We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Some Tremendous Links to watch Online Movies :
‘San Andreas’ Blockbuster has Huge Radioactive Omissions Online Free here :
Just repeating what the "stupid rat mother" had to say
Irrational is making more radioactive waste that will have to be safely stored for centuries for 40 or 50 years of electricity. It's irrational and selfish and irresponsible. Anyway, I read. That's what I do. I got a 35 on the reading part of the ACT. Yes, the experts said I was a genius, but I really don't believe what experts say anymore. And truly, from the bottom of my heart, I don't want to watch the earth suffocate from radiotoxic poisoning or nuclear war . I will never support anything nuclear, ever...and I wish, that instead of making more of a mess, that my mutated offspring will have to tend, you would use your fancy learning and skepticism to clean up your damn dirty mess.
Pronukers call a concerned mother a "stupid rat" and she responds
Concerned citizen, mother and stupid rat here…atoms4peace, mm and others…so, what you're saying is the greatest technological disaster in human history, multiple meltdowns that we don't have the technology to contain, that's so radioactive that robots can't even go near it, that no amount of money or political will can fix, that is going to bleed radiotoxins into the sea and atmosphere for decades if not centuries…radiotoxins that cause
And then the troll, specifically, atomsforpeace1 says this
"Guilt by association is on her not me."
Watch some "world class nuclear engineering" Fukushima 3 blowing sky high.
Here is a quick summary, screen caps from select pieces of 450 pages of FOIA requests from AP
It shows how they think and act. And it is revealing and disgusting.
Funny Videos, Hitler goes full tilt Gonzo on Fukushima
Reposting links to your personal website?
Still capping every comment?
Nice job on item 6 from the troll playbook
Another link to your personal website? Very tricky, no-one will ever notice....
Some of you people are really scary. If you ever had any critical thinking skills, you have put them in some sort of deep freeze. You are attacking a fictitious movie...for not attempting to further your political agenda, which you claim is backed up by hard science...but which is not. Really? Is that how obsessed you really are? "San Andreas does not get my approval because it doesn't make the political point I think it should have." You remind me of Branch Davidians or members of The Peoples' Temple where everything you say; eat; sleep; experience; do...has to contribute to the cause by having an anti-nuclear energy message? Some of you guys (and women) belong in a cult...perhaps, you already are. You act like one.
Further (and, probably related to your cult-like mentality), whenever Arnie Gundersen speaks, you gobble it up, like people who gobbled up what Jim Jones; David Koresh; Charles Manson; Marshall Applewhite said before their demise (or incarceration). You claim he was a nuclear engineer (although it has been heavily disputed that he was either a respected or very knowledgable one)...but offer ABSOLUTELY NO geological background for him. Then, some of you cite a 2.8 year figure for how long nuclear energy could last if nuclear energy was used for all of our energy needs. Others brought up spent fuel; thorium; and actual reports by credible agencies regarding how much uranium and thorium there actually is. The response was to merely attack ALL those agencies with unprovable rhetoric...and cite Gundersen's credentials...NONE OF WHICH ACTUALLY SUGGEST HE HAS ANY EXPERT KNOWLEDGE OF URANIUM RESERVES OR THORIUM RESERVES. If I run an oil refinery, or a coal-fired power plant, but I claim that the USGS, or any other geological body, is wrong about the amount of oil or coal there is left...how many of you would actually cite me? Probably, some of you, from what I have seen here. But, running an oil refinery; a coal-fired power plant; etc. does NOT give me any specific GEOLOGIC knowledge. Likewise, running an experimental university nuclear reactor...DOES NOT GIVE MR. GUNDERSEN ANY SPECIAL GEOLOGIC KNOWLEDGE. Nor does it give him any specific knowledge about anything from molten salt reactors...to how long fuel would last if we utilized thorium, as well as uranium, in addition to recycling spent fuel.
There is also nothing in your cult-like assertions about how we could "power our entire civilization soley on renewables and conservation efforts" which proves that doing so would not end in a world of energy haves...and energy have nots. Even with the massive tonnage of food we produce on this planet, have food scarcity. Do any of you actually believe that...if we produced less food, we would have less starvation? We have shelter and housing scarcity on this planet; do any of you actually believe that, if we have less shelter and housing produced...we will have less shelter and housing? Water scarcity; do any of you actually believe we will have less water scarcity if we have less access to clean water? What has this scarcity led to? It hasn't led to everyone in the world sitting down...and sharing those scarce resources. It has led to conflict; pain; suffering; killing. But, you would believe, and have others believe, that producing less energy...will lead to anything but conflict; pain; suffering; killing? It takes a cult-like devotion to carry such beliefs. It also takes a cult-like devotion to turn such beliefs into the one kind of movement which would actually reduce energy consumption. Never in my life have I ever been presented with a shred of evidence, from anti-nuclear, pro-renewables people, that, in a world with less energy produced than is possible...that the world will share the available energy resources in some sort of socialistic utopia. All I have seen leads me to believe that, even if you re-arrange the power structure...someone, or some group, will take control...and attempt to accumulate ALL scarce resources to themselves; their family; or their tribe. Where is your proof that doing what you propose will not just create "energy haves"...and "energy have-nots"? I sincerely hope I have reached some of you; I know I won't reach most of you...as your beliefs are cultish!
Sheesh, talk about a straw man
"Never in my life have I ever been presented with a shred of evidence, from anti-nuclear, pro-renewables people, that, in a world with less energy produced than is possible...that the world will share the available energy resources in some sort of socialistic utopia"
People will produce all their own energy on their own roof. I do this now. No one is talking about socialist sharing.
Sounds like you belong to the cult of the nukist
"But, you would believe, and have others believe, that producing less energy...will lead to anything but conflict; pain; suffering; killing?"
Solar PV has reached such low levels of cost, that only a handful of energy efficiency measures even make sense. Just throw up enough panels. No one is talking about producing less energy, along with your tin foil hat nuke conspirator theory of "pain, suffering, killing"
Once again Mr. Wasserman confirms his status as an Errorist.https://northwestcleanenerg...
A shame that script didn't include his scenario, it's great fiction!
The eggheads are now fessing up...all their models on how radiation and heavy metals combine and move through the environment were just plain wrong.
So therefore all the safety practices were also just plain wrong, and the risk and disease have already been "dispersed"
Thanks nuclear, you effed us up again.
These “sheep” are essentially worshippers of a “scientific cargo cult” , something that has the illusion of science but is actually more a creation of science fiction. There are several other examples of such “scientific cargo cults” such as those trying to develop SSTO space vehicles that violate the basic principles of the rocket equation, or nano-technology “assemblers” (that ignore the very basics of thermodynamics and atomic theory) or Intelligent design (that ignores science altogether!). All of these examples as well as some aspects of the nuclear dream all share one common thread – they are founded on myth’s that are at odds with reality!
Yes, wait, then cap.
I am surprised that Ecowatch tolerates such obvious trollism from mm and atoms and their ilk
Please explain why you are not surprised trollism from you and your ilk is tolerated by Ecowatch. NukePro takes every opportunity to funnel people to his personal website, multiple logins (Frank Energy) Brian Donovan's abusive language both of your amateur psychoanalysis or name calling whichever you prefer to call it. Calling people "troll" "psychopath" or "sociopath" is unacceptable reprehensible behavior.
Calling a spade a spade is proper. Being a sociopath is "unacceptable reprehensible behavior"
Shut them all down!
At least you make sure everyone knows how arrogant, inconsiderate and libelous you are. It certainly makes it easy to make a case in court against you. You just don't know when to stop.
You a promoting a position on a public forum Mikey,You are a pro nuke cheerleader posting on an anti-nuclear article.
poor little mikey, don't cry now.
You really think abuse and immaturity help your cause? Thank you for illustrating more clearly than I ever could, the difference between you and I....
shut the eff up
Yes, this should be a coordinated effort! Ant-nuclear handbook chapter 1 right after any radiation is deadly, silent and scary......oh my!
It would be difficult for me to make you look worse than you already do. I don't know about anyone else, but I am in no way paid to comment, you have been told this numerous times and insist on repeating your false statement, that shows your lack of integrity and willingness to lie to achieve your goals. People will judge you on your behavior, thank you for making it so easy for them. To me it is more important to tell the truth and help people make the right decision based on the facts, not lies.
I had nothing to do with making you repeatedly lie about me being paid to comment, you made that choice, and made it again.I see.The repetition of your incorrect assertion of how much nuclear fuel is available from a report you misinterpreted doesn't help your credibility.You seem to see what you want to see instead of what is real. I do feel sorry for you!
Brian...I finally found a word to describe you.
you are an "errorist"
The fact you are lying about me has everything to do with me calling you out on it. Let me explain something if you stop lying, there is a good chance I will stop calling you out.... just a thought. I am not paid to comment in any way, shape or form, other than my desire to educate people who want real information and not anti-nuclear propaganda. You are obviously not my target audience, based on your unwillingness to learn. I have 27 years experience in commercial nuclear power, 8 years in the Navy as a reactor operator, many people don't have the benefit of 35 years of experience with which to filter the massive amounts of information and misinformation on the internet. I find it ironic that the people who believe me the least are the ones who believe people who make money directly off of the fear they create, most with zero experience, some with little experience. The same type of people who advocate not vaccinating their children on the advice of an actress in lieu of the medical community.
I really hope that all who have not made up their minds on the issue...pay close attention to Brian Donovan's words. He does more, ironically, to strengthen the case for expansion of nuclear power...than to discredit it. When ad hominem attacks and unrealistic assertions (be they lies...or lack of actual information, on his part) are the only kind of arguments he can make...we see how he has lost the argument.
I challenge you, Mr. Donvan...you have made assertions. NOW PROVE THEM! Prove that Mr. Mann; myself; and any other person on here calling for either maintaining nuclear power at its current contribution to the world's energy infrastructure, or expanding it, is paid by the industry. Prove that you are not paid by the renewables industry; the fossil fuel industry; Helen Caldicott; or any combination of those groups. Either prove it...or shut up!
Further, prove your 2.8 year figure.
Thank you, Mr. Donovan, you did more to strengthen the call for more nuclear power with your irrelevant; untrue; unfounded; mean-spirited comments...than I could ever do!
Anti nukers have no flies on them
One is wide awake; there is nothing slow or dull about one. For example, She may be new to this field, but there are no flies on her. This slangy expression, which alludes to flies settling on a sluggish animal, was being used in Australia in the 1840s but did not appear in America until the last decades of the 1800s.
Trolls call concerned mothers "stupid rats"Here is one of the mothers response
Comment at Ecowatch
Cassandra • 8 hours ago
heart attacks, cancers, genetic anomalies, deformities, hair loss, kills nerve cells and small blood vessels, causes seizures, reduces blood counts, causes lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid cancerinfertility, nausea, bloody vomiting and bloody stool
is nothing to worry about?
Please send me some of whatever industrial strength, military grade shit you are smoking, because I need it. I really do.
I think and I know I'm just a stupid rat, that it is a parent's responsibility to leave a better, cleaner world for their children and thanks to people like you we are failing miserably.
So from all of us stupid rats who are concerned about the environment and who don't want to suffer everything I previously mentioned, would you kindly STFU and go get another Phd or something. Fiddle much while Rome burns?
Why are you repeating things you have already posted? The people who scared this mother with their anti-nuclear propaganda should be prosecuted.
I added your comment to the article.
I'm not finding a disclaimer on your site like Nuclear News.You really should have one.
"nuclear-news.net/ does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information’s, content contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website."
I never gave you permission to post any of my comments on your site. Another link to your site? Doesn't it get old, funneling unsuspecting individuals to your personal website?
Exactly, what a childish troll this one is. Sheesh, you ever see his facebook page?
Nuclear kills the Pacific ocean, and then pretends that they can be the one to save the ocean.
How sociopathic is that?
If the Pacific Ocean is dead, why is Oregon having so much difficulty with too many sea lions? http://www.theguardian.com/...
Another link to the Nukepro universe? Getting desperate for clicks? Are your financial backers upset?
Trolls corrupt the democratic process. They are funded by corporate greed. They do no represent the interest of the overall good. Only the greed and lies of the nuclear cartel.
We need a process by which trolls can be more quickly eliminated from the conversation.
How to recognize a troll:1. Their profile is private.2. They use an alias3. They use a non threatening, non-descriptive avatar or one stolen from someone else4. They have multiple logins5. They direct everyone to their personal website.6. They attempt to silence anyone with a different opinionDo you know anyone who fits this description?
Hail NukePro, I think I heard this speech before, we must silence any opposing view in the name of democracy.. we must stamp out anyone with a different opinion... They are all lies, NukePro is the only truth, anyone else should be banned from speaking so we may have purity of thought.... Wow, this is the United States of America, not the Nukpro dictatorship. Thank you for reminding me of my reasons to continue posting!