Fukushima radiation hits San Francisco! (Dec 2013)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 3:48 AM GMT
  • RainAndSnow

    Posts: 79

    Dec 27, 2013 4:05 AM GMT
    Let's hope it is concentrated in Pelosi's district.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 4:07 AM GMT
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 140 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 7:59 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 1:51 PM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 27, 2013 5:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 6:02 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).



    This "girl" has witnessed the pattern of topics you post about. Whenever I see an idiotic post like "Fracking - It's Good for the Environment!", I know exactly who posted it before I even click on the thread.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 27, 2013 6:27 PM GMT
    ^Are you calling me girl? Only Rad is allowed to do that (and only if he spells it with a "u.") icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 6:58 PM GMT
    HottJoe said^Are you calling me girl? Only Rad is allowed to do that (and only if he spells it with a "u.") icon_evil.gif


    No, I was speaking of myself. Apparently, since I disagree with Riddler, I'm a girl now.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 27, 2013 11:44 PM GMT
    The readings are high for the SF Bay area. You can actually find current measured values on EPA.GOV. There are areas of the U.S. however where typical values are far higher, namely Washington, Tennessee, Georgia, and almost all of upstate New York, where the highest readings are found. That is after all what happens when one machines uranium. ;-)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 11:48 PM GMT
    Now I know why this second head is sprouting up next to the first one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2013 11:56 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).


    That's your rather toxic interpretation thinking that if you don't subscribe to your extremist views on the environment you must therefore be against it and a paid shill. Sorry, but life and science doesn't work that way.

    You are both at the forefront of rejecting everything other than basically solar when it comes to energy, and that's hardly constructive given that it's not a viable alternative as yet. I've also noted repeatedly that I believe solar is a long term solution once they figure out how to make it economical and a big part of it is the battery tech which I've also posted is coming. You choose to assume that my rejection of your chicken little approach to the news is therefore "a defense of energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone)" - and that's a logical fail.
  • Selfie77

    Posts: 188

    Dec 28, 2013 12:11 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).



    ^^

    Limosine liberal

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 28, 2013 4:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).


    That's your rather toxic interpretation thinking that if you don't subscribe to your extremist views on the environment you must therefore be against it and a paid shill. Sorry, but life and science doesn't work that way.

    You are both at the forefront of rejecting everything other than basically solar when it comes to energy, and that's hardly constructive given that it's not a viable alternative as yet. I've also noted repeatedly that I believe solar is a long term solution once they figure out how to make it economical and a big part of it is the battery tech which I've also posted is coming. You choose to assume that my rejection of your chicken little approach to the news is therefore "a defense of energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone)" - and that's a logical fail.

    It's not a logical fail. When Dick Cheney was VP, he pushed legislation through congress that permits natural gas fracking, without adhering to the clean water/clean air acts of the EPA, rendering the EPA utterly useless in protecting the environment, and the Obama administration hasn't corrected it. Obama has supported off-shore drilling and nuclear power, and has seen two world-changing disasters (the BP oil spill and Fukushima meltdown) on his watch.

    Fracking involves using massive amounts of chemically laced water, and that water seeps into the ground, streams, etc, killing anything that it touches, and then it evaporates, becoming acid rain. Once these chemicals are dispersed there is no way to clean them up.

    There is no such thing as clean fracking. Worse still, these gas companies are SLOPPY. They could be somewhat safer, if there were any guidelines whatsoever, but they are unregulated. They use up one piece of land after the next as quickly and recklessly as possible, until they have rendered it a toxic waste site, unfit for life, and the toxicity lasts for hundreds of years and gets into the water table.

    We're running out of drinking water in the US and around the world. Meanwhile, the oceans are becoming increasingly polluted and acidic. It's estimated that the coral reefs will be dead by 2050, if not sooner. WE ARE FUCKED WITHOUT THEM. This is the result of drilling for fossil fuels. It's your logic that has failed everyone. At this point, we will have no choice but to adapt to fouled and carcinogenic air, which will be painful to breathe, land which will be useless for crops, and water that can't sustain aquatic life... icon_sad.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 28, 2013 5:14 PM GMT
    http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/fukushima-radiation-hits-us-west-coast/

    ....and it's still leaking....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 5:25 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).


    That's your rather toxic interpretation thinking that if you don't subscribe to your extremist views on the environment you must therefore be against it and a paid shill. Sorry, but life and science doesn't work that way.

    You are both at the forefront of rejecting everything other than basically solar when it comes to energy, and that's hardly constructive given that it's not a viable alternative as yet. I've also noted repeatedly that I believe solar is a long term solution once they figure out how to make it economical and a big part of it is the battery tech which I've also posted is coming. You choose to assume that my rejection of your chicken little approach to the news is therefore "a defense of energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone)" - and that's a logical fail.

    It's not a logical fail. When Dick Cheney was VP, he pushed legislation through congress that permits natural gas fracking, without adhering to the clean water/clean air acts of the EPA, rendering the EPA utterly useless in protecting the environment, and the Obama administration hasn't corrected it. Obama has supported off-shore drilling and nuclear power, and has seen two world-changing disasters (the BP oil spill and Fukushima meltdown) on his watch.

    Fracking involves using massive amounts of chemically laced water, and that water seeps into the ground, streams, etc, killing anything that it touches, and then it evaporates, becoming acid rain. Once these chemicals are dispersed there is no way to clean them up.

    There is no such thing as clean fracking. Worse still, these gas companies are SLOPPY. They could be somewhat safer, if there were any guidelines whatsoever, but they are unregulated. They use up one piece of land after the next as quickly and recklessly as possible, until they have rendered it a toxic waste site, unfit for life, and the toxicity lasts for hundreds of years and gets into the water table.

    We're running out of drinking water in the US and around the world. Meanwhile, the oceans are becoming increasingly polluted and acidic. It's estimated that the coral reefs will be dead by 2050, if not sooner. WE ARE FUCKED WITHOUT THEM. This is the result of drilling for fossil fuels. It's your logic that has failed everyone. At this point, we will have no choice but to adapt to fouled and carcinogenic air, which will be painful to breathe, land which will be useless for crops, and water that can't sustain aquatic life... icon_sad.gif


    "rendering the EPA utterly useless "

    One can dream can they not?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 28, 2013 5:46 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).


    That's your rather toxic interpretation thinking that if you don't subscribe to your extremist views on the environment you must therefore be against it and a paid shill. Sorry, but life and science doesn't work that way.

    You are both at the forefront of rejecting everything other than basically solar when it comes to energy, and that's hardly constructive given that it's not a viable alternative as yet. I've also noted repeatedly that I believe solar is a long term solution once they figure out how to make it economical and a big part of it is the battery tech which I've also posted is coming. You choose to assume that my rejection of your chicken little approach to the news is therefore "a defense of energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone)" - and that's a logical fail.

    It's not a logical fail. When Dick Cheney was VP, he pushed legislation through congress that permits natural gas fracking, without adhering to the clean water/clean air acts of the EPA, rendering the EPA utterly useless in protecting the environment, and the Obama administration hasn't corrected it. Obama has supported off-shore drilling and nuclear power, and has seen two world-changing disasters (the BP oil spill and Fukushima meltdown) on his watch.

    Fracking involves using massive amounts of chemically laced water, and that water seeps into the ground, streams, etc, killing anything that it touches, and then it evaporates, becoming acid rain. Once these chemicals are dispersed there is no way to clean them up.

    There is no such thing as clean fracking. Worse still, these gas companies are SLOPPY. They could be somewhat safer, if there were any guidelines whatsoever, but they are unregulated. They use up one piece of land after the next as quickly and recklessly as possible, until they have rendered it a toxic waste site, unfit for life, and the toxicity lasts for hundreds of years and gets into the water table.

    We're running out of drinking water in the US and around the world. Meanwhile, the oceans are becoming increasingly polluted and acidic. It's estimated that the coral reefs will be dead by 2050, if not sooner. WE ARE FUCKED WITHOUT THEM. This is the result of drilling for fossil fuels. It's your logic that has failed everyone. At this point, we will have no choice but to adapt to fouled and carcinogenic air, which will be painful to breathe, land which will be useless for crops, and water that can't sustain aquatic life... icon_sad.gif


    "rendering the EPA utterly useless "

    One can dream can they not?

    It's not a dream. It's reality. US states who lease their private and public land to energy companies are mistaken if they think Uncle Sam is watching out for them. The government is protecting the energy industry, not the land, or the people living on the land.

    Remember the movie Erin Brokovich? The town that was the focus of that film is STILL polluted. Their water is permanently ruined. The only thing that has changed since the movie is the fact that more and more towns are suffering the same fate.
  • JuneauMike

    Posts: 326

    Dec 28, 2013 6:45 PM GMT
    5052Penn said
    RainAndSnow saidLet's hope it is concentrated in Pelosi's district.




    icon_lol.gif


    Yeah, lets be sure to bash all of the progressives. They are trying WAY too hard to provide us equal rights. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 8:38 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    freedomisntfree said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).


    That's your rather toxic interpretation thinking that if you don't subscribe to your extremist views on the environment you must therefore be against it and a paid shill. Sorry, but life and science doesn't work that way.

    You are both at the forefront of rejecting everything other than basically solar when it comes to energy, and that's hardly constructive given that it's not a viable alternative as yet. I've also noted repeatedly that I believe solar is a long term solution once they figure out how to make it economical and a big part of it is the battery tech which I've also posted is coming. You choose to assume that my rejection of your chicken little approach to the news is therefore "a defense of energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone)" - and that's a logical fail.

    It's not a logical fail. When Dick Cheney was VP, he pushed legislation through congress that permits natural gas fracking, without adhering to the clean water/clean air acts of the EPA, rendering the EPA utterly useless in protecting the environment, and the Obama administration hasn't corrected it. Obama has supported off-shore drilling and nuclear power, and has seen two world-changing disasters (the BP oil spill and Fukushima meltdown) on his watch.

    Fracking involves using massive amounts of chemically laced water, and that water seeps into the ground, streams, etc, killing anything that it touches, and then it evaporates, becoming acid rain. Once these chemicals are dispersed there is no way to clean them up.

    There is no such thing as clean fracking. Worse still, these gas companies are SLOPPY. They could be somewhat safer, if there were any guidelines whatsoever, but they are unregulated. They use up one piece of land after the next as quickly and recklessly as possible, until they have rendered it a toxic waste site, unfit for life, and the toxicity lasts for hundreds of years and gets into the water table.

    We're running out of drinking water in the US and around the world. Meanwhile, the oceans are becoming increasingly polluted and acidic. It's estimated that the coral reefs will be dead by 2050, if not sooner. WE ARE FUCKED WITHOUT THEM. This is the result of drilling for fossil fuels. It's your logic that has failed everyone. At this point, we will have no choice but to adapt to fouled and carcinogenic air, which will be painful to breathe, land which will be useless for crops, and water that can't sustain aquatic life... icon_sad.gif


    "rendering the EPA utterly useless "

    One can dream can they not?

    It's not a dream. It's reality. US states who lease their private and public land to energy companies are mistaken if they think Uncle Sam is watching out for them. The government is protecting the energy industry, not the land, or the people living on the land.

    Remember the movie Erin Brokovich? The town that was the focus of that film is STILL polluted. Their water is permanently ruined. The only thing that has changed since the movie is the fact that more and more towns are suffering the same fate.


    Lisa Jackson's EPA? That would have been a good EPA to ruin.

    So now what? Sit around the campfire like cavemen. Oh sorry, can't do the campfire either?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 9:54 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said
    riddler78 said
    Scruffypup said


    Is this supposed to be evidence that this is because of Fukushima? Based on what? What was it before Fukushima?

    Bananas are measured at 190 cpm. @ about 48 seconds into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wKbpsw-OE

    Sand is also radioactive. Also here are the readings from Tokyo which is 124 miles from Fukushima whereas LA is 5500 miles from Fukushima. If there were really an issue then you'd see the radiation first spike in Tokyo unless you're suggesting that it somehow jumped over the rest of Japan?

    Thanks for the fear mongering.



    If anyone else were questioning this I would listen, but you've proven yourself to be anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling and basically reject any hint that humans are destroying the Earth. Not sure who pays you but you're being paid well obviously.


    Wherein again you prove to be some hysterical hyperventilating girl who is more interested in conjecture and emotion over facts. I'm far from "anti-environment, pro-big oil, pro-fracking, pro-toxic waste dumping, anti-recycling" as you put it. But that's what you clearly choose to believe instead of actual you know, facts.

    Scruffy's right about you, Riddler. You consistently defend energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone).


    That's your rather toxic interpretation thinking that if you don't subscribe to your extremist views on the environment you must therefore be against it and a paid shill. Sorry, but life and science doesn't work that way.

    You are both at the forefront of rejecting everything other than basically solar when it comes to energy, and that's hardly constructive given that it's not a viable alternative as yet. I've also noted repeatedly that I believe solar is a long term solution once they figure out how to make it economical and a big part of it is the battery tech which I've also posted is coming. You choose to assume that my rejection of your chicken little approach to the news is therefore "a defense of energy companies at the expense of the environment and the people who live downstream from toxic waste (which is ultimately everyone)" - and that's a logical fail.

    It's not a logical fail. When Dick Cheney was VP, he pushed legislation through congress that permits natural gas fracking, without adhering to the clean water/clean air acts of the EPA, rendering the EPA utterly useless in protecting the environment, and the Obama administration hasn't corrected it. Obama has supported off-shore drilling and nuclear power, and has seen two world-changing disasters (the BP oil spill and Fukushima meltdown) on his watch.

    Fracking involves using massive amounts of chemically laced water, and that water seeps into the ground, streams, etc, killing anything that it touches, and then it evaporates, becoming acid rain. Once these chemicals are dispersed there is no way to clean them up.

    There is no such thing as clean fracking. Worse still, these gas companies are SLOPPY. They could be somewhat safer, if there were any guidelines whatsoever, but they are unregulated. They use up one piece of land after the next as quickly and recklessly as possible, until they have rendered it a toxic waste site, unfit for life, and the toxicity lasts for hundreds of years and gets into the water table.

    We're running out of drinking water in the US and around the world. Meanwhile, the oceans are becoming increasingly polluted and acidic. It's estimated that the coral reefs will be dead by 2050, if not sooner. WE ARE FUCKED WITHOUT THEM. This is the result of drilling for fossil fuels. It's your logic that has failed everyone. At this point, we will have no choice but to adapt to fouled and carcinogenic air, which will be painful to breathe, land which will be useless for crops, and water that can't sustain aquatic life... icon_sad.gif


    Except we're not running out of drinking water in the US and no there isn't the contamination that has been repeatedly debunked. But I dunno, let's turn our conversation back to the fact that the supposed Fukushima radiation hitting San Francisco has been debunked and laughable.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 29, 2013 4:45 PM GMT
    ^Riddler, you're in denial. The water shortages in the US and around the world are imminent, and all over the planet there are pockets of contamination caused by reckless drilling. Areas that have been contaminated are killing people and animals, as the contamination spreads. There is proof of toxic waste and pollution all around the world. The levels of CO2 in the air are off the chart, times ten.

    Climate change is already happening and it's about more than just extreme weather. We've fundamentally changed the chemistry of the air we breathe. It's estimated that by 2030 half the world's population will run out of water, by 2050 the coral reefs will be extinct, and by the end of the century costal cities will be under water. There are a myriad of other catastrophes looming, like the loss of bees and rainforests, oil, nuclear and gas spills, breakdown of the food chain, etc. The least we can do is each of us as individuals, and as a lawful society, curb as much ongoing pollution as we can, by banning and regulating anything and everything that's bad for the environment, including boycotting products made in environmentally reckless countries, like China (where incidently human rights are also ignored) go self-sustaining or bust, clean where we can and as much as we can, adapt to a changing atmosphere and ocean, and brace ourselves for probable mass extinction of species, famine, war and chaos. Our progress is either going to be the end of human life, or the birth of a civilization that from where we're sitting today we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies, where the greatest commodity is breathable air and other basic necessities, and multinational corporations and irresponsible industries gutting the land are responsible for all of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2013 4:49 PM GMT
    HottJoe said^Riddler, you're in denial. The water shortages in the US and around the world are imminent, and all over the planet there are pockets of contamination caused by reckless drilling. Areas that have been contaminated are killing people and animals, as the contamination spreads. There is proof of toxic waste and pollution all around the world. The levels of CO2 in the air are off the chart, times ten.

    Climate change is already happening and it's about more than just extreme weather. We've fundamentally changed the chemistry of the air we breathe. It's estimated that by 2030 half the world's population will run out of water, by 2050 the coral reefs will be extinct, and by the end of the century costal cities will be under water. There are a myriad of other catastrophes looming, like the loss of bees and rainforests, oil, nuclear and gas spills, breakdown of the food chain, etc. The least we can do is each of us as individuals, and as a lawful society, curb as much ongoing pollution as we can, by banning and regulating anything and everything that's bad for the environment, including boycotting products made in environmentally reckless countries, like China (where incidently human rights are also ignored) go self-sustaining or bust, clean where we can and as much as we can, adapt to a changing atmosphere and ocean, and brace ourselves for probable mass extinction of species, famine, war and chaos. Our progress is either going to be the end of human life, or the birth of a civilization that from where we're sitting today we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies, where the greatest commodity is breathable air and other basic necessities, and multinational corporations and irresponsible industries gutting the land are responsible for all of it.


    Climate change has been happening since the formation of the earth. Relax!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2013 4:49 PM GMT
    HottJoe said^Riddler, you're in denial. The water shortages in the US and around the world are imminent, and all over the planet there are pockets of contamination caused by reckless drilling. Areas that have been contaminated are killing people and animals, as the contamination spreads. There is proof of toxic waste and pollution all around the world. The levels of CO2 in the air are off the chart, times ten.

    Climate change is already happening and it's about more than just extreme weather. We've fundamentally changed the chemistry of the air we breathe. It's estimated that by 2030 half the world's population will run out of water, by 2050 the coral reefs will be extinct, and by the end of the century costal cities will be under water. There are a myriad of other catastrophes looming, like the loss of bees and rainforests, oil, nuclear and gas spills, breakdown of the food chain, etc. The least we can do is each of us as individuals, and as a lawful society, curb as much ongoing pollution as we can, by banning and regulating anything and everything that's bad for the environment, including boycotting products made in environmentally reckless countries, like China (where incidently human rights are also ignored) go self-sustaining or bust, clean where we can and as much as we can, adapt to a changing atmosphere and ocean, and brace ourselves for probable mass extinction of species, famine, war and chaos. Our progress is either going to be the end of human life, or the birth of a civilization that from where we're sitting today we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies, where the greatest commodity is breathable air and other basic necessities, and multinational corporations and irresponsible industries gutting the land are responsible for all of it.


    We apparently live in different worlds given that if you actually quantify your fears, they are hardly unprecedented nor are they anywhere near as alarmist as you claim. While you might have everyone live in abject poverty to forestall a fear that will likely never come, the reality is that we will continue to make considerable progress technologically to the point that resources - even clean potable water, is more abundant than ever before just as it has been in the past. The great lakes are getting cleaner, we have fewer wars, humanity is becoming less violent, and resources are becoming more abundant thanks to technology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2013 4:52 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said^Riddler, you're in denial. The water shortages in the US and around the world are imminent, and all over the planet there are pockets of contamination caused by reckless drilling. Areas that have been contaminated are killing people and animals, as the contamination spreads. There is proof of toxic waste and pollution all around the world. The levels of CO2 in the air are off the chart, times ten.

    Climate change is already happening and it's about more than just extreme weather. We've fundamentally changed the chemistry of the air we breathe. It's estimated that by 2030 half the world's population will run out of water, by 2050 the coral reefs will be extinct, and by the end of the century costal cities will be under water. There are a myriad of other catastrophes looming, like the loss of bees and rainforests, oil, nuclear and gas spills, breakdown of the food chain, etc. The least we can do is each of us as individuals, and as a lawful society, curb as much ongoing pollution as we can, by banning and regulating anything and everything that's bad for the environment, including boycotting products made in environmentally reckless countries, like China (where incidently human rights are also ignored) go self-sustaining or bust, clean where we can and as much as we can, adapt to a changing atmosphere and ocean, and brace ourselves for probable mass extinction of species, famine, war and chaos. Our progress is either going to be the end of human life, or the birth of a civilization that from where we're sitting today we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies, where the greatest commodity is breathable air and other basic necessities, and multinational corporations and irresponsible industries gutting the land are responsible for all of it.


    We apparently live in different worlds given that if you actually quantify your fears, they are hardly unprecedented nor are they anywhere near as alarmist as you claim. While you might have everyone live in abject poverty to forestall a fear that will likely never come, the reality is that we will continue to make considerable progress technologically to the point that resources - even clean potable water, is more abundant than ever before just as it has been in the past. The great lakes are getting cleaner, we have fewer wars, humanity is becoming less violent, and resources are becoming more abundant thanks to technology.


    We have a cleaner environment now since anytime after the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 29, 2013 5:08 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said^Riddler, you're in denial. The water shortages in the US and around the world are imminent, and all over the planet there are pockets of contamination caused by reckless drilling. Areas that have been contaminated are killing people and animals, as the contamination spreads. There is proof of toxic waste and pollution all around the world. The levels of CO2 in the air are off the chart, times ten.

    Climate change is already happening and it's about more than just extreme weather. We've fundamentally changed the chemistry of the air we breathe. It's estimated that by 2030 half the world's population will run out of water, by 2050 the coral reefs will be extinct, and by the end of the century costal cities will be under water. There are a myriad of other catastrophes looming, like the loss of bees and rainforests, oil, nuclear and gas spills, breakdown of the food chain, etc. The least we can do is each of us as individuals, and as a lawful society, curb as much ongoing pollution as we can, by banning and regulating anything and everything that's bad for the environment, including boycotting products made in environmentally reckless countries, like China (where incidently human rights are also ignored) go self-sustaining or bust, clean where we can and as much as we can, adapt to a changing atmosphere and ocean, and brace ourselves for probable mass extinction of species, famine, war and chaos. Our progress is either going to be the end of human life, or the birth of a civilization that from where we're sitting today we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies, where the greatest commodity is breathable air and other basic necessities, and multinational corporations and irresponsible industries gutting the land are responsible for all of it.


    We apparently live in different worlds given that if you actually quantify your fears, they are hardly unprecedented nor are they anywhere near as alarmist as you claim. While you might have everyone live in abject poverty to forestall a fear that will likely never come, the reality is that we will continue to make considerable progress technologically to the point that resources - even clean potable water, is more abundant than ever before just as it has been in the past. The great lakes are getting cleaner, we have fewer wars, humanity is becoming less violent, and resources are becoming more abundant thanks to technology.

    Resources are not becoming more abundant. They are finite. We are using chemicals and unearthing "resources" that are polluting the natural environment. Everywhere on the planet, people can tell that the environment is decaying.

    I don't want people to live in abject poverty. I want to have clean technology and a middle class and a growing economy in developing countries... BUT none of that is happening. It's certainly not happening in China, where they are being polluted by overpaced mining and dumping, and the people of China are oppressed by their leadership.