Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: France's Institute of Nuclear Safety says all national nuclear plants aren't secure!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    no its not irrelevant its proved unhealthy the tiniest dosage can cause cancer even the so called "save" dosage. German studies show this multiple time.
    There are NO such studies. People live in areas with MUCH higher natural background without any statistical difference in cancer incidence rates.

    Any study that claims to have found a link is thus lying.

    and the thousand of child's and babies die by blood chancer because of the nuclear power plants ? German Studies show this multiple time.
    nuclear-Elites pay with child blood good idea.
    I'm freaking mad at all these greenpeace people. I think the only way to deal with them is to tie them up and then ram pieces of coal into their mouths until the die. Then use their bodies to produce biodiesel.

    Greenpeace already has caused Germany to plan to build 23 MORE FREAKING COAL POWERPLANTS. Which KILL CHILDREN in reality, not in imagination of authors of 'German studies'.

    The plans to build coal powerplants shows just how Germany is expecting to meet the imposed CO2 reductions - it doesn't.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you just have fun in killing babies and child's.

    shame on you.
    As much as you take LSD, you wont get smarter. In fact you are mentally ill, and seek immediate help.
    Most people are sheep like you, and they need a shepherd. I am sure if you ask the people who protest why they are protesting they will tell you "Because it is dangerous". Yes, indeed. Driving car is dangerous, having electricity at home is dangerous, swimming is dangerous, and so on. Nuclear is the cleanest energy humanity can control, and if it is taken with care ( not playing games like Chernobyl, thinking that there may be a tsunami after an earthquake like in Japan (WTF where thinking those japans?!?!)), there will be very few accidents. On the other side, if you see that in after 25 years, Chernobyl exclusion zone has been transformed to natural wildlife reserve. All kinds of birds, bears, foxes, etc. started appear after the humans are gone. The scientists are amazed. So there is a life after nuclear catastrophe, you sick fuck.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    I think the only way to deal with them is to tie them up and then ram pieces of coal into their mouths until the die. Then use their bodies to produce biodiesel.
    Nope, the best way, and quicker, is to challenge them to eat as much caffeine as you do plutonium (note that Greenpeace repeatedly say that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man). We'll see who dies first.

    Hint, it won't be the person who ate the plutonium, who will go on to lead a normal life and will die of old age.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Man, I love this guy.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Nope, the best way, and quicker, is to challenge them to eat as much caffeine as you do plutonium (note that Greenpeace repeatedly say that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man). We'll see who dies first.
    To be fair, it's mostly a question of bioavailability. Ingesting a soluble salt of plutonium or metallic plutonium is a BAD move. While something insoluble like plutonium sulfate won't be much more dangerous than sand in small quantities.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    now its a war

    now the activists fight back with Molotov cocktails and multiple Police cars burn down.







    http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschl...i-1755082.html

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    There are NO such studies. People live in areas with MUCH higher natural background without any statistical difference in cancer incidence rates.

    Any study that claims to have found a link is thus lying.
    this links lie?

    http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschl...t-1627922.html

    http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

    http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht...en_an_der_Asse

    http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939

    http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/...iKK-Studie.pdf

    http://www.bfs.de/de/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs

    ↑ Michaelis J, Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen., in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 89/1992, S.C-1386-90

    ↑ Kinlen LJ et.al., Childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin`s lymphoma near large rural construction sites, with a comparison with Sellafield nuclear site., in BMJ, 310/1995, S.763–7

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkra...ernkraftwerken

    in a matter of fact in Germany people die because of this shit!

    "Any study that claims to have found a link is thus lying."

    you are a full joke! its proved multiple times in Germany!


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    I'm freaking mad at all these greenpeace people. I think the only way to deal with them is to tie them up and then ram pieces of coal into their mouths until the die. Then use their bodies to produce biodiesel.
    Greenpeace already has caused Germany to plan to build 23 MORE FREAKING COAL POWERPLANTS. Which KILL CHILDREN in reality, not in imagination of authors of 'German studies'.
    The plans to build coal powerplants shows just how Germany is expecting to meet the imposed CO2 reductions - it doesn't.
    Bullshit the coal shit is not the greenpeace plan its the CDU/CSU/FDP NAZI people PLAN!
    you are fucking stupid the greenpeace people are against coal power plans.

    you are to stupid to make a difference between COAL-NAZIS "CDU/CSU/FDP" and the green greenpeace people.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Man, I love this guy.
    Which one exactly?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Nope, the best way, and quicker, is to challenge them to eat as much caffeine as you do plutonium (note that Greenpeace repeatedly say that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man). We'll see who dies first.

    Hint, it won't be the person who ate the plutonium, who will go on to lead a normal life and will die of old age.
    LOL you should really go into a madhouse because the one eating the plutonium also kill many other people because the radiation contaminating all the friends also and the unborn child become handicapped.

    i call it Multi-Monster kill...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Thousands of children and babies killed around nuclear power plants? Yeah, right. PROVE IT or fuck off.
    the point is i can prove it

    http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschl...t-1627922.html

    http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

    http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht...en_an_der_Asse

    http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939

    http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/...iKK-Studie.pdf

    http://www.bfs.de/de/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs

    ↑ Michaelis J, Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen., in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 89/1992, S.C-1386-90

    ↑ Kinlen LJ et.al., Childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin`s lymphoma near large rural construction sites, with a comparison with Sellafield nuclear site., in BMJ, 310/1995, S.763–7

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkra...ernkraftwerken


    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Q, you seem very good at renewable energy, stick to what you know, not what you read in the gutter press. For someone who can sound quite intelligent at times, you do type some crap.
    you only think i type crap because you lag on information.
    Intelligence is not knowledge my points are points of knowledge not intelligence.
    and you think you can arguing against this knowledge with intelligence.
    this will always fail because we are not in a virtual fantasy game.

    I'm interested in renewable energy because i think this is the future.
    an interesting news in this point is this: http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Angri...e-1382098.html you can now build 40% cheaper solar power plants because this kind of continuous silicon melt do not have a production cycle's this one is endless. with the same melt you do have 40% higher output.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •