sure a Biased writer payed by the nuclear industry don't suck but the one without salary check from the nuclear industry suck.
Originally Posted by Babuloseo
hell yes this is how the mainstream media works!
So, he is a security consultor. He acts like one. According to you, he should be biased, but agaisnt what he has to consult. He should always be pessimistic. He shall always be in doubt of the security standart whatever he is inspecting has or meets. Be consistent, Mr. Full'o'Crap.
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
But nonetheless, I'm a flatulent unicorn expert. The wave generated by the reactor CLEARLY shows that it was generated by a really bad case of unicorn's food poisoning, owing the explotion to the fact that as we all know, sligthly warm places are the favorites for unicors to take craps on. You don't have to believe in science and facts backed by most nuclear scientist worldwide, you can either believe me or your so called expert.
Q, you lived for too long to close to a nuclear power plant :/
I don't like the idea of nuclear power plants, I feel them dangerous, but with your behavior you discredit nuclear opposition (and other ideas) on this forum ...
You're continually barking, and this only draw attention of other "dogs", not human people ...
Your message is totally un heard, it's assimilated as some form of noise, it's really sad ...
If someone tells me he has written a greasemonkey script to zap all your messages and all the posts answering your posts, I wouldn't be surprised ...
I just feel like the allegations need to be backed up by some kind of factual evidence. Otherwise they are nothing more than mere conjecture. Unless these people are on the ground there and examining the actual sites, I don't know that they can really draw very accurate conclusions except for the obvious ones we see from the video.
The one article based its entire argument around, "TEPCO has a reason to protect itself, so clearly it's lying. Therefore we can easily conclude the opposite of what they say is true." But that's just shoddy penmanship and hardly counts as sound science.
If an explosion of the magnitude witnessed originated in the containment vessel, I do believe it would have suffered significant damage. Is there any evidence that the containment vessel was seriously damaged? Same with the spent fuel pool.
The flame and dark cloud seen in the reactor 3 explosion could very well have been diesel fuel that might had been stored in the building (?) that ignited during the explosion... for all we know. But that's just a guess. I'm not saying that's definitely what happened, since I have no facts to back it up. It's not even my hypothesis. I'm just offering a possible alternative explanation.