work related cause or random coincidences (hell of a lot of those).
Nuke power wonks disgust me, because unless it happens to them or their loved ones, they'll parrot the company line to the bitter end....hell, some are so far gone that they'll sacrifice themselves & family rather that admit wrong, let alone change their ways.
And the band played on.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Oh, so that makes it all better?
Think it through, will ya please? "increase" from what? Other or natural causes? In any event, you're condoning creating leukemia in plant workers because of your asinine devotion to the corporate nuke power policy.
Now you'll stupidly run to the old wonk mantra "as opposed to mining accidents", etc., etc. Thing is when you do and people ask, "So are you saying two wrongs make a right?" you either dummy up or spew forth all types of convoluted logic and smoke screens.
Also, the report I linked alludes to the fact that you have solid lung or heart cancers also occurring, but they didn't have the fine tuned diagnostic equipment to determine work related cause or random coincidences (hell of a lot of those).
Nuke power wonks disgust me, because unless it happens to them or their loved ones, they'll parrot the company line to the bitter end....hell, some are so far gone that they'll sacrifice themselves & family rather that admit wrong, let alone change their ways.
And the band played on.
Sure, it makes it acceptable. We don't stop driving cars because somewhere around 35,000 people die each year driving one, as but one example. Demanding 100% safety is nothing but a canard used to stop something from being done at all. If we as a society are unwilling to take any risks, we're doomed as a society.
Al Qaeda has nothing useful to contribute, nor does Greenpeace.
I don't read propaganda from terrorists.
It's funny how you Stalinists attack those who dared protest the rigged election - but when it comes to actual terrorists who murder innocent people - you love them.
Tinkerpeach
New member
How many coal workers died of black lung?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sure, it makes it acceptable. We don't stop driving cars because somewhere around 35,000 people die each year driving one, as but one example. Demanding 100% safety is nothing but a canard used to stop something from being done at all. If we as a society are unwilling to take any risks, we're doomed as a society.
Sure, it makes it acceptable
Let me stop you right there! All my life, the propaganda machine of the nuke power industry is how SAFE it is. Safer than coal, clean, etc., etc. And what you did here was substitute cars for coal.But now you telling me it's perfectly acceptable, hell necessary for a portion of nuke power workers to develop leukemia in order to provide this wonderfully safe and economic power source.
Now, all you have to do is tell me and the reading audience exactly where does it say in the contracts for plant workers that they accept the possibility that they may develop leukemia as a by-product of their work.
Once you answer that, then we can proceed.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So it's a numbers game? "My power source kills less people than yours, so mine is better"
How about "My power source KILLS NO ONE EXCEPT BY AN OCCASIONAL ACCIDENT, so mine is better"?
Seems you just can't develop the cojones to concede a point despite factual evidence, as the previous post and the chronology of the discussion shows.
GTFU and stop being a pro-nuke troll, would ya please? It's getting old.
Tinkerpeach
New member
So it's a numbers game? "My power source kills less people than yours, so mine is better"
How about "My power source KILLS NO ONE EXCEPT BY AN OCCASIONAL ACCIDENT, so mine is better"?
Seems you just can't develop the cojones to concede a point despite factual evidence, as the previous post and the chronology of the discussion shows.
GTFU and stop being a pro-nuke troll, would ya please? It's getting old.
If you are bringing up deaths then yes, you are making it a numbers game
The fact is that nuclear beats every other energy source in every single category and that is just a fact
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So your proud of your willful ignorance....yet you are quite comfortable blathering on about something you know nothing about.
And since NONE of my posts reference in any form Al Qaeda or Hamas, it's evident you're just throwing every and anything against the wall to try and divert your inability to logically/factually refute or disprove my posts/links.
Sorry toodles, buy you can't detour or divert or blow a smoke screen here. The chronology of the posts won't let you. Continuing as such means you are either just a stubborn troll or mentally hindered. Either way, there's no point in my trying to continue a rational discussion with you. Adios.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
So it's a numbers game? "My power source kills less people than yours, so mine is better"
How about "My power source KILLS NO ONE EXCEPT BY AN OCCASIONAL ACCIDENT, so mine is better"?
Seems you just can't develop the cojones to concede a point despite factual evidence, as the previous post and the chronology of the discussion shows.
GTFU and stop being a pro-nuke troll, would ya please? It's getting old.
If you are bringing up deaths then yes, you are making it a numbers game
The fact is that nuclear beats every other energy source in every single category and that is just a fact
Follow the chronology of the posts, genius. YOU introduced fatality rates as a comparative point to favor nuke power, NOT ME.I mean, do you take any time to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY what others write and what you respond before you post? Or are just stupid enough to think that lying about what transpired won't be picked up by others in a printed medium?
When jokers like you are reduced to these stupid troll tactics, there's no further point in trying to engage you in a rational/logical debate. You're done. Adios.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Sure, it makes it acceptable
But now you telling me it's perfectly acceptable, hell necessary for a portion of nuke power workers to develop leukemia in order to provide this wonderfully safe and economic power source.
Now, all you have to do is tell me and the reading audience exactly where does it say in the contracts for plant workers that they accept the possibility that they may develop leukemia as a by-product of their work.
Once you answer that, then we can proceed.
The risk was minimal. I've pointed that out. But in any case, the industry could have worked towards mitigating it completely. Your position is that this risk was static and could not be mitigated. That's clearly a bullshit position taken to simply be anti-nuclear.
Reactor safety has improved greatly too.
Workers in lots of industries face risks from chemicals, materials, processes, etc. That doesn't stop them from working or using those chemicals and materials. Instead, they are given protective gear and trained to mitigate the risk.
Your position remains one of demanding 100% safe operations. That is simply an absurd and asinine position to take. Safety Third!
He gets it. I get it. You, being an idiot, don't get it.
Tinkerpeach
New member
I mean, do you take any time to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY what others write and what you respond before you post? Or are just stupid enough to think that lying about what transpired won't be picked up by others in a printed medium?
When jokers like you are reduced to these stupid troll tactics, there's no further point in trying to engage you in a rational/logical debate. You're done. Adios.
As I said, nuclear leads in every single category for all forms of energy production
From fewest deaths to cost to efficiency
You cannot dispute those facts which is why you haven’t even tried
It is often thought that educating a conspiracy nut like you is not worth the effort. You just put goal posts on ball bearings. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/02/05/nuclear-too-expensive-and-not-needed/
You appear proud of your support of terrorism.
Did you smile when your Comrades murdered those Norwegian fishermen.
You're quite comfortable lending credence to terrorists.
Greenpeace is a terrorist group - no different than Al Qaeda or Hamas.
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/greenpeace-desecrates-ancient-ruins/
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Oh, come on now...
Greenpeace types don't bang their head on the floor five times a day while mooning a rock in a box covered by a tarp--it's a really nice tarp--at the bottom of a football stadium while a mass of unwashed humanity swirls around it like water going down a toilet bowl...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Sure, it makes it acceptable
But now you telling me it's perfectly acceptable, hell necessary for a portion of nuke power workers to develop leukemia in order to provide this wonderfully safe and economic power source.
Now, all you have to do is tell me and the reading audience exactly where does it say in the contracts for plant workers that they accept the possibility that they may develop leukemia as a by-product of their work.
Once you answer that, then we can proceed.
The risk was minimal. I've pointed that out. But in any case, the industry could have worked towards mitigating it completely. Your position is that this risk was static and could not be mitigated. That's clearly a bullshit position taken to simply be anti-nuclear.
Reactor safety has improved greatly too.
Workers in lots of industries face risks from chemicals, materials, processes, etc. That doesn't stop them from working or using those chemicals and materials. Instead, they are given protective gear and trained to mitigate the risk.
Your position remains one of demanding 100% safe operations. That is simply an absurd and asinine position to take. Safety Third!
He gets it. I get it. You, being an idiot, don't get it.
I didn't ask for more of your wonk opinions, suppositions or conjecture....nor did I ask for a video from some TV joker doing set on a generalized, similar topic.
I asked SPECIFICALLY where in a contract for employment in a nuke power plant does it say in no uncertain terms that there is a risk that the applicant will be one of the percentage to develop leukemia as a result of their work (and I ain't talking about clerical/administrative).
you claim it's acceptable, I'm asking you to supply proof that workers are informed of this "acceptable" risk before they sign on the dotted line...because leukemia ain't no joke.
If you can't meet this burden of proof, then don't waste yours and the reading audiences time and effort with more of your lame smoke screen.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, he didn't. He was discussing the ludicrous 'Safety First' mindset. Try reading a post before responding to it.Sure, it makes it acceptable
Nuclear workers do not develop leukemia at any greater rate than the general population.But now you telling me it's perfectly acceptable, hell necessary for a portion of nuke power workers to develop leukemia in order to provide this wonderfully safe and economic power source.
It doesn't. They don't.
Consider it answered. You are making shit up and fear mongering.
Into the Night
Verified User
Expect random incoherency from AProudLefty as a response. He won't answer this question.
Into the Night
Verified User
Won't fit in my backyard.
Into the Night
Verified User
Chernobyl did not generate any electrical power. That was not it's purpose. The idiot Russians didn't even build a containment building around the reactor, and operated the reactor in an unsafe manner.
Fukushima has not endangered anyone. All of it's reactors were destroyed by a massive tidal wave that destroyed most of the eastern coast of Japan. The only casualties were plant workers killed by the tidal wave.