As opposed to the mindless bullshit of your own posts?
It would probably help if you could actually read. Note that I did not say that stats were useless - just that they mean very little on their own. For stats to be of value in proving a point, they must be accompanied by evidence that both supports, and is supported by, the stats being used. Otherwise, the stats mean jack s*it. If you did in fact know what you were talking about then you would have known that, and understood my point, rather than simply attacking me once again without actually contributing anything intelligent to the discussion.
Score another point for me, thanks for playing. :-)
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
N
Noddy
Lol :)
I've got terribly bad news for you d*****ad... :)
-- Regards, Noddy.
N
Noddy
Is there a point?
I mean, what form of proof would you be prepared to accept? The fact that there already are a number of power stations in use using *salt* water for cooling, or that there already are nuclear power stations in use using waste water for cooling?
What *specifically* is it that you're not getting here?
-- Regards, Noddy.
F
Feral
He probably wants water tight proof.
Post an Oz pitcher.
Bwahahahahahahahahahha
ps: sorry about the xpost.
K
Kwyjibo
Here we go......
And it would probably help if you had something other than dog s*it between your ears.
Which is still miles in front of the 'nothing' you have provided to support your moronic assertions.
The evidence is quite clear, f****it. How many have died as the result of a catastrophic accident in a nuclear power station?
Nope. The only thing that means jack s*it is your pathetic excuse for 'logic'.
You don't have a 'point', f****it - other than the one growing out the top of your silly looking head.
You wouldn't recognise intelligent discussion if it beat you around the head to get your attention and shot a firework up your fat arse, f****it.
Another point? That would take your IQ to a grand total of 2. Well done f****it.
The only one obviously 'playing' here is you. I'd suggest you stop - You'll go blind.
N
Noddy
Don't get me started pops :)
-- Regards, Noddy.
D
Damien
I'm getting that you keep saying I've got it all wrong, yet you also keep failing to actually provide any actual support for your claims.
If you can't back it, then you're wrong - simple as that. Otherwise, you'd do so, wouldn't you? :-)
D
Damien
The only claim I've made is that there are risks involved, and that's a pretty rock-solid claim at that. Whether you care about the consequences of those risks is a completely different matter, but to deny they even exist (which you are doing) is to make yourself look rather silly indeed.
Many thousands of well documented fatalities, as it happens, either at the time of the accident or over the following years as a result of radiation poisoning. Not to mention the myriad other genetic abnormalties and medical problems that may not have directly led to deaths but nevertheless are directly caused by those accidents.
But that ignores the potential impact if a nuclear plant seriously went off. Or are you trying to argue that the destruction of a nuclear plant will not result in any fatalities or other consequences? It's not always about what *has* happened, but about what *could* happen, and about what is being done to prevent it - let's not forget that safeguards are pretty useless if they're not properly enforced, no matter how good they are in theory.
See, when all you can do is post abuse, I've already won. :-)
See my point above. You're helping me to win without me even having to say anything now, thanks! :-)
That's still quite a bit higher than you though, so I'm still happy even with that much. :-)
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.