Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
39. I have heard that style of comment utilized to debunk the idea that
Mon Oct 27, 2014, 09:31 PM
Oct 2014

Radioactive particles can impact anyone not in the actual locale of a radioactive event.

if that was true, then radioactive particles would not have made their way from where the A-bombs were tested (out in the desert) into towns and cities cross Nevada and Utah. Decades later, huge percentges of towns and city people in those two states were dead of leukemias, rare blastomas, and other radiation-related cancers.

Yes, radioactive particles are heavy, but if incinerated, they can be sub microscopic in size, and then attach to dust, just like anything else that is so small.

Massive pool of warm water RobertEarl Oct 2014 #1
Absurd Takket Oct 2014 #41
Leaking reactor? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #46
You ever see a carp jump over a beaver dam on the first of the month? snooper2 Oct 2014 #78
Eh? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #99
I fixed a cracked bell housing with JB Weld once, but then ran out of vitamin D3 snooper2 Oct 2014 #101
Thanks for the kicks. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #103
Agreed. Total nonsense on every level. n/t FSogol Oct 2014 #79
Too bad we don't have unrec any more. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #2
A reasoned rebuttal too difficult? GeorgeGist Oct 2014 #3
Reasoning with that poster is like talking to a brick wall. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #4
Thanks for the warning Warpy Oct 2014 #15
So RobertEarl Oct 2014 #20
Read the damned chart. Warpy Oct 2014 #25
The canopener strikes again! snooper2 Oct 2014 #83
They should bevel that leading edge for more effective shearing. bluesbassman Oct 2014 #89
interesting you mention that :) snooper2 Oct 2014 #93
I remember seeing that one when they installed the lights... bluesbassman Oct 2014 #95
You really screwed with my mind. Quackers Oct 2014 #91
well, the year is 12014, they still haven't fixed all the machines yet- (just like Y2K) snooper2 Oct 2014 #94
Billy Pilgrim suggests you get unstuck in time Brother Buzz Oct 2014 #96
See reply #7 n/t zappaman Oct 2014 #21
Sailor on Fukushima Impact on Pacific: “It’s dead for thousands of miles there was nothing" RobertEarl Oct 2014 #86
Why don't you use this post? hobbit709 Oct 2014 #90
Whoosh! zappaman Oct 2014 #97
No. Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #5
It isn't the whole Pacific RobertEarl Oct 2014 #11
Even the North Pacific contains far too great a volume of water to be heated by a nuclear reactor. Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #12
The poster still hasn't discovered this yet... zappaman Oct 2014 #13
Combination of the two RobertEarl Oct 2014 #18
Oh, no no no. You don't understand how nuclear reactions work. Xithras Oct 2014 #37
Lol. Great picture. Calista241 Oct 2014 #49
Yep RobertEarl Oct 2014 #51
Friction? Seriously? FBaggins Oct 2014 #68
"the energy being releases causes friction which creates heat which boils water"? uppityperson Oct 2014 #119
You caught that, eh? FBaggins Oct 2014 #136
I am going to go rub a couple molecules of h2o together and see if they heat up. uppityperson Oct 2014 #151
Ouch. This post made my brain hurt...nt SidDithers Oct 2014 #74
Currents are capable of bringing hot tropical warmth to northern regions truedelphi Oct 2014 #38
"Keep up the good work"... SidDithers Oct 2014 #73
No. This is God's way of saying, "Go backeth, and stop multiplying". NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #6
Why are you reposting your old shit that was laughed at and disproven? zappaman Oct 2014 #7
I prefer the GD version of the thread... SidDithers Oct 2014 #27
There's a word for people who post the same debunked thing in multiple forums. zappaman Oct 2014 #28
OBTW, you do realize that radioactive compounds tend to be heavier than water, don't you? NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #8
Shhhh! zappaman Oct 2014 #10
You have a link to that theory? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #14
"Bouncing Cesium" would make a great name for a rock band. A HERETIC I AM Oct 2014 #54
OMG Kali Oct 2014 #118
Also RobertEarl Oct 2014 #120
I have heard that style of comment utilized to debunk the idea that truedelphi Oct 2014 #39
"Decades later, huge percentages of towns and city people were dead of leukemias, rare blastomas.." EX500rider Oct 2014 #52
How's this one? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #85
I am well aware of the results from the Castle Bravo nuke.. EX500rider Oct 2014 #87
Read again? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #105
I have a non-woo link, only if you consider LA Times to truedelphi Oct 2014 #110
It is a non-woo reference (though the link didn't work)... FBaggins Oct 2014 #111
FWIW - I repaired the link - truedelphi Oct 2014 #112
Hard to believe, isn't it, truedelphi RobertEarl Oct 2014 #121
If it was "basic science"... you would be able to back it up. FBaggins Oct 2014 #124
FWIW... that's not even close to true FBaggins Oct 2014 #123
bad link. EX500rider Oct 2014 #149
clinton lake is the cooling pond for the clinton power plant (nukes) questionseverything Oct 2014 #76
Heat rises. Warm water stays at the top. It's a natural phenomenon. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #81
so you accept the theory that nuke plants raise water temps, correct? questionseverything Oct 2014 #82
Coal plants, Natural Gas plants, Nuclear plants, all thermal plants heat water. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #84
I'm pretty sure that's just the effect of the sun near the equator. GliderGuider Oct 2014 #9
Not a conclusion, just a theory. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #16
You're really stuck on this idea, aren't you? GliderGuider Oct 2014 #19
There is a current off Japan's coast RobertEarl Oct 2014 #23
It's not a theory. It's a guess, based on no scientific principle MineralMan Oct 2014 #106
LOL! zappaman Oct 2014 #17
Dude. Really? Again?...nt SidDithers Oct 2014 #22
LOL! zappaman Oct 2014 #26
I doubt it. linuxman Oct 2014 #24
They tried an ice wall around the melted reactors RobertEarl Oct 2014 #29
A truckload of cement isn't going to do it. truedelphi Oct 2014 #40
That is patently absurd. MineralMan Oct 2014 #30
this is very curious KT2000 Oct 2014 #31
I call it weird RobertEarl Oct 2014 #32
True - Kick again!! n/t KT2000 Oct 2014 #33
Why not respond to this post then....... Logical Oct 2014 #35
It's not 'curious'; it's tedious muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #36
Heh RobertEarl Oct 2014 #57
It's an epidemic in the US right now nationalize the fed Oct 2014 #64
Have you looked at the claims RobertEarl makes? Have you tried to get him to do any math? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #67
It's because message boards are overrun with trolls, zombies and socks... SidDithers Oct 2014 #71
Posting riduculous nonsense invites, and deserves, ridicule... SidDithers Oct 2014 #72
is this your analysis? nt Logical Oct 2014 #34
Absurd Takket Oct 2014 #42
Plutonium is not unknown. quaker bill Oct 2014 #43
Fukushima = How many Hiroshima bombs RobertEarl Oct 2014 #44
Neither do you. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #45
What do you mean by "="? Same amount of radioactive material? Same amount of radiation? Recursion Oct 2014 #47
"There is one estimate of close to 10,000 Hiroshima bombs." zappaman Oct 2014 #48
Well, I estimate it was a million Hiroshima bombs. So there! Calista241 Oct 2014 #50
More like 3.1415926 hiroshima bombs. ROFF Oct 2014 #56
How many kilos would that be? quaker bill Oct 2014 #58
The question RobertEarl Oct 2014 #59
Consider also RobertEarl Oct 2014 #60
I am pretty sure that cesium quaker bill Oct 2014 #69
Ten thousand Hiroshima bombs would definitely make a difference. sir pball Oct 2014 #116
Yes. The nuclear decay RobertEarl Oct 2014 #117
Who needs wiki when you have a higher education? sir pball Oct 2014 #122
"No heating issues at all" RobertEarl Oct 2014 #135
There's another classic from RobertEarl FBaggins Oct 2014 #125
You have absolutely no sense of scale, do you? Silent3 Oct 2014 #53
First RobertEarl Oct 2014 #55
Go to the second map, click on the southern part of Honshu to get the whole island Warpy Oct 2014 #61
The gulf stream on the east coast? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #63
The Gulf Stream starts to head east off the shore of NC. Warpy Oct 2014 #65
So, you don't know about the current off Fukushima? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #104
Do learn how to read the map. Warpy Oct 2014 #107
Today I had a candle burning in my basement. Orrex Oct 2014 #62
They'd have better luck heating Lake Michigan Warpy Oct 2014 #66
Simple facts that you ignore FBaggins Oct 2014 #70
You would be terrified to read about the constant output of hotwater... NCTraveler Oct 2014 #75
I rest my case. randome Oct 2014 #77
Far more plausible theory nt sarisataka Oct 2014 #80
Certainly, Irradiating the Pacific Ocean Octafish Oct 2014 #88
Dead wrong... as usual. FBaggins Oct 2014 #92
Call me a liar or a nut, I don't care. Octafish Oct 2014 #128
I prefer to assume that you're stuck in ignorance FBaggins Oct 2014 #129
So, you can't show where I'm wrong. Octafish Oct 2014 #130
I just did FBaggins Oct 2014 #131
No. That's what you said, FBaggins. Octafish Oct 2014 #132
Care to give an example? Or is that just more avoidance? FBaggins Oct 2014 #133
Awesome subthread! zappaman Oct 2014 #134
My own personal minder dude. What's the difference between tag team and bullying? Octafish Oct 2014 #138
Did really just link to a thread tying you to UFO and other conspiracy nonsense? FBaggins Oct 2014 #146
Still, nothing of substance from you, FBaggins. Octafish Oct 2014 #148
Lol... thanks for proving my point. FBaggins Oct 2014 #155
Bottom Line Difference Octafish Oct 2014 #137
They are like the three monkeys RobertEarl Oct 2014 #141
Alrighty... let's take those in order FBaggins Oct 2014 #154
Radioactivity of the ocean FBaggins Oct 2014 #98
We do have some clues RobertEarl Oct 2014 #102
Go ahead and dazzle us with that "science" (sic) and math you keep mentioning. FBaggins Oct 2014 #109
Why don't you dazzle us with numbers? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #113
Dodging? What a surprise </ sarcasm> FBaggins Oct 2014 #126
He can't even understand basic science, much less physics and nuclear physics. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #127
Baggins has declined to answer RobertEarl Oct 2014 #139
I'd like to know what institutions have received funding to study those questions? Octafish Oct 2014 #140
Not from hobbit or baggins RobertEarl Oct 2014 #142
And I won't hold my breath expecting you to use science-real science that is hobbit709 Oct 2014 #143
So, you give up? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #144
I can see why you were blocked from Environment and Energy. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #145
There you go again RobertEarl Oct 2014 #147
the reason you were blocked was because you consistently spouted non-scientific nonsense. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #150
How many tons? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #152
tons of rock inside your skull? I'd have to take measurements and do some calculations. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #153
Did I miss your answer to #109? FBaggins Oct 2014 #156
No. Donald Ian Rankin Oct 2014 #100
I boiled an Olympic swimming pool with my Radium dial Timex watch seveneyes Oct 2014 #108
Numbers Takket Oct 2014 #114
You are cute when you are mad RobertEarl Oct 2014 #115
I am shutting this thread down. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #157
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...»Reply #39