I did not imply we can "calculate" expected deaths.
Noted.
It is certain that there ARE more deaths.
It's
probable that there are more deaths. We just don't know.
There is a continuum of radiation dosis from "we know that killed 50" to "so low it doesn't hurt".
More accurately, there is a threshold where radiation starts being dangerous.
This betrays an enormous bias in favor of nuclear power.
If you're going to argue from your emotional state, then this is going to get nowhere. You're miffed that I told you you had a bias, and now you're trying to satisfy yourself emotionally by throwing it back at me. Do you think this is the rational thing to do? Do you think this shows that you are being skeptical on this issue?
I'm talking about actual science, Oystein. Real science that tends to show that low levels of radiation are helpful because they stimulate the immune system, among other things. When you stop to think about it, rather than respond instinctively, it makes sense, because humans like other animals evolved in an environment with low levels of radiation.
Of course I do - and you make excuses to deny, or belittle, the high risk that more nuclear plants WILL go bust in the future.
Why are they excuses rather than facts? What basis do you have, given your displayed lack of knowledge on this topic, to dismiss my arguments as "excuses"?
Ignorance, huh? I wrote, and you quoted:
"Of course there are radiactive reactions going on at a dangerous level now, and for thousand years to come."
Please explain my ignorance by pointing out exactly what is wrong, or missing, with that statement?
First of all, the term "radioactive reaction" is nonsensical. And no, they're not going on "at a dangerous level now" or "for thousands of years to come", unless you are using an impractically low threshold for "danger". Thirdly, and as I've said repeatedly, there is a fundamental and very important difference between a chain fission reaction and normal radiation.
Of course there is nothing wrong, and nothing missing, with that statement. It is prefectly correct and complete.
You are in no position to evaluate your own statements, sir.
Still irrelevant, a strawman.
And now you don't even know what a strawman is!
No one debated what WOULD be the case in some Hypothetical.
Of course one did, since one has confused chain reactions and radiation. By claiming that the two are essentially the same, you are denying that one would be worse than the other. But since now you're backing away from this by saying that "no one (including yourself) debated" this, one gets the impression that you, somewhere along the way, realised that you were wrong, but are unwilling to admit it.
Regardless of what the nature of that radioactivity is.
This is an educational forum for skeptical discussions. If correcting people on egregious bad uses of terminology is unacceptable or silly, then what's the point?
Strip your rant of the strawmen, remove the eye patch from your skeptic eye, and try not to doublespeak, and you shall learn to avoid D-K yourself.
(See? I can do that personal attacking, too
)
Except that mine is based on observing your behaviour in this thread and yours is based on the fact that you're angry that I've called you ignorant.
See, I'm ignorant of all things knitting. If I were to participate in a thread about knitting and started commenting about stuff and then someone pointed out that I was confusing completely different types of weaves, would calling me ignorant on the topic be wrong? Would I be justified in lashing out and throwing it back to stroke my own ego, and then insisting that I wasn't wrong and that my statements were "prefectly correct and complete"?
And what the hell are you calling doublespeak anyway? Do you even know what that term means?
It is an extremely rare occurrence that a plane accident kills people on the ground.
It's an extremely rare occurance that a place crashes in the first place. That's why we haven't banned air travel. Because the risks are offset by the benefits and the commercial value of the business.
Nice way to avoid my philospophical question, though.
How have I ignored your question by addressing it?
