Dangerousness of nuclear power?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Janic » 10/05/19, 16:07

It is lamentable this kind of derisory pathos intended to swallow any salad; a victim, as moving and respectable as she is, can in no case account for the magnitude of a disaster, and a testimony remains a simple testimony, nothing more
CA It's a shame ! It is not a question of one or two victims here or there, but of hundreds of thousands, touched in their flesh, their families, society. lamentable this negationism like those who denied the concentration camps, the gas chambers, for them the barracks were probably used to shelter homeless homeless people: what generosity, what greatness of soul! However it is not a question of the scale of the catastrophe, but of the scale of the victims and their sufferings.
using the misfortune of others in this way is the zero degree of human solidarity; intelligence too.
So according to you, once again, the victims of the last war (others too) should have been silent so as not to disturb the business. Human solidarity does not consist in being in solidarity with an industry, but with those who are victims, you must have a big humanist problem and as for intelligence, everyone will judge!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Bardal » 10/05/19, 18:05

Already, at the 3rd answer, did you get to the point of Godwin? So you need to lack arguments ...
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Janic » 10/05/19, 18:39

Already, at the 3rd answer, did you get to the point of Godwin? So you need to lack arguments ...

a) sorry I didn't manage to place it before, but I would do better next time to increase my collection!
b) certainly I lack arguments against this level lamentable, worthy of a new Goldwin point. not even two, let's be generous! : Evil:
c) Heil Bardal!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Bardal » 10/05/19, 19:40

Well then...

nb It is "Godwin point" and not "Goldwin point"; it is not about a "bad point" (nor a good one for that matter), but a moment of a conversation. Of course, in a bistro, even green, we often get confused. I thought you were a little more cultured, given your usual arrogance ... It is true that we have already had leucorrhoea instead of logorrhoea.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12308
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2970

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Ahmed » 10/05/19, 19:56

I doubt that "culture" should be invoked in connection with this innocent confusion between a famous motorcycle brand and the author of this "point" which a priori discredit any reference to Nazism (which, in itself, is only justified when there is obvious abuse) ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Janic » 10/05/19, 20:02

Well then...

nb It is "Godwin point" and not "Goldwin point"; it is not a question of a "bad point" (nor of a good one for that matter), but of a moment of a conversation. Of course, in a bistro, even green, we often get confused. I thought you were a little more cultured, given your usual arrogance ... It is true that we have already had leucorrhoea instead of logorrhoea.
eh yes! we learn it every day! :D
It is not being cultivated that is important, is to have compassion for all victims of the usual arrogance humans. Besides, since you're in the process of making corrections, it's not arrogance to give a blow for blow. When I interact with a person who respects his opposite, I am always courteous and respectful, but facing someone who does not respect me, it is only a return to the sender.
And on this point, Godwin or not, you're off to a bad start! :?
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Bardal » 10/05/19, 20:49

Ahmed wrote:I doubt that "culture" should be invoked in connection with this innocent confusion between a famous motorcycle brand and the author of this "point" which a priori discredit any reference to Nazism (which, in itself, is only justified when there is obvious abuse) ...


Indeed, "culture" is too big a word in this deadline ...
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Janic » 11/05/19, 07:23

Indeed, "culture" is too big a word in this deadline ...
or rather forfeiture!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by Janic » 11/05/19, 18:53

one case among all the others!
Mrs. Saragovets are husband died in 1999 at 39 years. P 201
His condition suddenly worsened. He couldn't move his arms or legs anymore, he couldn't eat or drink by himself, he couldn't do anything at all. Her legs were covered with Eczema. The doctor told me that it came from the breakdown of the bone marrow and that it was the end. We did not hospitalize him to prevent him from serving as a guinea pig for their experiments. He lay there for six months, he almost decomposed alive. All of its tissues began to decompose to the point that the pelvic bones became visible (…) the bones were bare, his entire body was leaving. … The hip bones could be touched with the hand…. From there bones that went away. Decomposed, rotten bone and he was aware of everything and asked only to die quickly to stop suffering, etc ... but we never received any help from the Ministry of Health or state structures.
And each testimony is similar on men in full health before this disaster.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
PVresistif
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 169
Registration: 26/02/18, 12:44
x 40

Re: Dangerousness of the nuclear?




by PVresistif » 12/05/19, 11:15

the nuclear is absolutely not dangerous: the proof, there is no power station within 150 km from Paris ....... LOL
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 277 guests