What hyped up impending catastrophe have the "experts" been wrong on before?

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
What hyped up impending catastrophe have the "experts" been wrong on before?

What warning of impending catastrophe, event or problem have experts in government been wrong on in the past?

Name them.
 
What hyped up impending catastrophe have the "experts" been wrong on before?


Iraq!

Mushroom clouds, imminent threats, and collaboration with Al Qaeda!
 
Hi Dano!

A nuclear holocaust during the Cold War...tax monies spent on can goods and drills for kids to go to the basement and hide in a fricking hallway as though that would really save us all from one.

Care
 
TheDanold said:
"Acid Rain" - that one was used to scare us when we were teens, it faded away fairly fast.
Click to expand...


That's the problem with your "shoot from the hip" style. You come from a layman's perspective (and kind of a dumb layman, at that), and don't research before you talk. If you did, you would know that acid rain is still a dangerous pollutant in many areas, and you would also know that its reduction came about only as a result of EPA regulations & preventative measures.

Oops.
 
Onceler said:
How were the experts "wrong" on 3-mile island?

You're such a joke.
Click to expand...

You're the joke fool. The amount of radiation released at it's peak was smaller than what you would find in Denver, Colorado right now today.
Radiation increases the higher up you are and/or the further south you go.

The point being that if it is safe for people to live in Denver and they have done so for a long time, why was there such hype over the dangers of what 3 mile island when the peak was still lower than what is found there?
It's because emotional enviroleftist extremists consider it "dangerous" because it was radiation from a manmade source, as irrational people have been blaming man for the ills of the world for eons and demanding sacrifice be made to sate it.
 
TheDanold said:
You're the joke fool. The amount of radiation released at it's peak was smaller than what you would find in Denver, Colorado right now today.
Radiation increases the higher up you are and/or the further south you go.

The point being that if it is safe for people to live in Denver and they have done so for a long time, why was there such hype over the dangers of what 3 mile island when the peak was still lower than what is found there?
It's because emotional enviroleftist extremists consider it "dangerous" because it was radiation from a manmade source, as irrational people have been blaming man for the ills of the world for eons and demanding sacrifice be made to sate it.
Click to expand...


And?

People were concerned after 3-mile Island because it showed that nuclear power plants are NOT foolproof. Chernobyl showed how far it can go if the accident is bad enough.

What a stupid example, from a stupid guy...
 
Onceler said:
And?

People were concerned after 3-mile Island because it showed that nuclear power plants are NOT foolproof. Chernobyl showed how far it can go if the accident is bad enough.

What a stupid example, from a stupid guy...
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. HOWEVER, don't you think that safety measures and tighter reigns on the nuclear facilities would have been better than just totally walking away for 30 years?

And I am not necessarily agreeing with Dano on this, just that the panic, and a real panic for a good reason, might have blinded us from looking at what could be done and shorted us in the long run from a clean, non-fossil fuel, energy source....and that maybe it was the fossil fuel industry that promoted this just so they could take advantage?


I look at everything now, of course in hindsite, as "who benefits" from this hype....

Care
 
Also the prohibition of alcohol becaseu black men when drunk were raping white women lies that the Christian right promoted at the time....
 
3-mile Island showed us what we already know: nuclear energy, though clean & safe for the most part, also poses tremendous risks, beyond which lies the relatively permanent problem of nuclear waste.

I tend to see nukes as a necessary evil right now, because there is no way currently to viably reduce fossil fuel consumption. Still, we have to think & do better...
 
Onceler said:
3-mile Island showed us what we already know: nuclear energy, though clean & safe for the most part, also poses tremendous risks, beyond which lies the relatively permanent problem of nuclear waste.

I tend to see nukes as a necessary evil right now, because there is no way currently to viably reduce fossil fuel consumption. Still, we have to think & do better...
Click to expand...
3-Mile Island showed us that safeguards we use worked, and we even strengthened those. It taught us to fear a form of energy that could help us to get off dependancy on foreign oil.
 
Onceler said:
3-mile Island showed us what we already know: nuclear energy, though clean & safe for the most part, also poses tremendous risks, beyond which lies the relatively permanent problem of nuclear waste.

I tend to see nukes as a necessary evil right now, because there is no way currently to viably reduce fossil fuel consumption. Still, we have to think & do better...
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHA, this just shows what you know.

1. First of all it is not permanent, it decomposes in radioactive strength over time.

2. What did nuclear waste come from? Uranium.
Is uranium dangerous and radioactive? Yes.
So all man has done is take dangerous natural uranium from all over the place. Used it and then stored dangerous radioactive waste.
BOTH are hazardous to your health but the difference being is that the latter is contained and stored in known locations.

You PRETEND to agree with Care over overblown/unjustified fears but then just add more overblown/unjustified fear.
And you also just add to my argument over how enviro-extremists emotionally view man as the danger rather than rationally put anything in context when compared to nature.
 
Onceler said:
That's the problem with your "shoot from the hip" style. You come from a layman's perspective (and kind of a dumb layman, at that), and don't research before you talk. If you did, you would know that acid rain is still a dangerous pollutant in many areas, and you would also know that its reduction came about only as a result of EPA regulations & preventative measures.

Oops.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but those were unneeded and due to overblown hype, not science:

"Krug also found that Florida, not the Northeast, has the largest number of acidic lakes, despite the fact that its rainfall is much less acidic than rain in the Northeast. He also studied lakes in Australia and New Zealand that had a pH well below 5.0 despite the fact that acid rain did not fall in their watersheds. Acid soils and vegetation caused lake acidity, Krug found. On the other hand, the Ohio Valley, which has the nation's most acidic rain, has no acid lakes or streams."
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html

It was not manmade sulfur creating slightly more acidic rain that was a worry to lakes, but natural acidic soil near the lakes.
Didn't you ever wonder why that big fearmongering hype just quietly disappeared off the radar?

Someday global warming will too, it's not like anyone will ever admit they were wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top